Keeling-Underhile-Wall-2007-Horizontal And Vertical Structures

A S S O C I A T I O N O F A M E R I C A N C O L L E G E S A N D U N I V E R S I T I E S

LiberalEducationVOL. 93, NO. 4 FALL 2007

Faculty Responsibility for the Educational Program page 6

Where Are the Faculty Leaders? page 14

The Dynamics of Organization in Higher Education page 22

ALSO INSIDE:

Public Health and the Future of Undergraduate Education page 32

Why Teacher-Scholars Matter page 40

Death to the Syllabus! page 52

Faculty Leadership andInstitutional Change

22 L I B E R A L ED U C A T I O N FA L L 2007

THE ORGANIZATION of institutions of highereducation has been seen as operating withambiguous purposes in vertically orientedstructures that are only loosely connected(Cohen and March 1986; Weick 1976;Mintzberg 1979). The rationale for this ambi-

guity is twofold: (1) toallow for creative

thinking, and (2) to respect—and even en-courage—the autonomy of different disci-plines. But ambiguity of purpose and verticalorganization are at odds with thinking and ex-pectations in an era of accountability and as-sessment, in which cross-institutional, orhorizontal, reporting and measurement of in-stitutional performance are highly regardedand increasingly demanded (Callan et al.2006). Student affairs divisions are particu-larly challenged, given their ambiguous pur-pose (to support holistic student learning anddevelopment); the perception that they aresupport services, rather than core academic

functions; and their primarily historically andtraditionally framed organizational structures(Fenske 1990). Student affairs divisions areappropriately scrutinized to display how theirambiguous purpose is manifested in practicevia organizational effectiveness and respon-siveness to institutional needs, and throughdocumented contributions to the develop-ment and achievement of desired student out-comes (Bresciani, Zelna, and Anderson 2004;Upcraft and Schuh 1996). The ability of stu-dent affairs functional areas to document anddemonstrate value provides a pertinent oppor-tunity to reconsider the organizational natureof student affairs programs, services, activities,and systems of support (Keeling 2004).

The frequent and increasingly predictableaccusation that institutions of higher educa-tion operate in “silos” is based on the primar-ily vertical organization of those institutions;their various schools, colleges, business opera-tions, student support services, real estate andeconomic development arms, foundations,and athletic programs operate in parallel withone another, more focused on promoting theirown internal goals and objectives than on ad-hering to, elucidating, or accomplishingbroader institutional purposes (Kuh 1996). Itis a common observation that professors inany discipline have a greater sense of commu-nity and connection with professors in thatsame discipline in other institutions than withprofessors in other disciplines in their own in-stitution (Clark 1963; Schroeder 1999). Simi-larly, student affairs professionals who findcareer contentment in residence life are morelikely to collaborate locally, regionally, and

FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

IC

RICHARD P. KEELING is principal and senior execu-tive consultant for Keeling & Associates, LLC; amember of the Board of Directors of the Councilfor the Advancement of Standards in HigherEducation; and cofounder of the InternationalCenter for Student Success and InstitutionalAccountability. RIC UNDERHILE is senior directorof organizational development at Keeling &Associates, LLC. ANDREW F. WALL is assistantprofessor in the Margaret Warner GraduateSchool of Education and Human Development atthe University of Rochester and senior director ofevaluation and research at Keeling & Associates,LLC.

Horizontal and Vertical Structures

The Dynamics of Organization in Higher Education

R I C H A R D P. K E E L I N G , R I C U N D E R H I L E ,

A N D A N D R E W F. WA L L

Institutional effectivenessrequires the tighter coupling of horizontal andvertical activities inways that promotestudent learningand sustain anengaged studentexperience

University ofRochester

FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

IC nationally with others who do the same work

rather than to seek interdisciplinary opportu-nities on their home campuses.

This vertical organizational structure isreinforced by centrifugal forces that create de-centralization and locate governance, respon-sibility, and resources peripherally, rather thancentrally; funding models in many institutionsbase the allocation of resources on credit hours,which drives money into individual schoolsbased on student enrollments in courses (Ehren-berg 2000). Schools within larger institutionscompete with each other for scarce resourcesand almost inevitably, and often by necessity,promote their own interests rather than thoseof the university at large. Centralized compo-nents of the institution—such as most studentaffairs offices, programs, and services—maystruggle for resources in this context.

In these vertically organized institutions,there are important (and essential) horizontalforces; similarly, given the centrifugal, decen-tralized nature of decision making and re-source allocation, there are nonethelesscertain centripetal forces that pull some deci-sion making, governance, and control to thecenter of the institution (Bourgault andLapierre 2000; Kuh 1996; Mintzberg 1979).Notable horizontal forces include, of course,

central administration (which may or may nothave significant power; the extent to whichpower is centralized is directly related to howresources are allocated and managed), institu-tional accreditation, overall financial man-agement, and certain levels of policy. Butdevelopment, alumni relations, communica-tions and marketing, enrollment manage-ment, and other core institutional functionsare often performed to a greater or lesser ex-tent by individual schools as well as by the in-stitution as a whole. Similarly, central fundingand policy development are centripetalforces—but the strength of those forces variesby institutional type, history, culture, and per-ceptions of the need for public accountability.

The inherent and necessary tensions be-tween these horizontal and vertical elementsgenerate and sustain complexity in institu-tions of higher education. Because each insti-tution is of a particular type and exists in itsown context (i.e., public, private, rural, ur-ban, etc.), the vertical and horizontal struc-tures vary in number and dimensions frominstitution to institution; but because they arefundamental parts of postsecondary infrastruc-ture, they each exist in some form at every in-stitution (see fig. 1).

Student affairs programs have a strong cen-tripetal pull and are, of necessity, horizontal;since they (theoretically, at least) address theneeds of all students in all schools, optimallythey work across—and have an integrativerole in relation to—the vertical structures, orsilos (Dungy 2000; Kuh et al. 2005). The hor-izontal nature of student services is easy tosee: student health and counseling programs,recreation centers, student health insuranceplans, unions and student centers, and diningservices are good examples; any would be dif-ficult (and inefficient and duplicative) to im-plement separately in individual schools.Similarly, student policy (especially, academicand non-academic conduct) must be horizon-tal. First-year experience and transition pro-grams, general education courses, studentgovernment, and lower division academic ad-vising are other horizontal programs and ser-vices; providing them often requirescollaboration between academic and studentaffairs (Kuh et al. 1991).

The identification of desired student learn-ing outcomes creates a new horizontal force—accountability for producing a group of


OperationsAdministration

DepartmentsDisciplines

DivisionsSchools

College

Figure 1. Horizontal and Vertical Structures in Higher Education

Institutional Policy

First-Year Experience/Transition

Lower Division Advising

Experiential & Service Learning

Student Development

Student Services

Learning Outcomes

TIGHT COUPLING

Student Engagement and Success

Desired Student Outcomes

outcomes for all students, re-gardless of their major, year inschool, division, or school ofenrollment within the institu-tion. This horizontal force,finding its roots in account-ability, challenges student af-fairs leadership to adopt acurricular approach to the as-sessment, conceptualization,planning, implementation,and evaluation of programmatic and studentlearning outcomes.

From individual and programmatic actionto organizational realignmentStudent affairs efforts to function horizontallyhave been highlighted in actions to developlearning communities, promote positive anddevelopmentally sound transitions into andout of the institution, foster academic part-nerships, and respond to calls for movementaway from vertical (silo) functioning (Ewelland Wellman 2007; Kuh 1996; Smith et al.2004). An examination of these efforts re-veals strong individual commitments to hori-zontal functioning in spite of organizationalconstraints (Smith et al. 2004). Individual ef-forts and resource-intensive programs illus-trate the opportunities of implementinghorizontally oriented functions and develop-ing a more horizontal institutional orienta-tion, but do not normally instigate or sustainorganic organizational change that spurs thesystematic breaking or weakening of verticalbarriers and forces. Organizationally speaking,efforts to support greater horizontal function-ing are often based upon the exercise of astutepolitical savvy by inspired leaders and key in-fluencers of opinion and through the force of

strong human relations, ratherthan through policy-driven,mission-centered, or other-wise explicit expectations fortransdivisional collaboration orsystematic change in thestructure, beliefs, or culture ofthe organization (Schroeder1999). While student affairsalone cannot reasonably beexpected to alter the vertical

and disciplinary structure of the academy (andcannot impose such a restructuring on acade-mic or other divisions), much can be donethrough engagement in the organic and sys-tematic realignment of programs and servicesthat support student learning and success, in-cluding, but not limited to, traditional studentaffairs programs and services. Such organiza-tional realignment can be fostered by a curric-ular approach to supporting the studentexperience through programs, services, andpolicy.

A curricular approach to supporting thestudent experience helps to generate a scopeand sequence of programmatic activities cen-tered upon desired student learning outcomes.For example, student affairs officers can deter-mine the desired learning of students at differ-ent developmental levels and connect thosedesired learning goals to programmatic andorganizational elements. The aim would be tohave a vertical force for organizational func-tioning that guides the extent to which eachprogram should contribute to the acquisitionof learning objectives, and a horizontal forcethat pushes programs to best meet the evolv-ing developmental and learning needs of stu-dents as they progress through the institution(see fig. 2, next page).

FA L L 2007 L I B E R A L ED U C A T I O N 25

FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

IC

A curricular approach to supporting the

student experiencewithin student affairsallows for appropriate

vertical activity while insisting on

balanced horizontal functioning

University of Rochester


Figure 2. Scope and Sequence Matrix for Undergraduate Students Based on Selected Developmental Vectors*

Ability to access student learning support resources;Evidence of basic critical thinking skills.

Describes benefits of student learning resources tofirst-year students; Ability to act as a campus advocate.

Ability to demonstrate proficiency in physicaleducation, athletics, dance, or other activity thatdocuments translation of abstract concepts into tangible products.

Active member of student recreation, intramural, or athletic activities; Engagement with campus orcommunity fine arts efforts.

Actively engages in programs or service learningefforts that offer skills-based education in conflictmediation, respect for differences, or participation in community dialogue.

Through formal or ad hoc participation, serves as apeer mentor in housing/residential life programs, judicial programs, alcohol and other drug educationprograms, peer counseling programs, or women,LGBT, or other minority student programs.

Demonstrates adherence to personal beliefs and val-ues through engagement in peer dialogues, individua-tion from parents or other familial caretakers, andability to take ownership for one’s circumstances.

Engages in programs or service learning activities thatcontribute to an ethical and respectful living environ-ment; Advances a respectful community of student citi-zenry on and off campus; Demonstrates evidence ofreasonable financial competencies.

Ability to engage in productive and respectful rela-tionships with roommates or peers.

Contribution as an active member of student mentor-ing or leadership group.

Ability to reflect on the impact of peer pressure as itpertains to one’s sense of self, sense of culture, gen-der, race, and sexual orientation.

Engages in learning activities and programs thatallow students to explore diversity, equity, andhuman rights. Gains comfort individuating fromorganizations or cliques that prescribe standards basedon socioeconomic class, gender, or body image.

Developing Competence

(intellectual,

physical/manual, and

social/interpersonal)

First Year Second Year

Managing Emotions

Moving through

Autonomy Toward

Interdependence

Developing Mature

Interpersonal

Relationships

Establishing Identity

Ability to access and proactively use personal counseling, professional or faculty advising, and career counseling services.

Full commitment to a major course of study; Abilityto describe one’s career goals and differentiate careerfrom job; Development of a portfolio or other docu-ment that illustrates links between personal, academic,service or experiential learning and career goals.

Developing Purpose

Engages in programs and courses of study that allowfor examination personal values on a range of issues.Works with an adviser to register for a balance ofcourses that includes the arts, sciences, religion, andinternational issues.

Demonstrates social competencies that include ability to contrast personal beliefs with those of otherand differing beliefs; Ability to engage in thoughtfuldiscourse on social issues; Demonstrates empathy.

Developing Integrity

*Developmental vectors after A.W. Chickering and L. Reisser, Education and Identity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993).


FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

IC

Contributes as a leader to supplemental instruction,tutoring, peer education, or other student support services.

Through assessment and evaluation activities acts asan adviser to the senior student affairs officer in mat-ters pertinent to the quality of student support services.

Engages in program conceptualization and planningfor recreation, athletic, intramural, or fine arts activities.

Acts as an advocate to the institution about the ben-efits to the community of quality recreation and finearts activities.

Assesses the need for, plans, and implements student-ledpeer education, housing/residential life, peer counsel-ing, or service learning efforts that seek to engageundergraduate students in skills-based education thatresults in civility and community engagement.

Synthesizes program and student learning outcomesdata from relevant programs; makes recommendationsto senior student affairs officers about the quality and productivity of programs relevant to this area ofstudent development.

Provides leadership to campus and community housingefforts; Through formal and ad hoc activities providescommunity mentorship to peers in-classroom and out-of-classroom activities; Manages financeseffectively and acts as a resource to peers.

Acts as an adviser to senior campus leadership;Assesses quality and productivity of campus effortsthat seek to build students’ capacity to develophealthy interdependence from peers and family.

Contributes to formal organizational efforts tobroaden leadership opportunities for undergraduatestudents; Develops and convenes student leadershipretreats, symposia, or intercollegiate conferences to explore service and experiential learning.

Works closely with the institution’s senior leadershipto link service or experiential learning to generaleducation programs and specific courses of study; acts as a peer adviser to senior capstone projects.

Engages in student and community leadership opportunities that support positive youth develop-ment, healthy parenting, and human rights.

Acts as adviser to the institution’s leadership on matters related to equality, supporting first year students as they transition into the institution, and contributes to evaluation of current programs to ensure access and equity.

Third Year Fourth Year

Active engagement in internship, study abroad, or comprehensive service learning activities; Provides peer leadership in chosen fields of interestand formal study.

Has a plan for post-bachelors work (e.g., graduateschool application process, job interviews, etc);Adheres to high quality of academic and campusstandards that promote the brand identity of theinstitution; Develops relationships with alumni and seeks opportunities to advance the institution. Knows who he or she is.

Actively engages in debates, institution and communitysupported events that promote critical thinking. Can synthesize life lessons from opposing viewpoints(e.g., pro-life and pro-choice; the role of women inthe workplace; same-sex marriage, etc).

Engages in institutional efforts to examine generaleducation requirements that seek to develop “whole human beings;” Acts as a student spokespersonfor the institution on matters of critical thinking, student development, and academic rigor.

The identificationof desired student learningoutcomes creates a new horizontal force

FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

IC A curricular approach to

supporting the student experi-ence within student affairs allows for appropriate verticalactivity while insisting on bal-anced horizontal functioning.The former occurs when eachdepartment within the divi-sion is held to its respectivediscipline-specific standards.The latter, however, gainsdurability through imposing acommon set of expectations across depart-ments and then, through assessment of learn-ing outcomes, accruing a body of evidence togauge accountability. The centrifugal forces oftraditional departmental functioning, such asbudgeting and tradition, are balanced by thecentripetal force of common learning objec-tives owned collectively by student affairs—which, in turn, is embedded within overallinstitutional accountability for desired studentoutcomes. A similar analysis—and approach—would, of course, apply more generally to theinstitution’s overall support for student suc-cess, which depends upon the integration oflearning experiences as much as depth oflearning in a discipline or major (Ewell andWellman 2007; Kuh et al. 2006).

Student affairs organizational realignment,then, is based upon the centripetal force ofcommon learning outcome objectives. As anexample, rather than the developmental com-petency of ability to manage conflict beingthe primary responsibility of those speciallytrained in conflict management, outcomes as-sociated with conflict management are sharedacross a system horizontally. Staff membersown collectively the outcome of assisting stu-dents with managing conflict. The verticallyorganized units that direct service delivery mustrealign themselves to work together to meetthe student learning outcome of conflict man-agement skills. In curricular thinking, themodules, or service delivery units, must bothshare a common outcome and array their cur-riculum to be appropriately developmentaland sequential. This is not the same thing assaying that every conflict resolution effortmust be the same; instead, it says that conflictresolution programs and activities must beconscious of one another’s existence, coordi-nated in a sound way that demonstrates in-tegrity of purpose, and designed, delivered,

and assessed collaboratively. These principles suggest the

need for a level of organizationand horizontal integration ofservices that far exceeds tradi-tional “cooperation” or “col-laboration” within divisionsof student affairs—and forsimilar integration among ac-tivities that support learningprovided throughout the in-stitution (Kuh 1996).

Achieving such horizontal integration is theprimary functional characteristic of an institu-tion for which the entire campus has becomea learning community (Keeling 2004); it isthat integration that permits learning to occur,as Whitt (1999) has said, in “every nook andcranny” of the institution. Horizontal integra-tion supports the coupling of programs, services,and activities in time, space, and geography.Research on the antecedents and correlates ofstudent success (defined as the acquisition ofkey learning and developmental outcomes)reveals that the tightness of coupling of pro-grams, services, and activities is linked to levelsof achievement (Hearn 2006). The degree towhich tight coupling occurs (and is possible) isrelated to both policy and institutional culture.

Horizontal programmatic and curricular or-ganization is expressed in a myriad of tangibleways. The change from focus on workforce de-velopment to lifelong career skills in commu-nity colleges over the past thirty years offersmany examples of how horizontal linkages en-hance higher education practice. In a recentNew York Times article (Frerking 2007), com-munity colleges that are considered successfullist the following attributes that intentionallyand actively support student development:articulation agreements with colleges anduniversities that students are most likely totransfer into, thereby supporting students asthey progress from year one to four-year de-gree completion; access to local arts, recre-ational, or vocational options that offer local,regional, or international internships, servicelearning, or other experiential learning forcredit opportunities; learning communitiesthat synthesize an array of life skills (e.g., timemanagement) with content (e.g., English)courses; professors working and teaching inteams, including buildings and offices thatallow professors and staff from multiple


Achieving horizontal integration

is the primary functional

characteristic of an institution for which the

entire campus hasbecome a learning

community

disciplines to share work space; required ori-entation and one-on-one advising, includinga clear expectation that students develop anddocument career goals; on-campus programsdevoted to providing students exposure torenowned artists, poets, scientists, and scholars;an environment that is aesthetically conduciveto learning; academic programs that teachacross disciplines (e.g., Great Books programs);expectations that students work to developtheir own slate of honors classes; student in-volvement in professional honoraries or asso-ciations; and a focus on self-exploration ofpersonal values via journaling. Many of thesesame programs have been shown to be factorsin supporting and enhancing student successmore generally (Hearn 2006). Moreover, en-hancing student success means that theseprograms share the common thread of requir-ing horizontal institutional functioning tooperate effectively.

While many universities may have some oreven many of the programs and courses listedabove, it seems that the main difference is theintentionality and expectations of communitycolleges. That is, many community collegesseem actively to engage in horizontality freefrom the four-year institutional pressures thatresult in unbalanced verticality (such as facultypromotion and tenure criteria that privilege re-search and publishing over teaching and closeengagement with students). On the otherhand, the demands on faculty—and institu-tional purposes—in four-year institutions aredifferent from the demands in most communitycolleges; expectations of disciplinary excel-lence demonstrated by scholarly achievement,original research, and peer-reviewed presenta-tions and publications are higher, and those ex-pectations drive verticality. Verticality is alsoreinforced by the very nature of comprehensiveuniversities; their component schools, faculties,and centers often compete for funds and power.All of which is to say that the exercise of signif-icant institutional will—and challenge to tra-ditional structures and policies—are requiredfor most four-year institutions, especially re-search-intensive comprehensive universities,to create greater horizontal energy. Institutionscan develop a greater focus on horizontal func-tioning—which is necessary to enhancingstudent success—without sacrificing discipli-nary excellence; this is especially true, andequally essential, in undergraduate studies.

In order for universities to create a compre-hensive culture of evidence that actively sup-ports outcome-oriented learning by the wholestudent, programs and systems of support mustbe developed across disciplines (Braxton 2006).That practice must include and integrate ser-vices and learning opportunities traditionallylocated in divisions of student affairs withcourses of study traditionally in academic af-fairs. No longer can “full learning” be offeredonly to those students who request it or havethe instincts to search it out. If institutions ofhigher education are to create and provide tothe public a body of evidence that documentsstudent learning and development across theacademy, then they must intentionally developand implement comprehensive learning op-portunities that link faculty to staff and coursesto out-of-classroom learning activities. Devel-oping these linkages is an interdependent, energy-requiring process that results in tightercoupling; once tighter coupling is achieved,additional energy (monitoring, assessment,leadership) is necessary to maintain andstrengthen it (Ewell and Wellman 2007).

These changes resonate with the principlesof student development illustrated in figure 2.That is, they illustrate strategies for supportingnot only student engagement with content,but also the more comprehensive effort to cre-ate a purposeful learning environment—atopography of learning—that expects learningto happen everywhere and all the time. Thatsort of learning results in learners who knowmore than “what;” they know “why, when,and under what circumstances”; they are in-tellectually curious and are more likely totransfer that set of competencies across theirlife spans.

It is in respect to policy and culture thatcolleges and universities do or do not embracethe opportunity that assessment provides tolink high standards with daily practice andstudent outcomes. Assessment, as a stronghorizontal force and tool, both reflects anddemands closer coupling in the interest ofproducing and documenting desired studentoutcomes. Achieving such coupling requiresthe exercise of significant institutional will,which in itself is a combined force of variablecapacity, will, and strength—what may beconsidered institutional purpose. Institutionalpurpose is generated and sustained in directproportion to elements of institutional culture


FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

IC

FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

IC

and policy. If there is focused and powerful in-stitutional purpose, assessment can become astrong force to bring disparate elements of thecampus together in the interest of commongoals; absent such strong purpose, though, assessment can seem incidental, suspicious,and annoying. Without the continuous appli-cation of energy and institutional will, couplingweakens, linkages dissolve, and, through akind of organizational entropy, the centrifugalovercomes what is centripetal and verticalstructures dominate horizontal ones.

Institutional action stepsEnsuring transformative institutional environ-ments where learning happens everywhereand all the time, then, requires intentionality.Intentionality can be articulated through aprocess of organizational reinvigoration andstrategic realignment. Organic transformationoften begins with institutional self-assessment,a process that engages practitioners’ criticalself-reflection as to current practices, culturalexpectations, and existing communicationand collaborative pathways. Identification ofcurrent practices is a precursor to the develop-ment, or affirmation, of commonly held de-sired student learning outcomes and programsassociated with those outcomes. Overall stu-dent learning outcomes derive from the insti-tution’s mission, vision, and values—and fromits commitments to students—not from a re-statement of existing programs; that is, desiredoutcomes represent what should be, not necessar-ily what has been or what is. So it is the process ofdeveloping, instituting, and assessing studentlearning outcomes that leads necessarily to in-stitutional review at every level—and, often,

to reallocation of resources. The processthrough which these outcomes are developed,then, is not the usual incremental form ofstrategic planning that more often lionizesthe past than prepares for the future. Instead,it focuses on the way that the institution’swork is, or is not, aligned with its vision; thatexamination leads inevitably to questions ofstructure and organization.

The ability to do good work within one’sdiscipline or program area must include bothcompetence in a specific area of knowledge orfunction and commitment to horizontally de-fined and broadly held student outcomes. Justas a career counselor cannot focus exclusivelyon career content and counseling, but must alsoaddress the development of cognitive com-plexity and citizenship skills, so a physicistmust devote some of her attention to support-ing student engagement, understanding andaddressing student learning, and assessing thecontributions of her courses to critical thinkingand problem-solving capacities.

Both because of greater internal and externalscrutiny and in support of the desire of ethicalprofessionals to do their best work, the articu-lation of desired learning outcomes and thecreation of a strong rationale for how programsand services address those outcomes are essen-tial to telling a convincing performance story.The process of developing commonly held stu-dent learning outcomes requires a strong centri-petal force along horizontal lines. Commonplanning time, dialogue on beliefs, respect fordisciplinary and other differences, and acommitment to follow through a process toidentify learning outcomes are necessary com-ponents of this process. Collaboration andcommon purpose are further challenged, butultimately strengthened, when programs, ser-vices, and indeed all vertically organized unitsare then asked to define how their programsspecifically address the identified learning out-comes. The process of creating common out-comes and then connecting programs, services,and units will likely identify areas of strongcoupling between current activities and desiredlearning, along with areas of weak coupling. Ofcourse not all programs, services, or units willaddress each outcome in the same ways orwith the same emphasis, but the collectiveimpact of the work in all programs, services,and units should be aimed at supporting andadvancing every desired outcome.


The College ofNew Jersey

ConclusionThe traditional structures of most colleges anduniversities do not naturally support the inte-gration of learning experiences, the establish-ment of institution-wide desired learningoutcomes that define the overall, transforma-tive goals of engagement with higher educa-tion, or the assessment of the institution’seffectiveness in achieving those goals. A cur-ricular approach to learning, student develop-ment, assessment, and retention depends oncreating horizontal structures, forces, anddynamics that intersect with vertical systemsand structures; institutional effectiveness re-quires the tighter coupling of horizontal andvertical activities in ways that promote stu-dent learning and sustain an engaged studentexperience. Implementing such an approachwill require the development and exercise ofsignificant institutional will to support asubstantial transformation of assumptions,attitudes, values, and systems within post-secondary institutions. ■■

To respond to this article, e-mail [email protected],with the authors’ names on the subject line.

REFERENCESBourgault, J., and R. Lapierre. 2000. Horizontality and

public management. Ottawa: Canadian Centre forManagement Development.

Braxton, J. M. 2006. Faculty professional choices inteaching that foster student success. Washington, DC:National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Bresciani, M. J., C. L. Zelna, and J. A. Anderson.2004. Assessing student learning and development: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Callan, P. M., J. E. Finney, M. W. Kirst, M. D. Usdan,and A. Venezia. 2006. Claiming common ground:State policymaking for improving college readiness andsuccess. San Jose, CA: National Center for PublicPolicy and Higher Education.

Chickering, A. W., and L. Reisser. 1993. Educationand identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, B. R. 1963. Faculty organization and authority.In Organization and governance in higher education,ed. M. C. Brown, II, 119–27. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Cohen, M. D., and J. G. March. 1986. Leadership inan organized anarchy. In Organization and governancein higher education, ed. M. C. Brown, II, 16–35.Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Dungy, G. 2003. Organization and functions of stu-dent affairs. In Student services: A Handbook for theProfession, ed. S. R. Komives and D. B. WoodardJr., 339–57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


FE

AT

UR

ED

T

OP

ICEhrenberg, R.G. 2000. Tuition rising: Why college costs

so much. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Ewell, P., and J. Wellman. 2007. Enhancing student

success in education. Washington, DC: NationalPostsecondary Education Cooperative.

Fenske, R. H. 1990. Evolution of the student servicesprofession. In Student services: A handbook for theprofession, ed. U. Delworth, G. R. Hanson, and Associates, 25–56. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frerking, B. 2007. For achievers, a new destination:Two-year college you may want to attend—andleave. New York Times, April 22, 23–25.

Hearn, J. C. 2006. Student success: What research suggests for policy and practice. Washington, DC:National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Keeling, R. P. 2004. Learning reconsidered. Washington,DC: National Association of Student PersonnelAdministrators.

Kuh, G. D. 1996. Guiding principles of creating seam-less learning environments for undergraduates.Journal of College Student Development 37 (2):135–48.

Kuh, G. D., J. Kinzie, J. A. Buckley, B. K. Bridges, andJ. C. Hayek. 2006. What matters to student success:A review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Kuh, G. D., J. Kinzie, J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, andAssociates. 2005. Student success in college: Creatingconditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, R. Andreas, J.Lyons, C. C. Strange, L. E. Krehbiel, and K. A.MacKay. 1991. Involving colleges: Successful ap-proaches to fostering student learning and developmentoutside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. The professional bureaucracy. In Organization and governance in higher education, ed.M. C. Brown, II, 50–70. Boston: Pearson CustomPublishing.

Schroeder, C. C. 1999. Forging educational partner-ships that advance student learning. In Good prac-tice in student affairs: Principles to foster studentlearning, ed. G. S. Blimling and E. J. Whitt, 133–56.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, B. L., J. MacGregor, R. Matthews, and F.Gabelnick. 2004. Learning communities: Reformingundergraduate education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Upcraft, M. L., and J. H. Schuh. 1996. Assessment instudent affairs: A guide for practitioners. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational organizations asloosely coupled systems climate. In Organizationand governance in higher education, ed. M. C. Brown,II, 36–49. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Whitt, E. J. 1999. Student learning and student affairswork: Responding to our imperative. Washington,DC: National Association of Student PersonnelAdministrators.

Keeling-Underhile-Wall-2007-Horizontal And Vertical Structures

Documents

Transcript of Keeling-Underhile-Wall-2007-Horizontal And Vertical Structures