{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05255781359495445, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0350385423966363, 'mean_word_length': 5.580645161290323, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Learning About Technology and Student Affairs: Outcomes of an Online Immersion

The topics of technology in higher education and online teaching/learning have for many years received increased attention among higher education researchers. Research on student learning abounds with examples of the ways in which technology is influencing teaching and learning in higher education (e.g., Lewis, Coursol, & Khan, 2001; Twigg, 2004). Ways that computers, in particular, have changed faculty and student attitudes, behaviors, and identities have received increasing attention (e.g., Arabasz, Pirani, & Fawcett, 2003; Tapscott, 1998), and a parallel body of research has emerged on how higher education administrators are responding to these changes (e.g., Distance Learning Task Force [DLTF], 2000; Green, 2003). It seems clear that whether students earn degrees completely online, participate in a combination of faceto-face (F2F) and online courses, or take courses that are hybrid F2F/online formats, they will continue to require an array of student services (Barratt, 2001; Broughton, 2000; Schwitzer, Ancis, & Brown, 2001; WCET, 2003). Recent research (Bowman & Cuyjet, 1999; Kretovics, 2003) has shown, however, that the individuals charged with providing student services in face-to-face settings— typically student affairs professionals—are not Learning About Technology and Student Affairs: Outcomes of an Online Immersion