Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2003. / Advisor: Dr. John Bertot, Florida State University, School of Information Studies. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Mar. 3, 2004). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2004. / Advisor: Dr. Ralph S. Brower, Florida State University, College of Social Sciences, Dept. Public Administration and Policy. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Sept. 24, 2004). Includes bibliographical references.

The purpose of the study was to understand and appreciate the methodologies and procedures used in determining the extent to which an information technology (IT) organization within the eleven member State University Systems (SUS) of Florida planned, implemented, and diffused emerging educational technologies. Key findings found how critical it was that flexibility be given during the planning stages and not rely on standardized models which may or may not be of use any longer. Research also found that the SUS institutions have to be prepared to organize and preserve the deluge of digital data if they intended to remain relevant as a "tower" of knowledge transmissions. The literature found that institutions of higher education needed to keep abreast of the new technologies, new pedagogies, and never before open-access concepts because authors found these ideas were converging and producing an unprecedented period of innovation in learning. Furthermore, the implications of perpetual connectivity to information, peers, and teachers garnered a great deal of attention among educational technologists. However, those implications had not been gauged, especially in Florida's SUS institutions. A survey of those institutions regarding how technologies were planned for, implemented logically, and thoroughly diffused, along with lessons learned could potentially save resources and ensure Florida's institutions continue to be on higher learning's forefront.

Florida's undergraduate organization of higher education is a 2 + 2 system in which students are encouraged to complete freshmen and sophomore years at a community college and then transfer to a state university. Florida statutes provide for a highly articulated educational system to facilitate seamless transition from one public institution to another. The researcher investigated the transfer function's effectiveness among community college students subsequent to enrollment at a large, urban, doctoral/research extensive university in Florida using a course-based model of transfer success. The research explored whether differences existed in academic performance in targeted upper-division undergraduate courses between native and Florida Community College System (FCCS) transfer students who completed prerequisite courses prior to transferring to the university. Four upper-division courses were chosen specifically because many transfer students complete prerequisite coursework at a community college prior to matriculating at the university. A total of 764 native students and 1,053 FCCS transfer students were enrolled in at least one course of interest in fall 2002. Preliminary investigation of selected demographic characteristics identified statistically significant differences between these two groups. Native students were younger and more racially/ethnically diverse; more native students were enrolled full time (for 12 or more credits) than transfer students. Although first-term transfer students experienced transfer shock, university native students who were enrolled in three courses also experienced declines in fall 2002 GPA when compared to their previous GPA at the university. Statistically significant mean grade differences occurred between transfer and native students in three courses; transfers outperformed native students in two courses. Additional comparisons of fall 2002 term GPA between native and transfer students yielded no significant differences. Findings lend support to the effectiveness of Florida's community colleges in preparing students for upper-division undergraduate coursework, but that transition for some is not seamless, suggesting need for collaboration among universities and community colleges.

Universities have had a tumultuous history in terms of crises. Though crises have always existed, its definition and emphasis in the landscape of higher education has dramatically changed in the last 50 years. For this reason, the study and implementation of crisis management systems have become a growing phenomenon on campuses around the nation. However, as the types of crises institutions face diversifies, communities’ emphasis on leadership accountability has also become more magnified. The role of the president, thus, has become increasingly relevant and critical to the conversation concerning campus security and safety. The purpose of this study was to better understand the phenomenon of crisis leadership in higher education. A case study of the State University System of Florida was chosen, interviewing all available university presidents and crisis managers. Its diversity in population, infrastructure and mission is the reason it was selected as an appropriate case. This study sought insight on how SUS presidents and crisis managers understood the concepts of crisis, crisis leadership and crisis management; what they perceived their roles and responsibilities to be throughout the crisis management cycle; and how these definitions and roles created and sustained a culture of safety, security and preparedness. The 16 study participants (6 presidents and 10 crisis managers) offered a great deal of insight on how they defined crisis leadership and its respective roles pre-, during and post-crises. Participants believed that the differing definitions of crisis; the university’s culture towards crisis management; the roles played by the university, presidents and crisis managers; resources (established and lacking); as well as the inevitable variability of crises, all played a critical role in leadership. The study’s findings supported Muffet-Willett’s position that crisis leadership is fundamentally connected to the relationship between presidents and crisis managers. Both must offer support, tangibly and intangibly, to one another so that others across the university see the importance being placed on crisis management. Findings of this study supported the assumption made in the literature by student affairs authors that presidents are critical to crisis management. In addition, I concluded that crisis managers are also critical to crisis leadership.