FIRST PERSON
by Nuria Melchor Rodriguez, Amanda Luongo, Sally Chen, Kim Cuozzo, and Laura Mammone
As the COVID-19 pandemic cast its shadow over campuses, housing departments had to learn there were some things that just couldn’t be done. Student staff training, though, was certainly not one of them. In fact, student staff training is arguably one of the most important processes in a housing operation. These student leaders are the face of the department, and they directly influence the student residential experience. The pandemic would actually make their role even more significant and, therefore, their training all the more important. But how to make that happen?
At the University of Toronto Mississauga in Ontario, Canada, the committee that oversaw student training knew it wanted to focus on what it meant to be a student leader. It wanted to emphasize that, with a focus on community, student staff enriches the student experience through building safe, connected, and engaged communities. Given the COVID-19 context, it was also important that the training emphasized the value of creating in-person and online environments to support the development of healthy relationships and positive interactions between and among community members.
Accepting that the two-week training institute would look different than it ever had before, the group dedicated itself to using this as an opportunity for innovation and creativity. Student staff competencies to inform the training were implemented, allowing the team to be intentional with planning and mindful of the diverse group and the variety of needs. It was important that all those in student staff roles across the team felt united, confident, and ready for the year ahead.
Along with new competencies came new training practices. Over the two weeks, multiple modes of delivery were used for student staff training. As one would expect, there were virtual sessions using Zoom or Microsoft Teams. These often were utilized for full-team trainings, where information would need to be shared across our functional student staff roles. While some followed a traditional lecture style, facilitators often also incorporated digital interactive activities to keep staff engaged. Small breakout groups, live polls, word clouds, quizzes, and utilizing digital sticky notes and whiteboards for collaborative work all enhanced the process.
For trainings that required the larger team but still had a need for in-person components, the team switched to a multi-room, in-person format. In this setup, a single person would present the training from their office or a newly dedicated broadcasting room on campus. The student staff were divided into groups that aligned with the government-approved limits and met in spaces that allowed for appropriate social distancing. In this way, staff were safely able to work together, share ideas, and develop relationships. This setup was made possible because returning student staff leaders, who were present in the rooms to moderate, relayed questions and responses and facilitated activities set by the presenter. Some training sessions were able to feature a presenter who spoke directly with the staff. This was made possible by using outdoor spaces when the whole team had to meet or meeting inside when smaller staff teams could adhere to distancing guidelines.
Of course, not everything went as smoothly as it could. An attempt to have accurate live captioning of programs evolved as the distribution model switched from using Zoom to Microsoft PowerPoint to Otter. Students had to navigate their own technological difficulties as they went through training. Cross-team and team-specific rapport building had to become highly intentional, as international students, who were not able to travel to Canada, needed extra support. And, quite simply, delivery tactics for diversity training that tended toward in-the-moment communication were met with varied success. The digital engagement activities did not always adequately support content such as explorations of equity and diversity, topics that generally rely on focused and sustained engagement.
Finally, the team was purposeful in assessing the new processes and learning from the experience. Odds are there will be future trainings where the method of delivery will need to be altered. In addition to gathering feedback from our professional staff, student staff were surveyed. It felt like a win, in the face of adversity and uncertainty, to see that 88% of student staff felt they were able to successfully learn the material. Despite the virtual nature of much of the training, it was a pleasant surprise that 80% of survey respondents indicated that they felt connected to their team after the training period. Virtually no safety concerns were reported. And, while the most popular sessions were those delivered in person, the student staff still recommended that some of the in-person sessions could be delivered virtually in future training institutes. This was one example of a permanent change that would have never been considered if not for the challenges of this year.
Now, with the experience behind us, despite the challenges posed, we feel confident in what was accomplished and optimistic for what the future may hold. And we write this as people who occasionally will fall victim to overly harsh, counter-productive self-criticism. At the beginning of the pandemic, the team was trying to catch up to what we didn’t know. Now, going into future student staff hiring and training we can be hopeful that we may be a little ahead.
"First Person" is a column that allows ACUHO-I members a chance to put a personal spin on a news story. All the authors of this story work at the University of Toronto Mississauga. Nuria Melchor Rodriguez is the special projects coordinator, Amanda Luongo and Sally Chen are community development coordinators, Kim Cuozzo is a residence education coordinator, and Laura Mammone is the supervisor of residence education.