 |
|
|
| 
|
The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal Preparing for the First Advising Contact Michael Stokes, Penn State University Time is arguably an academic adviser's scarcest resource. Four years, or even two years, may seem more than long enough to accomplish the task of guiding a student's development. In reality, advisers spend a relatively brief amount of time communicating with an individual over the course of his or her college career. Adequate preparation helps advisers to use these advising contacts efficiently. Hanson and Huston (1995) encourage advisers to be as well prepared for their appointments as they would be to teach a class. Preparation is key to the first advising contact. Before the initial interview, an adviser should carefully review available assessment data on students to gain insight into their interests, abilities, and experiences. Moreover, by properly interpreting the implications of this data, an adviser can better anticipate a student's likely institutional fit, an important factor in first-year persistence (Frost, 1991). Such understanding also helps in projecting a possible need for referrals. An adviser can then structure questions that will stimulate a student to examine and set his or her own goals for life, education, and career. Clear goals lead to an academic plan focused on specific needs (Frost, 1991). Four types of individual student assessment data are useful for conducting such a review: basic demographic information, a record of high school Carnegie units earned, SAT or ACT scores and the results of any college-administered placement tests, and self-reported information about the student's background as well as career and academic aspirations. Both The Pennsylvania State University (White, Goetz, Hunter, & Barefoot, 1995) and the University of Texas at Austin (Hanson & Huston, 1995) provide advisers with these data to help them prepare for their initial contact with first-year students. This article is based on the types of data solicited in the Educational Planning Survey (EPS) administered by Penn State to incoming first-year students prior to their arrival on campus (White et al., 1995). The EPS is an instrument that uses both open- and closed-ended items, grouped by the areas listed below. In this article, each area is discussed briefly in light of relevant issues raised in the advising literature. (Advisers not routinely provided with this kind of self-reported data may want to devise their own surveys, in consultation with their institutions.) The student's family background, including parental educational attainment. In some cases, the parents' highest level of educational attainment is an important indicator. Hicks (2002) defines those enrollees whose parents have not attended college or university as first-generation students, and he affirms a continuing increase in their enrollment in institutions of higher education. A longitudinal study found that first-generation students are more likely than their non-first-generation peers to have weaker cognitive skills, to underestimate the time needed to study, and, if economic factors dictate, to work more hours off campus (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). Entering college is a major transition for all students. However, whereas non-first-generation students' primary concerns may be about forming friendships or becoming socially isolated, their first-generation counterparts are more likely to experience a complex of abrupt and difficult transitions, at once cultural, social, and academic (Terenzini, Rendon, Upcraft, Millar, Allison, Gregg, et al., 1994). Non-traditional students are breaking new ground, both personal and familial, in a setting that may be strikingly different from that of their childhood and adolescence stages. Many first-generation students are students of color. For these students, the transition to college life is complicated by racial and ethnic factors often overlooked or misunderstood by fellow students, faculty, and administrators, particularly at predominantly White institutions (Gilbert, 2002). Many students of color express self-doubts about their ability to succeed in college. Some have misconceptions about what skills will be required and what steps they should follow. They may not fully understand how their course of study and the advantageous use of campus resources can affect the realization of their long-term goals (Brown & Rivas, 1995). To avoid stereotyping students of color, academic advisers should prepare to help them to set challenging goals for themselves (Frost, 1991). Advisers should be ready to help these students to make connections with campus organizations and services that can support them in achieving their goals (Brown & Rivas, 1995). High school academic and extracurricular experiences. A listing of college, vocational, or College Board Advanced Placement courses taken in high school, plus a record of Carnegie units that a student has earned, helps to gauge the student's academic preparation, abilities, and interests (White et al., 1995). Data on high school extracurricular activities, special accomplishments, and work history rounds out this picture. White et al. suggest that advisers seek evidence of how students reacted to these experiences, in terms of likes, dislikes, achievement, and satisfaction. Such information helps in assessing the appropriateness of possible major choices; it can also lead to creative suggestions for student participation in extracurricular activities, study abroad programs, and the like. Beyond citing the positive outcomes of student involvement in both academic and extracurricular activities, Terenzini, Rendon, et al. (1994) underscore students' need for signs of confirmation that they can, in fact, succeed in college. This need is especially significant for students whose seriousness or competency were questioned in high school and who were expected to fail. Given the right set of opportunities, these students may discover new abilities and rise to levels of achievement they once thought unreachable (Terenzini, Rendon, et al.). Intentions regarding major and occupational plans. Although a student does not usually choose a major during the first advising contact, assessing the major field(s) that he or she is contemplating can lead to more effective student exploration. The Penn State Educational Planning Survey asks each student to list, in preference order, up to three major fields being considered, based on current thinking and educational plans, and a reason for each choice. Another EPS item asks how long ago these choices were made, revealing how current that thinking is. Four additional EPS items inquire about the person who most influenced the selection of the possible major(s), the student's knowledgeability in the field(s), the amount of time spent in related activities in high school, and familial reaction to the choice(s). Using these data, the adviser can evaluate the student's academic interests against the perceived level of preparation and support. If the adviser notes discrepancies among various factors, one or more major choices may be unrealistic. A more ample discussion of the issues and questions that might occur to an adviser can be found in Hanson and Huston (1995) and White et al. (1995). With regard to major choice, this article addresses two particular types of students: the undecided and the underprepared. An undecided student's major interests may be very similar or, perhaps, quite disparate. If, for example, all are in branches of engineering, then the student will likely choose among them at the proper time, after taking appropriate introductory courses. However, if the choices range across engineering, the liberal arts, and business, the adviser's concern is why the student has not yet decided. Gordon (1995) makes the following distinction. Indecisive students are unable to make decisions about anything, due to problems and uncertainties in their lives; they usually require help that most academic advisers are not equipped to provide. Undecided students, though progressing normally, lack the maturity and development to make vocational and educational decisions; they need information with which to make these choices. Strommer (1995) reminds advisers that being undecided is normal among first-year students. It is not an adviser's role to eliminate student uncertainty (Bertram, 1996). In assessing dissimilar major choices, the adviser should note any common threads among them, keeping in mind how these might be combined to allow the student to merge disciplines (Gordon, 1995). If an interdisciplinary approach seems unrealistic, however, the adviser can think about ways to help the student better identify his or her goals and interests. Taking a different perspective, one EPS item asks students what major they have decided against and why. For some undecided students, this data may reveal their actual preference, one they may think is unattainable. A background review might convince an adviser otherwise. Such groundwork better allows the adviser and student to address the process of educational planning and major choice rather than the outcomes of that choice (Bertram, 1996.) This interaction paves the way for student-centered decision making. Underprepared students are characterized by deficiencies that cause difficulties in achieving their college objectives (Frost, 1991). Some of them may know what field they want to study but are not academically ready to study it. Underpreparedness may be an adviser's first attribution on discovering a student's substandard academic performance in high school, low SAT or ACT test scores, or poor placement test results. Strommer (1995) points out the difficult task of accurately assessing these students' basic skill levels. However, an adviser must be sure that underprepared students remediate their deficiencies before attempting more challenging courses (Strommer, 1995). One may be tempted to draw a sharp line separating underprepared students from their better-prepared peers. However, Gray Spann, Spann, and Confer (1995) suggest that advisers look at background characteristics as a continuum. Underprepared students may not be as advanced as their peers on some measures but may be equally or more advanced on others. Advisers should assess a student's strengths as well as weaknesses and be prepared to suggest ways to capitalize on the former while diminishing the latter. These students need a helping hand with academic goal setting; moreover, they need an adviser who cares about their background and life plans (Gray Spann et al.). Reasons for attending college, projected study hours, expected GPA, self-assessment of academic assets, weaknesses, and doubts; perceived affect as related to the anticipated college experience; and familial/spousal attitudes toward the student's academic plans. These data can reveal whether or not a student has a realistic outlook toward the demands of academic life (Hanson & Huston, 1995). One should avoid making hasty judgments based on this information. Still, self-reporting on these matters can fill in the gaps in an adviser's knowledge and even raise red flags. For example, a student may indicate that he or she is attending college primarily to please parents, does not have a spouse's backing, or is contemplating a demanding major but expecting to study only twelve hours per week. This information can guide an adviser in helping that student to avoid future difficulties. An adviser might think it unnecessary to review honors students' reasons for attending or their apprehensions about college. However, Strommer (1995) reminds advisers to be alert to honors students' self-reported concerns about choice of institution, peer incompatibility, or an unchallenging experience ahead. Some honors students may face so many options that they have difficulty making plans; some may be as interested in learning itself as in preparing for graduate school. An adviser who detects such concerns can prepare to encourage these students to set challenging educational goals from the start and help them to view their undergraduate experience holistically in order to take advantage of the opportunities offered for personal development (Strommer, 1995). The prepared adviser heads into the first student contact with goodness aforethought, ready to pose questions relevant to the advisee's educational needs and to explain assessment results in a way that clarifies the student's institutional fit (White et al., 1995). The student will be impressed that a caring professional from his or her newly chosen community has already taken a personal interest, as evidenced by preparation. A trusting relationship that fosters genuine development is more likely to follow. References Bertram, R. M. (1996). The irrational nature of choice: A new model for advising undecided students? NACADA Journal, 16(2), 19–24. Brown, T., & Rivas, M. (1995). Pluralistic advising: Facilitating the development and achievement of first-year students of color. In M. L. Upcraft & G. L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 121–137). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition. Frost, S. H. (1991). Academic advising for student success: A system of shared responsibility. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Gilbert, G. K. (2003, March 3). Breaking it down: Performing academic advising across the color line. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 5(1). Retrieved March 3, 2003, from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/. Gordon, V. (1995). Advising undecided first-year students. In M. L. Upcraft & G. L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 93–100). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition. Gray Spann, N., Spann, M. G., Jr., & Confer, L. S. (1995) Advising underprepared first-year students. In M. L. Upcraft & G. L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 101–110). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition. Hanson, G. R., & Huston, C. (1995). Academic advising and assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 62, 87–96. Hicks, T. (2002, December 16). Advising the first-generation college student: Effective retention tools for colleges and universities. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 5(1). Retrieved March 3, 2003, from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/. Strommer, D. W. (1995). Advising special populations of students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 62, 25–34. Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., et al. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 57–73. Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1–22. White, E. R., Goetz, J. J., Hunter, M. S., & Barefoot, B. O. (1995). Creating successful transitions through academic advising. In M. L. Upcraft & G. L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 25–34). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition. Additional Resources Shaffer, L. S. (1997). A human capital approach to academic advising. NACADA Journal, 17(1), 5–12. Stowe, D. E. (1996). Postmodern view of advisement in higher education. NACADA Journal, 16(2), 16–18. About the Author Michael Stokes is an adviser in Penn State's First-Year Testing, Counseling and Advising Program. He can be reached at mjs284@penn.com or 814-867-4316. Published in The Mentor on June 16, 2003, by Penn State's Division of Undergraduate Studies Available online at www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/ Privacy and Legal Statements | Copyright | © The Pennsylvania State University | All rights reserved | |