 |
|
|
| 
|
The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal Students Grade Their Professors: An Evaluation of a College's Faculty Advising by its Graduating Seniors Robert S. Legutko, DeSales University Note: The research in this study was not conducted on students at DeSales University. This descriptive research study determined the degree of students' satisfaction with their faculty advisers. Participants included thirty-nine traditional-aged, full-time undergraduate students nearing graduation at a small, private, urban, coeducational, religiously affiliated, four-year, commuter college in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Of those who completed a questionnaire, six were interviewed for further analysis. Findings indicated that students (a) perceived faculty advisers as knowledgeable about their major, (b) had mixed views about their faculty advisers' knowledge of the college's general curriculum, (c) had mixed views about their faculty advisers' knowledge of the college's general policies, and (d) indicated their faculty advisers were available to them when needed. A typical reaction by undergraduate college students nearing graduation is to examine their academic experiences up to that point. In the examination, students invariably recall the influential professors they have encountered along the way. All students have interacted with their professors inside the classroom; fortunate others have also been mentored by professors outside the classroom. As a result of these interactions, the degree of impact that faculty members have had on a student's development through the college years may come into question. This study focused upon an area of academia outside the traditional classroom: formal student–faculty advising. Problem and Purpose Some faculty members (1) are concerned only with their own research, teaching, or other personal interests; (2) view advising students as a secondary (or even tertiary) task; (3) tend to take little to no interest in advising; (4) see advising more as a chore than a worthwhile endeavor; and (5) are untrained or otherwise unequipped to perform tasks associated with advising. For students, questions they may have about their own career goals then go unanswered, leading to both changes of major and a longer time to graduate. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of students' satisfaction with their faculty advisers. Lagowski and Vick (1995) offered the following three points to help address the need for this study:
Design This study incorporated a descriptive (survey) research design, described by Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2006) as being “concerned with assessing attitudes, opinions, preferences, demographics, practices, and procedures” (p. 159). The data were collected by questionnaire surveys, telephone surveys, interviews, or observation. Participants The participants in this study included thirty-nine traditional-aged full-time undergraduate students who were enrolled in their next-to-last semester of study in spring 1999 at a small, private, urban, coeducational, religiously affiliated, four-year, commuter college in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States (not DeSales University). The participants were selected and issued a questionnaire based upon their expectation to complete degree requirements at the conclusion of their upcoming fall semester. Six students from this group were then selected and interviewed to provide more in-depth analysis of their responses on the questionnaire. The similarities among these six students were that they attended only the college used in this study, they had the opportunity to be advised in at least six semesters by faculty advisers, they began matriculation in the same semester, and they were traditional-aged students. The two major differences among these six students included a representation of majors from five of the six academic divisions at the college used in this study (this was intentional to provide a cross-representation among academic divisions at the college), and half of these students changed their major at least once. Instrumentation Questionnaire. The initial information-gathering process began with a researcher-designed questionnaire to obtain information on both the quality and nature of faculty advising as perceived by undergraduate full-time students nearing graduation. The questionnaire consisted entirely of open-ended items. The advantages of using this questionnaire were the ease of administration and the ability to summarize common information. Interviews. Six students were selected to participate in a guided interview based upon their academic and/or advising experiences at the college used in this study. These students were selected for additional inquiry based upon both their similarities (which served to strengthen the internal validity of the study) and their differences (which allowed a cross-representation among the college's academic divisions). Procedures Students completed a questionnaire at the beginning of the academic exit interview (or “degree check-out”). From these thirty-nine students, six were asked additional interview questions by telephone two months after completing the questionnaire. Participant responses from the questionnaire were divided into categories of frequency. Responses from the six students who were additionally sought for interviews were detailed in narrative form. Validity The primary vehicle from which data in this study were obtained was the questionnaire, distributed to a sample of full-time graduating seniors at the beginning of their academic exit interview (degree check-out). This questionnaire was piloted on nine students at the college used in this study who were not preparing for graduation and who verified the instrument for comprehension and interpretation of questions. Maxwell (1996) identified the main threat to valid description, in the sense of describing what the researcher saw and heard, as the inaccuracy or incompleteness of the data. For this study, an attempt was made to maintain valid description by distributing a standardized, open-ended questionnaire to students and allowing them to transcribe their thoughts and opinions onto paper. An attempt was made to maintain valid interpretation by having students respond in writing on the questionnaires (and also a priori by piloting the questionnaire on a sample of students). Contacting students about discrepant data in any responses helped maintain validity. Existing researcher biases were the belief that faculty advising was inadequate at the college used in this study, and faculty members on the whole were not cognizant of programs in their areas of focus, did not know general academic procedures, and did not place high value or worth on their advising responsibilities. Students' written responses, however, reflected their own perceptions wholly and were not the product of researcher-inflicted prejudices. This study sought the truth, whether or not it was anticipated or accurately predicted. Finally, reactivity was controlled, as the researcher had little to no effect on student responses because the questionnaire was distributed uniformly at the beginning of the academic exit interview (degree check-out) and collected immediately upon completion. No discussion took place between researcher and student while the questionnaire was being completed. Findings Table 1 corresponds to the questionnaire item that asked, “Was/were your faculty adviser(s) knowledgeable about your major”? Twenty-six responses indicated that faculty advisers were knowledgeable about the major for which they were providing advising. The most common student response was that faculty advisers were knowledgeable about student majors because the faculty adviser was a teacher in that discipline. Only two responses had negative implications, and one of those was because the faculty adviser was new to the college. Table 1 Frequency of student responses on comments about why students felt faculty advisers were or were not knowledgeable about their major
Table 2 corresponds to the questionnaire item that asked, “Was/were your faculty adviser(s) knowledgeable about the college's general curriculum”? Ten responses indicated that students perceived their faculty advisers as knowledgeable about the general curriculum, six responses indicated that students perceived their faculty advisers as not knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and four responses were neutral or undetermined. Table 2 Frequency of student responses concerning comments about why students felt faculty advisers were or were not knowledgeable about general curriculum
Table 3 corresponds to the questionnaire item that asked, “Did your faculty adviser(s) know general college policies”? In this case, nine student responses indicated that this question was either not applicable to their faculty–student advising sessions or was never an issue. Six responses indicated that the faculty adviser knew general college policies. Four responses indicated that faculty advisers were not knowledgeable about general college policies. Table 3 Frequency of student responses concerning comments about why students felt faculty advisers were or were not knowledgeable about general college policies
Table 4 corresponds to the questionnaire item that asked, “Was/were your faculty adviser(s) easily accessible”? Twenty-three student responses indicated that faculty adviser(s) were available when needed, and four of these students also said that they had their faculty adviser as a teacher, which made them accessible before and after class. Four indicated that there were plenty of times available to meet during office hours or through a sign-up sheet. Only three students indicated that their faculty adviser was not easily accessible. Table 4 Frequency of student responses concerning faculty adviser accessibility
Student Interviews In evaluating how their perceptions of advising changed during their college experience, two of the six interviewees provided negative responses. The first, a student in social and behavioral sciences, stated, “I was not particularly happy with the advising I had in my four years there. I figured with a smaller school there was going to be more one-to-one attention, and I was [instead] pretty much rushed in and rushed out.” The second student interviewed simply offered that “sometimes it seems like the [faculty] advisers don't have a clue as to what they are doing.” One student interviewee indicated that she had difficulty reaching one of her faculty advisers, leaving messages for about a month on voice mail, with no reply. Another student interviewee said she did not see her faculty advisers very often—only about ten minutes out of the semester. Two students were pleased with the faculty advising they received. When asked how they would rate their faculty adviser, five of the six students interviewed rated them highly. One student indicated that although “it's very hard with [my division] to get a hold of your adviser . . . they're pretty good once you find them.” The lone student who rated faculty advising poorly on this question stated, “It was completely rushed when you got in there. My adviser wasn't really knowledgeable on any of the classes outside [her area].” Five of six students interviewed also felt that the quality of the meetings with faculty advisers was good. One student stated, “I know most people I talk to, their meetings, they go in, get their classes, and they leave. I could be in there for hours at a time talking about things. [My faculty adviser] is not just there for scheduling my classes. She's there if I need personal help.” Other student comments included that the advising sessions “were very personalized and very individualized,” that the sessions “helped me a lot with regards to helping me achieve my degree [because] when I came in as a [first-year student], I didn't have a clue,” and that the “quality was probably satisfactory.” Students were mixed regarding the nature of meetings with faculty advisers. One student again indicated that it was difficult reaching her faculty adviser. “[My faculty adviser] has hours after [noon], I think, three days a week. Those aren't decent hours to be finding them. Hours were not good and they're not on campus a lot of the times.” Another student felt rushed during the sessions, describing it as a “get the heck out of here kind of a thing . . . like I was a number.” The more positive experiences included statements ranging from flexibility with walk-in appointments to covering more than classes and schedules by discussing personal life. The students were satisfied with the time faculty advisers spent in advising sessions. Student comments included, “Very satisfied,” “For the most part, pretty good,” “Instead of ten minutes, [my faculty adviser] would stay thirty minutes or so,” and “I didn't feel rushed at all.” One student felt she did not have enough time in her advising sessions and validated her feeling by stating, “Because I had [my faculty adviser] for classes as well, I knew she knew absolutely nothing about the college.” A second student felt that the faculty advising sessions were “satisfactory for what I was there for, but I would probably say it wasn't satisfactory if I wanted them for something besides [scheduling classes].” Finally, suggestions were solicited from students about making changes in advising at the college. One student felt that there should be a class or training for faculty advisers, and another student agreed that faculty advisers should become more knowledgeable overall with respect to the college, not just their specific disciplines. One interviewee felt that students should learn from their advisers, and that advisers should get to know their students and their students' personal lives. Two students indicated that they had no suggestions because they felt that faculty advising at the college was satisfactory. Another student wanted faculty advisers to “open up their hours more.” Recommendations Based upon the findings of this study, the following points are recommended for implementation:
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Lagowski, J. M., & Vick, J. W. (1995). Faculty as mentors. In A. G. Reinarz & E. R. White (Eds.), Teaching through academic advising: A faculty perspective. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 62 (pp. 79–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. About the Author Dr. Robert S. Legutko is an assistant professor of education at DeSales University. He can be reached at RSL2@desales.edu or 610-282-1100. Published in The Mentor on September 1, 2006; updated October 4, 2006, 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 | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||