 |
|
|
| 
|
The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal Improving Academic Advising with Assessment and a Standardized Form Christopher Koch, George Fox University This paper describes a series of steps taken to assess and improve academic advising. In particular, the results of a focus group are presented from which an advising questionnaire was constructed. The advising questionnaire was then used to assess the current state of advising among psychology majors at George Fox University. In addition, a standardized advising form was adopted to facilitate advising within the department. Introduction Academic advising is an important piece of the educational process that is often undervalued in the evaluation of faculty members (Boice, 2000; Titley & Titley, 1982). In fact, Light (2001) examined ten years of interviews with Harvard seniors and found that advising was one of the most valued yet underestimated aspects of a college education. Unfortunately, in a national survey, only 51 percent of liberal arts majors agree or strongly agree that they are generally satisfied with the advising in their departments (Martin-Stanley & Bakkum, 2003). As part of the George Fox University's assessment program, a survey of alumni was recently conducted evaluating various aspects of their college experience. We also found that approximately 50 percent of the alumni from the last three years in our department were satisfied with the advising they received as students. Conversely, this also means that approximately 50 percent of our alumni were not satisfied with advising, making it the least satisfactory aspect of our undergraduate psychology program. This finding was somewhat surprising since advising is valued within the department. Students are required to take a first-year seminar designed to create an opportunity for students to develop a relationship with a faculty member (cf., Nutt, 2000) and to provide general academic advising in regard to skills, resources, and courses that aid students in the transition into the college academic atmosphere (cf., Upcraft & Gardner, 1989). Majors are also required to take a senior seminar. One of the functions of the senior seminar is to provide graduate school and career advising, including how to search for a graduate school or job, how to prepare a vita/résumé, writing a statement of purpose, obtaining references and recommendations, and how to interview. In addition, group advising occurs at selected events of the Psychology Club and Psi Chi, the National Honor Society in Psychology, as well as through peer advising by Psi Chi officers at designated times. Advising also takes place through mentoring in our research program and through regular student-adviser meetings. Therefore, we believed we had a fairly comprehensive advising strategy employing a number of individual and group as well as required and elective advising experiences (cf., Johnson & Morgan, 2005). Thus, the finding that nearly half of our alumni were dissatisfied with the advising they received while in school caused us to evaluate the advising experience from a student perspective. In particular, we were concerned that our advising emphasis may have been very information based, while students wanted more developmental advising (e.g., Crockett & Levitz, 1984; Kramer & Gardner, 1983). In order to determine how to improve advising within our department, we conducted a focus group composed of current students to brainstorm about quality advising. A questionnaire was developed from this focus group. The questionnaire was sent to current upper-division psychology majors in order to determine their advising needs. Finally, a standardized advising form was developed to enhance the advising experience. This paper describes each step in the above process. Study I: Focus Group Participants Twenty-four upper-division psychology majors (five males, nineteen females) participated in the focus group for class credit. The sample was composed of fourteen juniors and ten seniors. Procedure Participants were instructed to spend several minutes discussing what they liked and disliked about their own advising experiences. They were also asked to discuss what they would like to occur during advising that was not currently practiced by faculty members within the department. After a twenty-minute discussion period, participants were asked to generate a list of questions that addressed the most important aspects of advising. The list of questions generated is presented in Appendix A. The items were organized into a questionnaire and given to the focus group to test the wording and style. Results and Discussion The focus group produced a list of ideas they determined were important for effective academic advising. Although they found the resulting questionnaire accurately reflected their comments, they noted a potential problem: there were several double majors in the focus group. These participants, therefore, had two advisers. They had difficulty knowing which adviser to complete the questionnaire for. A clarifying comment was added to the questionnaire to correct this problem. The final questionnaire is presented in Table 1. With a new instrument for evaluating the quality of our advising, our goal became to assess advising with current students. Table 1. Advising questionnaire developed from the focus group discussion and pilot administration Advising Questionnaire The faculty in the Psychology Department want to better understand the advising process at George Fox University. Your responses to the following items are greatly appreciated. Do you have a dual or double major? Yes No Please complete this questionnaire based on your psychology adviser.
Please rate the degree to which you agree with the following statements regarding your advising experience at George Fox University. SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree. N = Neutral A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree
Study II: Assessment Participants Participants consisted of the 120 students listed as psychology majors at George Fox University. However, it was determined that first-year students (n = 40) had limited advising experience within the department and were, therefore, excluded. Also excluded were the twenty-four majors who participated in the focus group. Therefore, questionnaires were distributed to fifty-six psychology majors. Forty-one questionnaires were returned (73.21 percent return rate). Questionnaire The questionnaire developed with the focus group was used to assess advising. Procedure Copies of the advising questionnaire were mailed to the fifty-six eligible psychology majors. The students were asked to return the completed questionnaire to the Psychology Office within two weeks. Results and Discussion Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics for the questionnaire items are presented in Table 2. In general, students meet twice per semester with their advisers, once per semester with the Registrar, and once with Career Services. Students believe that their advisers understand the major and general education requirements, are knowledgeable about transfer credits, and are prepared for advising meetings. Students are also comfortable with the advice provided by their advisers. The reliability of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha was .94, suggesting that the measure has strong internal validity. No other reliability or validity indicators have been collected at this time. Table 2 Descriptive statistics and number of responses for each level of agreement on the Likert scale for the advising questionnaire items
Correlations There were several interesting sets of correlations. In regard to number of advising meetings, students who meet more frequently with their advisers do so in part because their advisers initiate contact with them (r = .31, p < .05) and their advisers check in with them more outside of scheduled meetings (r = .44, p < .005). Students who meet more often with their advisers are also more likely to visit Career Services (r = .86, p < .001). Adviser availability was correlated with most other factors. Advisers who initiate contact are perceived as being more available (r = .45, p < .003). Similarly, advisers who check in with students outside of scheduled meetings times are seen as more available (r = .35, p < .03). Students who thought their advisers were available were also more satisfied with the amount of contact they had with their advisers (r = .62, p < .001). Available advisers were also more likely to help develop an academic plan (r = .47, p < .002). Adviser availability was also correlated with understanding the major (r = .45, p < .003), understanding general education (r = .61, p < .001), being prepared for advising meetings (r = .40, p < .01), effectiveness with the Registrar (r = .44, p < .006), understanding student goals (r = .37, p < .02), being aware of student interests (r = .59, p < .001), having an understanding of student strengths and weaknesses (r = .61, p < .001), knowing about special circumstances (r = .42, p < .006), talking about different majors (r = .47, p < .002), being concerned about the student's welfare (r = .36, p < .03), being attentive to the student's needs (r = .43, p < .005), and being helpful with career and graduate school advice (r = .42, p < .007). Students with available advisers are more likely to state that their adviser meets their expectations (r = .67, p < .001) and are more comfortable with the advice of their adviser (r = .58, p < .001). Consequently, overall satisfaction was correlated with adviser availability as well (r = .71, p < .001). Another important factor was the adviser's preparedness for meetings. Adviser preparedness was correlated with satisfaction with the number of contacts (r = .45, p < .003) as well as overall advising satisfaction (r = .51, p < .001), indicating that availability is important but the ability to answer questions during a meeting is also highly valued. Adviser preparedness appeared related to two general areas: (1) knowledge of requirements and policies and (2) student-specific information. For instance, understanding the major (r = .56, p < .001), understanding general education (r = .64, p < .001), and understanding transfer credits (r = .44, p < .01) were positively correlated with being prepared for a meeting. In addition, effectiveness with the Registrar (r = .53, p < .001) and being helpful in regard to career and graduate school advice (r = .46, p < .003) were related to preparedness. Being prepared also seems to suggest that the adviser is able to answer questions at any time (e.g., after class; r = .40, p < .01). Knowing the advisee is also important. Advisers who helped make an academic plan were perceived as being better prepared for advising (r = .44, p < .005). Furthermore, preparedness was correlated with understanding advisee goals (r = .53, p < .001), knowing outside interests (r = .56, p < .001), being aware of strengths and weaknesses (r = .56, p < .001), being willing to talk about other majors (r = .43, p < .005), and showing concern for the advisee's welfare (r = .41, p < .01). Thus, prepared advisers are more likely to meet the expectations of their advisees (r = .58, p < .001). Therefore, the results of the correlational analysis emphasize the importance of availability and preparedness. These findings are somewhat intuitive. Advisers who are more available to students will have more opportunities to address their advisees' questions and concerns. Being prepared for advising meetings is also important since a prepared adviser will likely be able to more satisfactorily address an advisee's concerns. Preparedness requires an understanding about major requirements, school policies, careers and graduate schools in addition to being familiar with an advisee's goals, interests, strengths and limitations. Regression Analysis A stepwise regression analysis was conducted to determine the factors most important for predicting satisfactory advising. The analysis showed that overall satisfaction was predicted by being satisfied with the amount of contact with an adviser, the adviser's understanding of general education requirements, and the adviser's effectiveness with the Registrar (Table 3). However, the results should be interpreted cautiously since the sample size is relatively small for this type of analysis. Therefore, additional research with the advising questionnaire using a larger sample is warranted. Table 3 Results from the regression analysis predicting overall satisfaction with advising
Standardized Form The questionnaire allowed us to assess the status of our current advising and to quantitatively determine what factors contribute the most to successful advising. However, we also wanted to address the items produced by the focus group regarding personal information. For instance, students were interested in their advisers having an understanding of their career plans or goals, being aware of their other interests, and knowing about their outside employment, athletic commitments, or unique life circumstances. It is also apparent from the present findings that knowing the students better will help faculty be more prepared for their advising interactions. Therefore, we created a standardized advising form in Microsoft Excel for faculty to use with all advisees (Figure 1). Since we recently implemented using the form, we do not have sufficient data at this time to know how it has influenced students' attitudes about their advising experiences. Figure 1 Standardized advising form developed to record personal information relevant to the advising needs of the students This figure has been converted to a PDF document to retain its format. General Discussion This paper describes a series of steps taken to assess and improve the advising in our department. The results suggest that students want both informational and developmental advising, but they are also very concerned about being able to navigate their way through their degree requirements to graduation. Therefore, in order to improve advising, faculty need to be informed of graduation requirements and Registrar policies. Advisers must also be aware of the individual goals, desires, and needs of each advisee. This suggestion is consistent with Creamer (2000) who argues that effective advising occurs, on the part of the adviser, when the adviser is aware of the students' developmental levels, knowledgeable about available resources, and able to help students identify those resources pertinent to their goals. One strategy for gaining this level of understanding is to standardize the advising process in a way that gains as much information about the students as possible relevant to their current needs as undergraduates as well as future goals and aspirations. This information will also help the adviser be more prepared for meetings with advisees. Our advising form is an attempt to achieve this goal. Although these findings appear straightforward, it is important to note that the study was conducted at a moderate-sized (3,500 students) private liberal arts school in the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, whether or not these findings are generalizable is a legitimate question. For instance, are there differences in student perceptions of advising between private schools and state schools? Are there differences in satisfactory advising among small, medium, and large schools? Additional research needs to be conducted to fully address these questions. However, the advising questionnaire used in this study appears to have sufficient construct validity and reliability to be used in future research to answer these questions. References Boice, R. (2000). Advice for new faculty members: Nihil nimus. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Creamer, D. G. (2000). Use of theory in academic advising. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 18–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Crockett, D. S., & Levitz, R. S. (1984). Current advising practices in colleges and universities. In R. B. Winston, Jr., T. K. Miller, S. C. Ender, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Developmental academic advising (pp. 35–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, E. J., & Morgan, B. (2005). Advice on advising: Improving a comprehensive university's program. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 15–18. Kramer, H. C., & Gardner, R. W. (1983). Advising by faculty. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Martin-Stanley, C., & Bakkum, C. (2003). [College of Liberal Studies undergraduate survey]. Unpublished raw data. Nutt, C. L. (2000). One-to-one advising. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 220–227). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Titley, R. W., & Titley, B. S. (1982). Academic advising: The neglected dimension in designs for undergraduate education. Teaching of Psychology, 9, 45–49. Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. About the Author Christopher Koch is professor of psychology in the Department of Psychology at George Fox University. He can be reached at ckoch@georgefox.edu or 503-554-2744. Appendix A Questions Generated During Focus Group
Published in The Mentor on February 27, 2007, 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 | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||