 |
|
|
| 
|
The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal Predicting Student Satisfaction with Academic Advising Michael Russell, St. Bonaventure University; Barbara Russell, Jamestown Community College; and Ann Lehman, St. Bonaventure University Abstract This study examined the responses of 394 students to a survey about academic advising at a small private school in the Northeast. The results indicated that there is a significant difference in the perception of advising depending on the major selected by the student. In addition, differences in gender and reported grade-point averages generated significant differences. The frequency of student encounters with their advisers and student grade-point average was not significant. The relationship between the number of semesters students were assigned to the same adviser and satisfaction with the advising process also proved to be not significant. Finally, the class standing of the student was not related to student satisfaction. Using factor analysis and expanding the analysis to include six years of data, the authors were able to identify the key items that affect student satisfaction with advising. Background Due to the increased attention on retention at colleges and universities, more attention is focusing on the role of academic advising (Harrison, 2006). Studies have shown that student interaction with faculty outside of the classroom leads to increased levels of satisfaction with the quality of instruction (Astin, 1993, 1999) and satisfaction with the major (Metzner & Bean, 1987). In addition, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has stressed the importance of academic advising in its accreditation process by stating that “students must have resources and personnel available to help them in making academic choices” (AACSB, 2006, p. 37). Yet despite its importance in the assessment and retention processes and recommendations to recognize advising as a high-priority item (Lowe & Toney, 2001), academic advising is still not regarded as very important in the promotion process for faculty (Goodnight, Elam, & Emmert, 2003). Very little study is available that examines the advising duties in business education despite the benefits for students and the institution (Petress, 2000). Although some studies have examined satisfaction of graduating seniors (Legutko, 2006), there appears to be limited examination of the process as it applies to students majoring in business subjects. Given the need to examine student satisfaction with the advising process, this study tested the following hypotheses: H1: There is a difference in student satisfaction with their advisers' performance when categorized by major. H2: There is a difference in student satisfaction with the advising process when categorized by gender. H3: There is a relationship between student grade-point average and student satisfaction with the advising process. H4: There is a relationship between the frequency of student meetings with their advisers and student grade-point average. H5: There is a relationship between the length of the student-adviser relationship and student satisfaction with the advising process. H6: There is a relationship between class standing and student satisfaction with the advising process. Methodology A survey (Figure 1) was distributed to 394 school of business students in the spring semester, 2006. The students attended a small private school in the Northeast, where majors are offered in accounting, finance, business information systems, management sciences, and marketing. The university selected is accredited by AACSB. The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first section contained twenty-four statements to which students indicated their level of agreement or disagreement regarding their current adviser. The statements selected included topics that ranged from adviser characteristics to performance of advising duties. The second section asked students to express their opinions on a number of topics, including how well the adviser met their needs as students, whether they would recommend the adviser to other students, how long they had been assigned to the adviser, and the number of times they met with the adviser for reasons other than planning courses for the next semester. The third section requested personal information, including the student's gender, current grade-point average, current major, and the number of semesters enrolled at the university. The final section provided students the opportunity to make open-ended comments regarding any aspect of the advising system. Figure 1 Advising survey This figure has been converted to a PDF document to retain its format. Results The first hypothesis (difference in student satisfaction when categorized by major) was tested using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Specifically, each of the twenty-four statements in the first section of the survey was analyzed to identify if differences existed among majors. In twenty-three of the twenty-four statements analyzed, there was a significant (p = .05) difference depending on the major selected by the student. The only item that provided similar results dealt with the assistance the adviser provided in the withdrawal process or transferring process. The second hypothesis (student satisfaction with the advising process when categorized by gender) was tested using cross tabulation and the Pearson Chi-Square statistic (p = .05). The results indicated that there was a difference in student satisfaction when students were categorized by gender. The third hypothesis (relationship between student grade-point average and satisfaction with the advising process) was tested using both Pearson Correlation and Spearman's rho (p = .05). The results indicated that there was a relationship between the current grade-point averages of students and their levels of satisfaction with the advising process. The fourth hypothesis (relationship between frequency of meetings with advisers and student grade-point average) was tested using both the Pearson Correlation and Spearman's rho (p = .05). The results indicated that there was not a relationship between the variables tested. The fifth hypothesis (length of student-adviser relationship and student satisfaction with the advising process) was tested using both Pearson Correlation and Spearman's rho (p = .05). The results indicated that there was not a relationship between the length of the relationship and student satisfaction with the advising process. Finally, the sixth hypothesis (class standing and student satisfaction with the advising process) was tested using cross tabulation and the Pearson Chi-Square statistic (p = .05). There were no differences observed between the various classes. In order to gain a better understanding of the variables that affect the rating of advisers (Figure 1, Part 2, Item 1), factor analysis was used to reduce the data so it would be more meaningful to the reader. This analysis resulted in two factors that were labeled as follows: Factor 1 = Knowledge and Availability; Factor 2 = Campus Liaison. The first factor included items that related to the knowledge and availability of the adviser, including ability to listen, respecting students' opinion, ability to recall the advisee from one year to the next, etc. There were eighteen items (questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 from Part 1 of the survey) from the original twenty-four that were included in Factor 1. Factor 2 consisted of items related to the adviser serving as a liaison on campus. Examples of items included were the ability to help in finding internships, assisting in withdrawing from classes, and finding help in dealing with personal problems. There were six items (questions 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 from Part 1 of the survey) from the original twenty-four that were included in Factor 2. After obtaining the factors, stepwise regression was used to predict student satisfaction. In the model, we included both factors and included only first-year students and sophomores. The results were significant where the p-value was equal to .000 and the R-Squared was equal to .563. We tested the model including only juniors and seniors and found the results to be significant again with a p-value of .000 and the R-Squared was equal to .499. Listed below are the output from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program for the model summaries and related ANOVA tables. Table 1a Model summary for freshmen and sophomores  Table 1b ANOVAc  Table 2a Model summary for juniors and seniors  Table 2b ANOVAc  Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research The findings of this study were interesting and suggest the need for further analysis. Specifically, three of the five hypotheses tested were found to be significant. It would be helpful to identify if there are different expectations for advising depending on the business major selected by students. It would also be helpful to expand the study to other institutions to see if the pattern is unique to the institution where the study was conducted or can be generalized to a larger population. Obviously, individual departments would be better prepared to provide the type of advising services desired by different majors if differences in student expectations are known. It is not clear if the differences found in this study are due to differences in student expectations or systematic differences in the advising provided by specific advisers. It also appears that the gender of the student produced different expectations by students. Further analysis might reveal where the differences exist and enable advisers to improve their efforts. The results also showed strong relationships between grade-point average and student satisfaction with the advising process. This finding suggests that nurturing more permanent advising relationships could lead to greater student satisfaction. References Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. (2006, January). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business schools. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/process/documents/AACSB_STANDARDS_Revised_Jan08.pdf Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1999). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 587–598. Goodnight, J., Elam, E., & Emmert, P. (2003, summer). Marketing department chairpersons' views on promotion requirements for marketing faculty. Marketing Education Review, 13(2), 43–54. Harrison, Neil. (2006, November). The impact of negative experiences, dissatisfaction and attachment on first year undergraduate withdrawal. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(4), 377–391. Legutko, R. (2006, September 1). Students grade their professors: An evaluation of a college's faculty advising by its graduating seniors. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 8(3). Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/ Lowe, A., & Toney, M. (2001). Academic advising: Views of the givers and takers. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(2), 93–108. Metzner, B. W., & Bean, J. P. (1987, January). The estimation of a conceptual model of non-traditional undergraduate student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 27(1), 15–38. Petress, K. C. (2000, spring). How to be a good advisee. Education, 120(3), 598–600. About the AuthorsMichael Russell is professor and chairman of the marketing department, St. Bonaventure University, New York, and can be contacted at mrussell@sbu.edu. Barbara Russell is assistant dean for research and planning, Jamestown Community College, New York, and be contacted at BarbaraRussell@mail.sunyjcc.edu. Ann Lehman is the registrar at St. Bonaventure University and can be contacted at alehman@sbu.edu. Published in The Mentor on August 13, 2008, 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
| |