 |
|
|
| 
|
“When I attended one of the earlier NACADA conference round-tables about theory in advising, someone in the audience said during the discussion that "I don't see why we need theory; we're doing just fine without it." That's a paraphrase of course but it was the gist. I thought that was a marvelous remark. Doing just fine by what standard? If you think you're doing fine it must be that you have a theory about what you should be doing, i.e. about what advising is. Some have responded to this forum question in ways that imply that a theory in this context is analogous to a scientific theory, a testable attempt to account for the empirical facts. I don't think that's right. Or at least, that's not what I think is important. A theory of advising would not be empirical but normative. It would present an ideal of what advising at its best would be. Such an ideal might inspire people to move in new directions, to find new ways to achieve their newly articulated goals. It might even inspire people to enter the profession. How do we choose between/among such theories? That's a good question that will take me way past my 150 words, but it's being discussed more and more and I think that's great.” – Marc Lowenstein, Richard Stockton College, Mar 30 “First, let me explain that theories come in two forms: implicit and explicit theories. Based on my literature review, and the findings of my dissertation, academic advisers, like teachers, are guided by implicit theories. I found that the research on developmental academic advising has tended to ignore certain issues within the constructs of the academic adviser's knowledge. For example: What are the sources of knowledge? What do academic advisers know and how do they come to know it? How is knowledge acquired? The answers to these questions can help us understand the implicit theories involved in academic advising. By definition, implicit theories are accumulations of propositions drawn from many sources, such as rules, personal experiences, beliefs and values, and the order in which these are considered. Although not much has been written about the implicit theories of academic advising, these theories have been described through studies of teacher thinking. These implicit theories describe the way teaching actually occurs. The findings of my study pointed out that the advisers' knowledge about student development and teaching were implicit by nature and that the source of knowledge that most often guided the advisers' decisions and related intervention strategies was drawn from database information, other colleagues, a little related to literature, but most often from the advisers' experiences (personal college experience, personal life situation, experience with other students, professional experiences outside of advising). The advisers' implicit theories structured their practice by placing a priority on either the adviser's role, the student's role, or the role of information. The advisers' actions were always linked to their paradigm of thinking. So, first I promote the idea of exploring advisers' implicit theories (which could be done using my practical model of advising) and comparing the rationale for decisions with explicit theories of student development and teaching (which we all try to promote as part of our image transformation). Without knowing what really drives our practice, we can say we practice developmental advising, but how much of what we know and do is drawn from other sources? Do we need theories of advising? Yes, both implicit practical theories, and explicit supporting theories for linking our practice to theoretical models that have been determined to bring forth more effective practice and to challenge the image of advising as prescriptive, and not promoting the development of a knowledge base worthy of being designated as a discipline.” – Cynthia E. Spiers, Lima Technical College, Mar 06 “Any endeavor that is seriously undertaken is done so reflectively. Unless engaged in some rote activity, we humans cannot escape reflection on a level that is in some way 'meta' to what we are doing. To so reflect is to have a perspective on the activity in question. This is the ur-meaning of the word 'theory,' which comes to us from a Greek word meaning 'to be a spectator, to observe.' To theorize is to have a perspective on something, to be able to view it from outside the activity itself. Up in the mental bleachers, as it were. It is to reflect on the underlying principles, motivations, philosophy, and ideology of the activity and its participants. It is to construct ideas or tenets about an activity that can be tested by how well they resonate with perceived reality (empiricism); but it can also be the construction of an elaborate metaphor or analogy that also resonates with the perceived reality of the activity or event under question (humanistic). Both major schools of theorizing (there are others, of course) seek to explain events; prediction and control come later. So my answer to your question 'Why do we need theories of academic advising?' is that we have theories of advising whether we want them or not. 'Can we operate without them?' No, but we can operate without codifying them, organizing them, and persuading everybody else in the field to have the same one we do. Yet it seems to me an intrinsically valuable activity to become aware of the theories we hold and to communicate them to others. If they can be codified and widely accepted, fine; but one can be a successful practitioner without being aware of major trends in advising theory. But I believe one can be a better practitioner if one does become aware of one's own theory of advising and aware of the theories held by other serious-minded practitioners and thinkers. We need to theorize about academic advising. As practitioners we all have a theory – even though it be an unstructured one not fully formed yet – of what we do. As a field, we can only benefit from theory building.” – Peter Hagen, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Mar 02 “I believe that the question is 'Why do we need theories of advising?' It is curious to me that we answered the question by taking pro and con on whether we need theories. The question seems to assert that we need to investigate the theoretical contribution to advising rather than debate the value of theory. After all, how do you know you have arrived unless you know where you are going? I would assert that theory from development psychology/education and student personnel services models guide our practice and our own philosophy and value systems inform our practice. It is no wonder we feel unconnected at times as if we were operating without theory. It is precisely for this reason that we must examine the foundation of our practice. If we must prove we are successful, as we so often must, theory is the only means we have to make that proof. I agree that though our theory may not be scientific, it is the groundwork for successful practice.” – Karen Thurmond, The University of Memphis, Mar 02 “Has 'academic advising' become a discipline? Could there really exist any 'theory' of advising when it has not been tested as a discipline? Isn't academic advising based on the tested theories of psychology and education? These are not inconsequential scholarly questions requiring answers. There should be some serious scholarship to support academic advising as a discipline.” – Barbara K. Wade, Ph.D., Penn State University, Mar 02 “My answer to this advising question mirrors the answer I give regarding my preferred counseling style ... ECLECTIC! If you pinned me for a precise definition, I would say that I am a developmental adviser and a humanistic counselor, but I have utilized many techniques and styles as the situation warranted. I think it is important to embrace a particular philosophy or theory of advising, so there is a common language and an understanding of general principles of practice ... as well as a group of people with whom you speak the same language fostering an ability to collaborate and enrich the body of available research. Operating from a philosophical framework also gives you the freedom to stray from it after you have made it your own. For example, how many of us really perform the tire pressure/seatbelt/mirror check when we get into the car, but as a 'Driver' it was important to have that before we automated the mechanics of the process (I am watching the road – helping the student – much more when I am not worrying about the gauges). I think there is plenty of room to incorporate other styles as the student and as the situation warrants, but without having a philosophy from which we can consciously rule-in and rule-out other techniques, we are, perhaps, exposing students to a randomness that does not further the field or serve them well.” – Robin Diller Torres, Marist College, Mar 02 “Asking whether or not we need to perform advisement from a theoretical perspective smacks of the modernist assumption that not only can we describe and predict behavior, but that we can ultimately control and explain behavior. After all, those are the goals of theory. Right? Maybe the question itself needs to be examined. First, some of us in education tend to regard theory and philosophy as one and the same. Perhaps we are seeking a philosophy of advisement as much as or more than a theory of advisement. A philosophy would underscore our beliefs and values about the nature of the interaction and its goals about as well as a theory would. Second, educational theory may not be the same thing as scientific theory. While scientific theory seeks to delete or negate nonscientific elements such as beliefs and judgements, such elements are the substance of advisement. Scientific theory seeks to produce knowledge while educational theory seeks to produce practical activity. So do we need theory in advisement? Yes, but not in the sense that many use the term. In the case of advisement, educational theory provides a conceptual model for thinking about our goals and what we may do to accomplish those goals. Educational theory gives us a rational foundation for practice. However, it does not give us the same kind of potency to predict, control, or explain that a theory in the natural sciences might offer.” – Don Stowe, University of South Carolina, Mar 01 “No. We do not even know what the theory is supposed to do. We impose it on ourselves or it is imposed on us. Scientific notions of a paradigm or theory do not work with academic advising. Our students are not randomly selected, we do not repeat our studies, etc.” – William H. Bruening, Indiana University Purdue University at Fort Wayne, Mar 01 “Well, it looks like here's another question that begs the classic answer motto for academic advisers – yes, no, and maybe. Since we've been advising students for decades without such theories, and since we have clearly made significant improvements in these efforts in the last two decades particularly, my answer (though maybe not my 'final' one) is 'Yes, we can operate without them.' Now, if we would like to improve upon this process even more and if we want to be able to demonstrate that our efforts really do change students' behaviors and make a difference in their learning, then my answer is 'No, we can't operate without them.' What we need to do is articulate such theories and test them empirically – no simple task I will readily admit. Without such 'proof,' we will still likely continue to provide very successful academic advising to our students, but without a solid theoretical base from which to provide it. So, I guess my 'final' answer is 'Maybe we can, and maybe we can't, operate without theories of advising.'” – Tom Grites, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Mar 01 “Theory gives us a foundation from which we can grow toward effectiveness as professionals. Without an understanding of why and how we need to advise (not to mention knowing what works), how can we be effective advisers? Because I follow a developmental model, I believe I effectively advise students because I understand (and, consequently, adjust how I accommodate) their needs at various developmental stages. The bottom line, too, is that having advising theories gives our profession credibility in the higher education arena.” – Robyn Posson, The College of Saint Rose, Mar 01 The Mentor is published 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 | |
