Description

Advising is “the only structured activity on campus in which all students have the opportunity for ongoing, one-to-one interaction with a concerned representative of the institution.” (Habley, 1994). Interactions with advisors are particularly important for first year students as they adjust to a new academic environment. The bulk of published data on advising has focused on 1) how student advising can affect retention and 2) how quality of advising programs may be positively correlated with loyalty to the institution (Beal, Noel, Program, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 1980; Vianden & Barlow, 2015). More recently studies have focused on the effects of advising on self-regulation and self-efficacy, and improved academic planning (Erlich & Russ-Eft, 2012; 2013).

It is important first to set definitions for the various approaches for individual advising, types of advisors, and modes of delivery.

Models of advising approaches:

There are four major models for advising approaches (Greenfield, Keup, & Gardner, 2013):

• Prescriptive: in this model, the advisor is seen as the knowledgeable master and the student as the apprentice. The emphasis is on explaining regulations, requirements, major declaration, credit requirement, etc.
• Developmental: in the developmental model, the advisor becomes akin to a coach who helps students clarify their goals. The relationship between the advisor and advisee is concentrated on the needs of the student.
• Intrusive: (also called intentional or proactive): is a combination of prescriptive and developmental advising. Advisors guide students to recognize the factors that lead to poor academic performance (developmental), but focuses on strategies and resources that students can use to overcome challenges (prescriptive).
• Appreciative: founded in the principle that individuals “respond more favorably to people who are optimistic thinkers and who help create positive images of our futures, rather than people who are negative and disapproving of our plans” (Greenfield et al., 2013). The initial focus is on creating an initial positive relationship that can facilitate future conversations about goals and strategies.

Although much has been written about the various models of advising approaches, there are virtually no studies that aim to compare the efficacy of these various models on students’ outcomes and retention.

Types of advisors:

Historically, academic advising was performed solely by faculty members. Academic advising in this case tends to be one of many additional responsibilities that a faculty member might be assigned to. Typically, faculty advisors will focus on curriculum planning, career opportunities in particular those related to specific areas of study, and student success.

While faculty members continue to have an important role within academic advising, many colleges and universities have begun employing non-faculty staff whose primary focus is student academic success to meet current student needs. Below we will discuss the various types of academic advising staff (non-faculty).

• Professional academic advisors: professional academic staff spend most of their time meeting with individuals and groups of students regarding curriculum requirements, areas of study, general strategies for academic success and student development. In many occasions, professional academic advisors will also have some teaching responsibilities. Professional academic advisors might be full-time or part-time employees, might be employed within an academic department and/or serve as part of a centralized advising center. In many institutions, the professional advisors maybe the first advisors that undeclared students encounter.
  • Strengths: Unlike faculty advisors, professional academic advisors are able to spend the majority of their time on the advising needs of students and are able to engage in professional development to enhance their own skills and knowledge in their chosen field of advising.
  • Challenges: A career ladder for professional advisors is lacking at most institutions. Additionally, it may be difficult to communicate the role and importance of professional academic advisors on campuses where historically faculty have provided academic advising. Hiring individuals whose sole role is to provide academic advising requires significant financial investment from the institution.
  • Effective uses: professional advisors are a particularly good fit for a certain population of students that might require an intrusive, consistent advising approach and continuous follow up. Institutions whose faculty are primarily focused on research can also benefit tremendously from having professional academic advisors who would have the time for the more time-consuming aspects of advising.
• Professional counselors: like professional academic advisors, professional counselors might wear various hats such as career planning and dealing with general mental health issues, but their primarily role is to address student needs.
  • Strengths: counselors have a lot of training and experience dealing with a wide range of student-related issues and can help the holistic development of students, typically going beyond standard academic advising issues.
  • Challenges: counselors’ ability to provide a wider-range of services, can make them a valued resource on campus, but balancing academic vs personal counseling needs of student might be difficult, particularly when a student might have a personal crisis during busy academic advising periods. As with professional academic advisors, it can be difficult to educate the rest of the university community regarding the roles and expertise of counselors. Additionally, professional counselors typically hold doctorate-level education, making hiring a sufficient number of them to cover an institution’s advising needs fiscally challenging.
  • Effective uses: small colleges and campuses can benefit from having an individual that can provide both academic advising and counseling services.
• Graduate student advisors: department and schools sometimes hire graduate student advisors to supplement the academic advising provided by faculty or professional advisors.
  • Strengths: hiring graduate student advisors provides an economical option for departments looking to augment advising services. Graduate student advisors can also be more flexible with their hours and availability during peak seasons and often deal with the more routine aspects of advising, leaving more time for faculty or professional advisors to handle more complex issues.
  • Challenges: graduate students’ primary responsibilities are to pursue their own academic trajectory and research, and they may have only variable availability and time to counsel undergraduates during the academic year. Because of their short tenure, graduate student advising is associated with high turnover. Thus, to ensure advising quality, there needs to be a staff member responsible for organizing and training graduate student advisors. Graduate students may also have less knowledge of their institutions’ undergraduate curriculum and requirements if they did their undergraduate years at other colleges and universities.
  • Effective uses: academic programs with large undergraduate and graduate student populations and department who are looking to increase basic advising services during key times and orientation will benefit from having graduate student advisors.
• Peer undergraduate advisors: the use of undergraduate students in various advising roles is increasing (Gordon, Habley, & Grites, 2011). Peer undergraduate advisors tend to be integrated into 1) friendly-contact programs, where older students are paired with new students to ease their transition into the first year, 2) programs where undergraduate advisors are paired with a faculty or professional advisor or 3) as paraprofessional advisors within resident halls or advising centers.
  • Strengths: students are able to relate more with current students who have recently gone through similar experiences than with faculty and staff who finished college decades earlier. Peer advisors might be able to more adequately recognizing holes within current advising services. Peer advisors who receive training can fill in essential advising needs and remove some of the advising load so that faculty and/or professional advisors can concentrate on more complex student issues. Peer advisors can also be a good fit at institutions with limited resources and advising programs can provide opportunities for leadership training and professional growth for peer advisors.
  • Challenges: peer advisors are more knowledge than the students they advise, but they are still students who are still learning and developing. To have an effecting peer advising program, institutions should have a staff position that helps coordinate and train peer advisors in topics such as Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as well as balancing advising and academic responsibilities. As with graduate student advisors, turnover is high.
  • Effective uses: peer advisors can be used in a wide variety of settings, to supplement various models for delivering advising.

Models for delivering academic advising:

Various modes for delivering academic advising exist and can be broadly grouped into the following categories and models (Pardee, 2004):

1. Centralized (29% of institutions^[1]): faculty and/or professional advisors are housed under one academic or administrate unit.

• Self-contained model: all advising from orientation to departure takes place within a single centralized center. The center is typically staffed with full-time and part-time professional advisors, faculty, counselors, paraprofessionals or peers. A dean or director typically supervises all advising functions. Strengths: having dedicated staff for advising; a central location makes it easy to find and access associated resources and provide training and evaluation. Risks: very expensive to implement at institutions with a large undergraduate population.

2. Shared (64% of institutions): faculty and/or professional advisors are shared between a centralized administrative unit and academic departments.

• Supplementary model: faculty provide the advising with the assistance of a small advising office which does not have jurisdiction of advising transactions. The advising office is often times headed by part-time faculty or volunteers along with trained peer advisors. Strengths: having an office that helps with coordination. Risks: office may lack credibility with faculty.
• Split model: initial advising is split between an advising unit and academic departments. Advising office advises specific students such as those who have not yet decided on a major and students who might need developmental/remediation coursework. When advising criteria are met, mainly major selection and completion of development work, students are assigned to an academic unit where they can be advised by full-time and part-time professional advisors, faculty, counselors, paraprofessionals or peers. Coordinator will have campus-wide responsibilities. This model is closest to the model that MIT follows for first year advising. Strengths: Having advisors that can be specifically trained to deal with high-risk students. Risks: coordination might prove to be a challenge when students are transitioning from a first-year student advisor to a departmental advisor.
• Dual model: advising tasks are divided between 1) faculty advising on a particular academic program and 2) an advising office focused on general institutional requirements, academic policies and procedures. Undeclared students are followed by the advising office. Strengths: focuses and delivers advising based on strengths of each component. Risks: potentially overlapping responsibilities of different group of advisors, which can be confusing to students unless roles are clearly articulated.
• Total intake model: initial advising is administered through an advising office by full-time and part-time professional advisors, faculty, counselors, paraprofessionals or peers. Students are assigned to a faculty advisor within an academic unit after initial registration, completion of the first semester or completion of a certain number of credits. The advising office has large jurisdiction of policies, advising curriculum and coordination. Strengths: ability to provide a strong advising experience right away. Risks: coordination might prove to be a challenge when students are transitioning from one advisor to another.

3. Decentralized (17% of institutions): faculty and/or professional advisors are located within academic departments.

• Faculty-only model: each student is assigned a faculty advisor who is only accountable to their respective department. There might be an advising coordinator that serves the advising program campus-wide. Undeclared students might be assigned to selected faculty. Strengths: Less coordination between various systems is required.
• Satellite model: various advising offices are presented, typically controlled within the various colleges or academic units. A satellite office is generally dedicated to undecided students, which often also helps coordinate the whole advising program. Strengths: services are tied to specific schools or academic unit which can often end up providing more personal services. Risks: coordination between all the various academic units that provide advising could be quite challenging.

Benefits to students

Analysis of satisfaction data from the National Survey of Student Engagement, an instrument used to measure student national student participation, indicates that students who rate their advising as good or excellent: are more likely to interact with faculty, are more satisfied with their overall college experience and perceive the institution as more supportive (NSSE, 2005). In fact, perceived quality of academic advising is the single most powerful predictor of satisfaction with campus environment (NSSE, 2005).

Gallup surveyed more than 30,000 alumni with a bachelor’s degree or higher from a large, nationally representative sample (Gallup-Purdue, 2015). Key findings of this survey were that occupational well-being after graduation correlated with the quality of mentoring and advising experiences in college. In particular with respect to mentoring and advising, three undergraduate experiences were found as predictors for employee engagement (doubles the odds of being engaged at work): 1) having at least one professor that made the participant excited about learning, 2) having professors that cared about the participant as a person, and 3) having a mentor who encouraged goals and dreams all. Research I universities, in particular, were lowest in the third predictor.

Critical components

Trends in organizational models point to a decline in the faculty-only model and an increase in the shared responsibility for advising as well as an increase in centralized models (Gordon et al., 2011). Rigorous research as to which model is more effective is lacking. General assessment of advisors’ ratings of the various models indicates that, at least in theory, each of these delivery models can be effective (Pardee, 2004).

When considering the various models for delivering advising, the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), a clearinghouse for academic advising, recommends using the following set of questions to assess whether the current model is accomplishing its goals (Pardee, 2004):

1. Does the institutional mission or vision indicate who should provide advising at the institution?
2. Do faculty members have time for an academic advising load? Do they want to provide advising in addition to their other faculty responsibilities?
3. What benefits and challenges characterize the current advising model?
4. If changes are desired, what type of academic advisor would best meet the specific needs for identified student populations? Who desires these changes and why?
5. Should academic advising be centralized or decentralized? Should each academic unit employ its own academic advisors?
6. Do peer or graduate student advisors have a role at the institution?
7. Who provides academic advising for exploratory/undeclared students? Are the specific needs of exploratory/undeclared students being met in the current model?
8. Have students been asked:
   • “Do you know your academic advisor?”
   • “How has academic advising affected your academic success?”
   • “What have you learned from your academic advisor since beginning college?”
   • “What makes a person a good academic advisor?”

[1] Percentage of institutions for each model of delivery comes from the 2011 NACADA National Survey of Academic Advising. Retrieved from: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/2011-NACADA-National-Survey.aspx