from VCCA Journal, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall/Winter 1994, 9-13
© Copyright 1994 VCCA Journal
Student advising provides one of the most interesting paradoxes in education. On one hand, advising is undeniably linked to retention, student success, and student satisfaction. Academic advising stands, then, as an obvious path for effective institutional change and growth. On the other hand, the potential rewards of an effective advising program are unrealized when left to counselors who carry a 700+ student load. The literature clearly indicates a student preference for advising by faculty, but often institutions do not include student advising as a factor in faculty evaluation. Faculty are asked to deliver a program of quality advising which they may perceive to be more appropriately delivered by student services' personnel and which is technically outside their contractual obligation.
To examine this problem, Virginia Highlands Community College (VHCC) began questioning itself and its students. After posting remarkable fall-to-spring retention rates (95+ percent in the Business, Humanities, and Social Services Division), administrative personnel hypothesized about the factors relating to high retention. This led to a systematic student assessment of faculty advising. The purpose was to more accurately characterize what about academic advising had long been left to truism and conventional wisdom.
A commercial instrument was selected, in part to eliminate institutional bias or inexperience in constructing survey items and in part to avoid placing additional load on overburdened staff. The instrument,"The Survey of Academic Advising" by American College Testing, was mailed to all students who had preregistered for the subsequent semester.
Of 800+ mailings, 300 students responded. The findings are not intended to represent broad populations of community college students. They are to be viewed as indicators of what happens to VHCC students in the advising process.
Mandated Change
The primary responsibility of community college faculty is instruction. Instruction, as viewed by most students, centers around classroom instruction; however, we suggest that the instructional program in community colleges includes a wider array of activities. For example, a primary instructional activity for faculty at VHCC is student advising, which has assumed a position of extreme importance due to the mandate to assess student learning outcomes.
Change is difficult to accept for many in the educational environment. As academic systems grow, budgets and personnel become fixed and more complex; the structures and regulations of the college evolve to protect the interests of the constituencies at the institution (Clark, 1983). Faculty, like other groups at the college, will protect their interests.
Any change which is mandated from external agencies further exacerbates the unwillingness of individuals to comply with the directive. These external forces, which include legislatures, accrediting agencies, and executive departments, have become increasingly active in mandating change to colleges and universities. In fact, three-fourths of all changes in educational institutions during the past few years have been initiated by external groups (Keller, 1986).
Student outcomes assessment demands that faculty, student service personnel, and administrators respond to proposals for change that they may not clearly understood. In order to commit themselves to the proposed change, individuals first must understand what their role will be in the process. It follows that if faculty are to see their role in faculty advising as an integral part of their responsibilities, the reasons for the emphasis must be clearly based on objective data. It is hoped that the results of the present study will create a clearer picture of the role of faculty advising and what influence it has on student learning outcomes.
If faculty do not understand that advising makes a difference in students' ability to succeed, they will not endorse the goals, use the results to effect change, or commit to the philosophy of change. Instead what will occur is what Deal (1984) referred to as a "ceremony of change, a dance of legitimacy, not a strategy of change" (p. 128). In other words, faculty will comply, but change will only occur if the importance of the modification is clearly delineated, interpreted within the vision of the institutional mission, supported by data, and communicated to faculty in an understandable way.
Results of Survey
The findings of this academic advising survey reveal that VHCC is accomplishing its goal of providing students with excellent assistance in developing their academic programs. The results of the survey affirmed many widely-held perceptions of student advising at the College, while other areas disclosed some weaknesses. A brief review of the most salient findings follows.
One of the concerns at VHCC was whether or not students understood the difference between an advisor and a counselor. The survey responses indicated that 88 percent of the students clearly distinguish between the two. This is important because students must recognize how to proceed when they are seeking a specific service. It is evident from this survey that students realize that advisors perform certain functions while counselors are responsible for others. This finding is underscored by the fact that 95 percent of the respondents indicated that their advising needs were met.
The respondents saw the faculty advisor as a facilitator of the registration process. Faculty were perceived as individuals who expedite dropping and adding courses, discuss academic programs, and encourage students to achieve their educational goals. They viewed the counselors' roles in a much broader context. The respondents perceived counselors' responsibilities as assisting with career choices, helping with study skills, providing avenues for tutorial assistance, helping to cope with academic difficulties, and dealing with personal problems.
The responses relating to perceptions of the roles of faculty advisors and counselors contained no surprises but did divulge some areas which require attention. For instance, it is clear that advisors are referring students to the proper individuals to receive assistance. However, in order for the advising program to succeed, faculty must assume an increased role in the total advising process. For instance, the students reported that only 47 percent of the faculty advisors had discussed their academic programs with them. While 19 percent of the respondents were satisfied, 21 percent thought that their faculty advisors should have examined their programs with them. Advisors may do a good job of referral, but they need to become more involved in the planning of students' academic programs.
A second area which needs review by the College is the add/drop process. Fifty-four percent of the advisors had discussed the process with advisees; 84 percent of the respondents were satisfied with the attention given to the process. However, the responses to this survey item raised more questions than they answered and need further clarification. For example, advisors and counselors may need to demonstrate more concern about the reasons for dropping a course. Study of this topic may give insight into institutional effectiveness and retention.
The results of the survey revealed that 66 percent of the respondents agreed that advisors were helpful and effective. It is also important to note that 61 percent of the students had not changed advisors since they were enrolled at VHCC. Remarkably, no students changed advisors due to dissatisfaction. The small number of changes which took place were largely due to curricular changes or to advisors leaving. These figures indicated that the advising program operates well but still requires constant evaluation and alteration.
The students were also asked to respond to several questions regarding their perception of their advisors. They were asked to strongly agree, "agree," "strongly disagree," or "disagree" to the following statements:
a. Advisor knows who I am;
b. Advisor expresses an interest in me;
c. Advisor respects my opinions and feelings;
d. Advisor is available when I need assistance;
e. Advisor and I understand each other.
The responses revealed that 57 to 68 percent of students "strongly agree" or "agree" with these statements. The responses indicate that, in general, a great deal of rapport exists between advisor and advisee. However, if VHCC is to maintain and strengthen the already strong link between advising and retention, the data must be carefully scrutinized. Advisor-advisee relations are cited in the literature as a key component in student persistence and retention rates; the College must continue to improve.
Another important issue requiring more study is the amount of time spent in advisor-advisee conferences. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents had met with their advisors, and 68 percent were satisfied that the amount of time spent was sufficient. Some freshmen, part-timers, and students working more than twenty hours while taking classes felt the need for more time.
A corollary question was asked regarding the length of the meeting between the advisor and the advisee. Sixty percent had met for only five to fifteen minutes, 20 percent met for less than five minutes, 13 percent met for sixteen to thirty minutes, and only 5 percent had seen their advisor for more than thirty minutes. Even though the survey reveals great satisfaction with the overall process, more time clearly needs to be allotted for advising. The difficulty will be in convincing faculty that more of their valuable time should be taken for the advising function.
Summary
This problem brings us back to an earlier premise. In order for change to occur, the importance of the change must be communicated in a clearly understandable way. One solution may be to place more emphasis on this function in the evaluation process. Perhaps student advising should become an element in the overall evaluation of instruction.
Both students and instructors perceive a clear relationship between academic advising and academic integrity . Sound academic advising by faculty improves academic quality. Clarification of purpose is the dominant factor in students' perception of advising and should be the faculty advisor's benchmark in measuring his or her own effectiveness as an advisor. Faculty must learn to distinguish between students who need a quick signature and those who need in-depth counseling. Students expect encouragement toward their goals from the faculty and, in particular, from their faculty advisors. Advisor enthusiasm and interest is important to the students' perception of their own probable success.
Students should have some flexibility in choosing who advises them. The advising process must reach all students, since evening students, working students, and unclassified students are typically least satisfied with the advising they receive. For most, scheduling is the most important part of the process, but students also see knowledge of program requirements, acceptable substitutions, and transferability of courses as faculty advisor turf.
Improving student advising hinges on a formalized, systematic process of periodic evaluation of the advising process. Specific, usable information must flow from counselors, administrators, and students to advisors through the college-wide assessment process, and findings must evoke visible and meaningful institutional change. Faculty advisor training should be a conspicuous part of faculty development. Finally, the quality of faculty advising should be linked to planning and allocation of institutional resources and be used as an indicator of the overall effectiveness of the instructional program.
Works Cited
Clark, B. (1983). The contradictions of change in academic systems. Higher Education, 12, 101-116.
Deal, T. (1984, Fall). Educational change: Revival tent, tinkertoys, jungle or carnival. Teachers College Record, 86 (1), 124-137.
Keller, G. (1986). Academic strategy: The management revolution in american higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Jim E. Geiger is Chairman of the Business, Humanities, and Social Services Division at Virginia Highlands Community College.
G. Michael Rush is Dean of Student Development Services at Southwest Virginia Community College.