Advising Students for Success in Higher Education: An All-Out Effort

Abstract

Advising students for success in higher education has always been an important and challenging task. This becomes even more critical nowadays as most higher education institutions are trying to boost their enrollment and improve their retention so that they can be self-sufficient financially and sustainable economically. Research studies on student advising in higher education are abundant. A comprehensive literature review, however, shows that these research studies tend to be myopic in scope and quantitative in methodology. In this research, we attempt to depict a holistic view of an all-out effort on advising students for success, by describing practical approaches and collecting relevant narratives at four levels, including university, college, department, and faculty. It is our hope that this research can help people—whether they are school administrators, faculty members, or college students—have a holistic view of student advising and be successful in their role in higher education.

Keywords

academic advising quality satisfaction retention higher education

Introduction

Advising students for success has always been an important and challenging task in higher education. It is important because it is related to the student’s success, satisfaction, and retention. It is challenging because every student is unique, and program requirements vary depending on the catalog year in which a student is enrolled. Advising students for success becomes even more critical nowadays as most higher education institutions are trying to boost their enrollment and improve their retention so that they can be self-sufficient financially and sustainable economically. Public institutions are facing financial difficulties because funds from the state government are decreasing. Private institutions are also facing financial challenges as private contributions are dwindling because economic growth is stagnant. As both public and private institutions rely more and more on tuition, student enrollment and retention are becoming more and more critical and so is student advising.

In reality, student advising has never been a priority in an institution’s agenda or on a faculty member’s to-do list. Most institutions place more value on creating new programs, constructing or renovating new buildings, and securing outside funds than on student advising. In a teaching-oriented university, faculty members are evaluated on teaching, research, and service. In a research-oriented university, faculty members are evaluated on research, teaching, and service. There is no such thing as a service-oriented university. To make things worse, there is “a lack of incentives for faculty to provide high-quality advising” (Hossler, Ziskin, & Gross, 2009, p. 8). It is not uncommon that people place more value on a teaching award or a research award than on a service award.

Research studies on student advising in higher education are abundant. A comprehensive literature review, however, shows that these research studies tend to be myopic in scope and quantitative in methodology. In this research, we attempt to depict a holistic view of an all-out effort on advising students for success, using a grounded qualitative method. Practical approaches to improving the quality of student advising are described, and relevant narratives are collected at four levels, including university, college, department, and faculty. Results of this research include, among others, narrative data on university programs, college practices, department approaches, and faculty styles, which are all essential to student advising. It is our hope that this research can help people—whether they are school administrators, faculty members, or college students—have a holistic view of student advising and be successful in their role in higher education.

Literature Review

Definitions of Advising

Advising, also known as student advising or academic advising, has been defined in many different ways, each with distinct focuses and dimensions. By applying student development concepts to academic advising, Crookston (1994) views advising as “a teaching function based on a negotiated agreement between the student and the teacher in which varying degrees of learning by both parties to the transaction are the product” (p. 9). To show the advantages of the developmental approach to advising as opposed to the traditional prescriptive approach to advising, he contrasts a list of 10 dimensions of the two approaches. These dimensions include abilities, motivation, rewards, maturity, initiative, control, responsibility, learning output, evaluation, and relationship. Abernathy and Engelland (2001) maintain that academic advising “serves to provide the primary guidance and direction a student needs to successfully navigate through the college course selection and registration process” (p. 97).

As a variation of student advising, appreciative advising has been widely adopted in higher education. Hutson, Bloom, and He (2014) define appreciative advising as “the intentional, collaborative practice of asking positive, open-ended questions that help students optimize their educational experiences and achieve their dreams, goals, and potentials” (p. 48). When applied, appreciative advising works best with a six-phase framework proposed by Bloom, Hutson, and He (2008). The six phases include disarm, discover, dream, design, deliver, and don’t settle.

In a different vein, Ullman (2009) states that “the goal of the advisor is to teach someone how to become an independent thinker, inventor, and problem-solver” (p. 34). In this case, he is referring to advising doctoral students, which is beyond the scope of this article. With that said, Ullman’s work is worth being mentioned here because it does provide us an utterly different angle to review the mission on advising undergraduate students.

Advising-Related Theories and Models

Advising-related theories and models, such as the Deming Cycle and the appreciative advising framework, are all cyclical in nature, following a constructivist philosophy. By maintaining that “practice and theory are cyclical and dependent upon each other,” Musser (2012) believes that constructivism lays the foundation for the current and historical theories and practices. As such, he suggests that we should adopt a constructivist philosophy as “a common framework from which to hang the theories on advising and ultimately the development of exemplary strategies and techniques for the advising professional.”

The Deming Cycle (Deming, 2000) or PDSA Cycle was applied in improving the quality of advisement service in higher education (e.g., Montano, Hunt, & Boudreaux, 2005). This model maintains that quality improvement is a cyclical and never-ending process; as such, to improve the service quality of student advising, we need to go through each of the PDSA phases. According to Montano et al. (2005, p. 1,106), PDSA stands for plan (plan a change or a test, aimed at improvement), do (carry out the change or the test, preferably on a small scale), study (study the results. What did we learn? What went wrong?), and act (adopt the change, or abandon it, or run through the cycle again).

Building upon their previous work on appreciative advising, Bloom et al. (2008) updated their appreciative advising framework to six phases, including disarm, discover, dream, design, deliver, and don’t settle. In a classic work on student retention, Tinto (1994) synthesizes far-ranging research on student attrition and on actions institutions can and should take to reduce it. Using his theory of student departure, he demonstrates that the key to effective retention is in a strong commitment to quality education and the building of a strong sense of inclusive educational and social community on campus.

Empirical Studies on Advising

Empirical studies on student advising are abundant, and they tend to lean heavily on quantitative methodologies. In a study of faculty opinions about student advising, significant differences were found between small and large schools, between private and public institutions, between Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and non-AACSB accredited institutions, and between teaching-oriented and research-oriented institutions (Shields & Gillard, 2002, p. 37). In another research study, several significant differences in both needs and expectations were found between traditional and nontraditional college students, particularly for first-generation college students (Kim & Feldman, 2011).

Hutson et al. (2014) found that appreciative advising has positive impact on academic achievement and retention rates. Montano et al. (2005) demonstrated that properly applying the Deming Cycle improves the quality of advisement service in higher education. Dawson and Watson (2007) provided a total of nine best practice suggestions, with Best Practice 2 being that “both the student and [the] faculty member need to respect the value and the timing of academic advising” (p. 6). The findings by Abernathy and Engelland (2001) indicated that advising frequency and advising recency have a positive relationship with advising quality, and student academic prowess has a negative relationship with advising quality.

In a different vein, Thompson and Prieto (2013) studied virtualized advising, which is a means by which advising is provided through an impersonal means such as via an online advising program. Benefits of such an advising system include consistent quality and 24/7 availability. However, their findings indicated that a virtualized advising system would not successfully replicate the encouragement factor found in the face-to-face advising.

Phillips (2013) suggested that we should use modern technology and data analytics to improve student advising. She introduced a system called eAdvisor, which “helps students find majors in which they are likely to succeed; keeps them progressing toward a degree; and makes advisors more informed, efficient, and effective” (p. 48).

Issues in Advising-Related Literature

After a comprehensive review of advising-related literature, we have identified two prominent issues. One, the existing research tends to be myopic in scope (e.g., Abernathy & Engelland, 2001; Kim & Feldman, 2011; Shields & Gillard, 2002; Thompson & Prieto, 2013). This may mislead us to only see the tree but miss the forest. Two, the existing research tends to rely heavily on quantitative methodologies (e.g., Abernathy & Engelland, 2001; Kim & Feldman, 2011; Shields & Gillard, 2002; Thompson & Prieto, 2013). This may result in missed opportunities to collect detailed-oriented qualitative data which are rather promising in answering how and why questions (Conboy, Fitzgerald, & Mathiassen, 2012). We believe that improving the quality of student advising requires an all-out effort from all the stakeholders of a higher education institution. We also believe that by systematically using a grounded qualitative method, we can create additional opportunities to improve our understanding and practice in student advising in higher education. These are the very reasons for this current research.

Methodology

The focus of this research is student advising in higher education. We try to address the two prominent issues that we had identified after a comprehensive review of advising-related literature. The first issue is that the existing research tends to be myopic in scope. The second issue is that the existing research tends to rely heavily on quantitative methodologies. To overcome both issues, we adopted a grounded qualitative method and systematically collected narrative data at four levels, including university, college, department, and faculty.

Even though we try to depict a holistic view of student advising, it is impossible to exhaust every effort we are doing in our university—University of North Alabama (UNA), college—College of Business (COB), department—Department of Computer Science and Information Systems (CSIS), and by our faculty members. As such, we have to make conscious decisions on what to include in this article and what to exclude from this article. Following is a list of the things we have decided to include in our article.

At the university level, we focused on the UNA’s university advising program. At the college level, we focused on the COB’s Advising Process. At the department level, we focused on the CSIS’s Modified Group Advising Approach. At the faculty level, we focused on a faculty member’s reflection on her personal student advising experiences.

By systematically collecting qualitative data, not only can we create a holistic view of student advising but also we can create additional opportunities to improve our understanding and practice in student advising. It is our hope that this research can help school administrators, faculty members, and college students see the whole picture of student advising so that each of them can be successful in his or her own role in higher education.

Results

UNA’s University Advising Program

Starting college can be overwhelming; as such, understanding the challenges that students face is crucial to increasing student retention. In the Fall 2014 semester, the UNA implemented a student-centered university advising program to address this issue. This program is based on the foundation of several student development theories, including the theory of student departure (Tinto, 1994), constructivism (Musser, 2012), and appreciative advising (Bloom et al., 2008). Faculty members who apply for and are accepted into the university advising program are called university advisors. University advisors undergo three initial training sessions including one on developmental theory and appreciative advising, one on university policies and available resources, and one on the specific general studies requirements for each department at the university. One follow-up session is required each academic year, which varies in content. In 2015, the follow-up session was a refresher in each of the specific general studies requirements for each department. Being trained in requirements for all departments allows university advisors to advise any freshman student, regardless of their intended major. The purpose of having a broader advising knowledge is to assist students who are undecided in their major, who may be enrolled in a major that is not a good fit for them, and who may decide to change majors.

As part of the university advisor application process, applicants are asked to describe their experience with advising students, particularly freshman, and explain why they want to be a university advisor. I applied to be a university advisor because I had several years of experience advising undergraduate students during my 11 years working at UNA in various positions (the narrator is one of the coauthors on the article). In 2014, my first year as a university advisor, I was assigned 30 students. In 2015, I only had about 15 students. In the beginning, I try to provide as much information as possible, including prescriptive course scheduling. By the end of the first year, I try to start transitioning the students into taking more responsibility for their own course scheduling and goal setting. Rather than solving all of their problems, I try to help them learn how to problem solve for themselves.

In the university advising program, advisors may begin by prescribing course schedules and activities to students based on their expertise and an individual student’s interests or declared major. As the student progresses, transitioning to developmental advising allows the student to become more responsible for his or her own academic decisions and goals. Developmental advising allows an advisor and a student to discuss the student’s academic and career goals, requiring the student to problem solve and commit to a route of achieving those goals. Still, university advising strives to be much more than just assisting students with course scheduling. A university advisor develops a relationship with his or her students, so that he or she can better assist them with setting realistic goals and developing an academic plan to meet those goals.

Going through the three initial university advisor training sessions was an eye opener to me because I felt like I was pretty knowledgeable of campus policies and resources but I learned so much more during the training sessions. The university has many more resources than I was originally aware of, most of them were fairly new resources. For example, the university now has a program called Feeding the Pride, which serves as a food pantry for students in need. Students may go to the food pantry up to twice per week and receive food. They must show their student identification (The Mane Card) for entry. This food pantry is stocked by donations from faculty and staff. Knowing about resources such as this is crucial to helping students transition to living away from home. A university advisor has a thorough knowledge of UNA policies, procedures, services, and departmental requirements for degree programs in order to assist students and refer them to an appropriate department or office when necessary. I have outlined below three examples of my experiences as a university advisor.

Example 1: Advising a Freshman

About a year ago, a first-time freshman advisee met with me to discuss his trouble transitioning to the college environment. He had never been away from home before and was very homesick. He wanted to see his family more, but worked at a restaurant on the weekends, which prevented him from going home to visit his family. After talking with him and learning what his needs and goals were, I learned that he needed to work to help with his living expenses, so quitting his job was not an option. I suggested that he search for a job on campus as a student worker. As a student worker, he would still be able to earn money while spending more time on campus might help him better acclimate to the campus community. Additionally, working on campus would allow him to go home and visit his family on the weekends and holidays, if desired. I referred him to the UNA Department of Career Planning and Development where he did apply for and obtain a job on campus, which enabled him to leave his previous place of employment. He appears to be happy with this choice and to date he is still working on campus and is doing well in his classes. He still occasionally visits his family.

Example 2: Advising an Undecided Student

Over the past year, I have been working with a student who originally applied to the university as a Computer Information Systems major but has since decided that was not something she wanted. She has not yet decided what major she wants to pursue. My original prescription was for her to complete all of her general education courses that could apply to all majors. She has finished her general education coursework, but she has still not decided on a major, although she knows that her interests are animals and outdoors. When we met for advising this semester, I told her about some of the animal-related biology classes that we offered that may be interesting and beneficial if she decided to go to veterinary school later on. I also showed her a list of health and physical education classes that had options for outdoor activities. She browsed through the course schedule and undergraduate catalog for a while and she finally decided to take one of each type of class so she could get a better feel for each major to hopefully help her decide which one she preferred. This is still a work in progress.

Example 3: Advising a Disgruntled Student

A new advisee this semester contacted me during the second week of class with a complaint about one of his professors. It turns out, he registered for a couple of classes back to back that were on opposite sides of campus and he did not have enough time to walk from one class to the other in the 10-minute break between classes. He learned that the professor of his second class takes up homework at the beginning of class and will not accept it after that time. This student was late to class (because he has to walk across campus), and he tried to turn his homework in but the professor would not accept it because it was late and therefore he received a zero for the homework assignment. The disgruntled student contacted me requesting the proper chain of command so that he could go over the professor’s head to try and resolve the issue. Dropping the class was not an option due to the minimum number of hours required to keep his financial aid. I let the student know that I understood his concern and frustration and was here to help him. I let him know that each professor has the discretion of declaring their own classroom policies, including whether or not they will accept late homework. I also let him know that if this was the professor’s policy that it should be clearly stated in the course syllabus. Rather than going over the professor’s head, I suggested that he talk to the professor and let her know his situation, asking if they could work out some type of arrangement, such as having the student stop by the professor’s office to turn in his homework a day early. An alternative suggestion would be to talk with the professor of the first class about the feasibility of leaving class just a few minutes early, and whether there would be any repercussions of doing so. In the end, it was the first professor who agreed to allow the student to leave class just a few minutes early so that the student could make it across campus in time for the beginning of his second class. I was grateful that this student was able to work this out with his professor. I encouraged him to look at this as a learning experience and to make sure he knew where his classes were located when he was making a schedule so he could plan enough time to get from one class to the next.

As stated earlier, university advising is not specific to a major or a department. Rather, it requires a university advisor to have a broader knowledge of all departments and majors, as well as campus resources, in an effort to assist students with whatever needs and goals they may have. A webpage was created https://www.una.edu/successcenter/uas/ to provide resources, including an Advising Manual, which all university advisors must abide by. Furthermore, the University has subscribed to a software package called Beacon for use in the first-year experience and university advising programs to support early intervention and will seek input on the success of that program in the coming months.

COB’s Advising Process

Student advising begins with admission to the university. COB faculty and staff actively participate in the student orientation, advisement, and registration program for freshman and transfer students. Additionally, all faculty members are engaged in student advising and are typically assigned students with majors within a faculty member’s discipline. The COB uses two control mechanisms to assure that undergraduate students are advised. The first advising control ensures that students are unable to register each semester until they meet with their advisor and receive a unique personal identification number (PIN) from the advisor. These PINs are provided to the advisor at the beginning of each advising period and change each semester. The second advising control involves a requirement that all students must apply for formal admission into their COB major program at the end of the sophomore year. All students who are admitted, readmitted, or who transfer into the UNA COB are initially classified as Pre-BBA students. Pre-Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) students are not allowed to register for upper level (300–400 level) courses because they have not yet been formally admitted to the major. Students must complete a certain set of requirements before they can apply for formal admission into their chosen BBA major. Those requirements included the following:

Complete 45 semester hours.

Complete or be currently enrolled in each of the following: First-Year Composition I and II, Literature I and II, fundamentals of speech, math requirement, science requirement, history requirement, micro and macro economics, statistics, Accounting I and II, business law, business applications of microcomputer software, and business ethics.

Maintain an overall grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 (on a 4.0 scale) or higher on all work attempted.

Submit an online application for formal admission to BBA major on this website https://www.una.edu/business/bba/.

Once a student has been formally admitted into the BBA major, they may register for upper level courses to continue through their program. Additionally, they must complete the following courses their first semester following admission to the BBA (unless the courses were previously completed): second science requirement, second history requirement, second statistics requirement, and information systems. Students who fail to meet the requirements for moving from pre-BBA to BBA status are notified by the COB.

After formal admission to the BBA major has been granted, students must continue to maintain minimum GPA requirements to continue with their major. Students who fall below minimum GPA requirements are notified of a change in their enrollment status according to the provisions of the appropriate catalog. Notification is handled through the registrar’s office for undergraduates who are placed on probation or suspension.

Furthermore, students are provided with a number of resources to assist in their retention and ultimate success in their majors. For UNA’s first-year experience program, the COB has an average of 10 of these sections per semester and incorporates information concerning how to successfully navigate through their BBA major. Approximately 10 COB faculty and two staff members participate in the UNA’s university advising program.

The university provides advising, counseling, tutoring, study habits, and time management resources for students who are at risk. The COB has an active advising program designed to give support to all undergraduate students in course selection and sequencing, selection of majors, attention to grades and student habits, workloads, and other matters related to student success in the program. In addition, a peer tutoring program has been initiated in the BBA foundation courses to directly associate additional resources within the classroom with students who need assistance with the course materials.

In the Spring 2015 semester, the COB engaged with Collegis Education on a pilot project to build an early intervention process in business courses. Collegis Education is a service organization that helps colleges and universities navigate the changing landscape of higher education, especially in reaching students, growing enrollments, and improving student outcomes. On their website, they claim that the majority of their partners have seen double-digit growth rates. The software development pilot sought ways to automate such things as falling grades and attendance gaps utilizing the reporting capabilities of Canvas by Instructure, a learning management system adopted by UNA. Collegis Education has received feedback from the faculty concerning the success of this approach and is working to enhance the solution for further deployment and testing.

CSIS’s Modified Group Advising Approach

Background Information

Starting in the Fall 2009 semester, the chair of the CSIS in the COB at the UNA decided to implement a modified group advising program as an alternative to the traditional individual student to faculty member advising method used by the faculty and students in the department. As others had discovered earlier, given the increasing complexity of curriculum and administrative requirements, advising has become a process that requires additional expertise on the part of a faculty member and one that uses more of their time as well (Aucoin, Jones, Letvak, Crane, & Gilbert, 2004). Students have other burdens on their time outside of the classroom such as employment or family issues that hinder the traditional advising model (Aucoin et al., 2004), and the department chair wanted a program that could offer additional flexibility to allow students to accommodate these needs. The department chair also wanted to offer an additional advising option that helped reduce the advising burden placed on faculty members in the department while at the same time providing students with an improved advising experience.

The goals for the program were as follows. First, give students a better advising experience by providing them all of the information they need to make their own decisions about class schedules. This meant that the information provided had to be accurate, timely, and consistent with each faculty member in the department. Given this, advising forms and checklists were created and regularly updated to make the class selection process quick, simple, and foolproof. The forms and worksheets used by the department for modified group advising were developed to minimize the students’ need to refer to the college catalog simply because many students are intimidated by the size of an average catalog and choose not to use it (Dillon & Fisher, 2000). The modified group advising system also gave students another way to be advised if they did not work well with their assigned faculty advisor in the system. Second, make students aware that graduating in only 4 years was possible and show them how it can be done. The key to doing this was the creation of several forms: a departmental 4-year course plan, a prerequisite chart, and a projected 2-year course offering departmental worksheet. These forms were updated for each catalog year and contained all of the required information necessary for the student to graduate in four academic years. If a student selected classes based on the information provided by these forms and assuming they did well in the classes, they could complete their degree in 4 years. These forms also helped students see obscure details that commonly delay graduation such as having a minimum of 120 hours of credit. These forms also assisted the department with recruiting new students and retaining current ones. Potential students and their parents were frequently put at ease to see that it was possible to finish the program in a period of 4 years. Third, reduce the advising workload of all faculty members in the department. On average, it was found that properly advising students on an individual basis took 30 minutes per student, and each faculty member was assigned 25 advisees on average. Therefore, advising 25 students individually would take a faculty member about 750 minutes (30 minutes per student × 25 students = 750 minutes) per semester. Under the modified group advising program, a single faculty member would convey information to an entire group of students for 30 minutes. After this, additional faculty members would join the meeting and it would take around 5 minutes to advise each student individually. Under this arrangement, a group of 25 students could be advised in 155 minutes total faculty time (30 minutes group + [25 students × 5 individual minutes per student] = 155 minutes total). In reality, it did not take 155 total minutes to conduct a modified group advising session from start to finish because multiple faculty members were handling individual advising at the same time. A typical modified group advising session took about 45 to 60 minutes to complete. Fourth, make students aware of nonadvising information that was important to them. Modified group advising sessions gave the department the opportunity to present information of any nature to students. This was particularly valuable because students were never together for any other reason. The department believed that effectiveness of communicating with students via email was spotty at best (Aucoin et al., 2004), and making announcements during classes was viewed as too much of an interference with normal class activities. Examples of this kind of information included but were not limited to the availability of internships, membership into the association for computing machinery, and the association for information systems, as well as scholarships and participation in an overseas study.

Related Literature

Education has been summarized as “communication between a faculty member and a student” and that “the more intimate that communication, the more likely the results will be long lasting” (Cogdell, 1995, p. 65). However, in regard to the traditional individualized advising approach, faculty members have noted many obstacles to this ideal. They point out that many students arrive to the advising session ill-prepared and ready to be told exactly what to do (Dillon & Fisher, 2000). Also, faculty members have stated that they are burdened by other responsibilities that leave little time to prepare for advising, and they are frustrated by some faculty members “carrying disproportionate advising loads to compensate” for other faculty members who do not perform well in this area (Dillon & Fisher, 2000). Faculty members also noted that advising should only be assigned to those who do it well and that advising should count in promotion and tenure decisions (Dillon & Fisher, 2000). Other research points out that the success of any advising program lies in building a relationship between the student and the advisor (Coll & Zalaquett, 2007) and that a good advising program can also increase student retention (Montag, Campo, Weissman, Walmsley, & Snell, 2012). Also, the key for faculty to be successful in advising lies in receiving good training in this area. Many faculty are hesitant or unwilling to serve as advisors because “they don’t want to put the student’s degree completion in jeopardy” due to their lack of preparedness (Cuevas, Loya, & Bachman, 2015).

The council for the advancement of standards in higher education has published a list of goals for the advising process. These goals included the following: (a) Help students understand themselves, (b) Help students make decisions about educational and career goals, (c) Monitor their academic progress, (d) Encourage students to assess their own progress, (e) Educate students about university policies, and (f) Direct students to resources that can help them.

These goals are complicated by the fact that the current generation of undergraduate students (millennials) see themselves differently, and they present a special challenge to educators. Generally, millennials think of themselves as special and deserving of individualized attention. They are also accustomed to being protected, working in teams, and relying on others for support. Additionally, as a group, they tend to respond negatively to failure and have a lack of intrinsic desire (Montag et al., 2012). Given these characteristics, some research suggests that a “dual or split model of advising” is appropriate for millennials because it “provides quick, straightforward advice about majors, courses offerings, and requirements” while still meeting their need for individualized attention (Montag et al., 2012, p. 32).

Students who are performing poorly academically or who are on academic probation are not uncommon among computer science and computer information systems majors given the difficulty of the coursework. These students present their own unique challenges to advising. Research has noted that advising these types of students in a group environment is beneficial for them (Austin, Cherney, Crowner, & Hill, 1997) and that group advising for all students is an effective and efficient advising technique (Battin, 2014). One article notes that success in a computer science program is mostly based on previous computer experience, math and verbal skills, and age (Battin, 2014). However, effective advising can be a contributing factor to the success of computer science and computer information systems students (Oman, 1986).

Direct comparisons of the group advising approach to traditional one-on-one advising have been completed and published. These evaluations discovered that group advising has a significantly lower average advising time per student that can save the faculty member as much as 30 hours per semester. In addition, it was determined that both the student knowledge of college procedures and policies and the satisfaction of students with the advising process were unaffected by the method of advising (Grahn, Kahn, & Kroll, 1982).

Implementation

To use the modified group advising program each semester, the first step was to select the days and times for the sessions. While scheduling, care was taken to avoid Mondays (students would forget over the weekends) and Fridays (students simply are not going to attend on a Friday). During the fall and spring semesters, the department normally held four sessions during daytime hours while avoiding common class times. Also, one night session was held to accommodate evening students. The dates selected were usually prior to preregistration milestones (i.e., date that juniors could begin to register, dates that sophomores could start registering). It was also determined that it was more effective and efficient to have Junior/Senior sessions and Freshman/Sophomore sessions. Given this structure, the department could tailor the information being presented to the appropriate group. For example, upper level students did not need to know about the requirements for being admitted into a major because they had already been admitted into one. Therefore, modified group advising sessions normally looked similar to the following: Session 1: junior or senior level, daytime; Session 2: junior or senior level, daytime; Session 3: any level, evening; Session 4: freshman or sophomore, daytime; and Session 5: freshman or sophomore, daytime.

Dates, times, and locations of modified group advising sessions were posted throughout the building and sent to students via email. While participation in a modified group advising was voluntary, students that wanted to attend were required to sign up for a session with the departmental administrative assistant. This was done so the administrative assistant could print the following for each student and put them into a folder. This constituted an individual advising packet for each student:

Student’s current transcript.

The 4-year plan of study forms for computer science and computer information systems. These forms contained the entire curriculum for the undergraduate computer science degree and for the undergraduate computer information systems degree. Classes are presented in a recommended, but not required, semester order. Major courses and electives are color coded. At the bottom of the form, obscure college catalog requirements were listed so they could be checked off when completed.

The prerequisite charts for computer science and computer information systems. Since the department and college rigorously enforce prerequisite requirements because of the accreditation board for engineering and technology standards, it was much more helpful for students to see course prerequisite information in the visual format as shown versus a written format as presented in the college catalog. Also, note the colors used on the 4-year plan match those used on the prerequisite chart, and they have the same meaning.

The specific PIN Number unique to each student which allowed students to register once the registration system was open for them.

The 2 year projected departmental course offering worksheets. These worksheets show the projected offering schedule for every computer science and computer information systems course over the next six semesters. This allowed students to think and plan their course schedules for the next two to three semesters. Additionally, these forms had the added benefit of helping computer science and computer information systems classes meet minimum class size requirements because students would routinely plan to take classes with each other to fulfill these requirements. Also, note that using these forms required discipline on the part of the faculty and the department. If a class was on the projected schedule, alterations to the class were not allowed. For example, the worksheet shows CS 310 would be offered during the day as a traditional face-to-face class in the fall semester only. The professor would not be allowed to change it to an online course or an evening class since it had been published on the form and made available to students. This gave students a great deal of confidence when planning out their schedules. But, students also realized that while a class would always be offered, if it did not meet the minimum enrollment size during preregistration it was subject to being cancelled.

All of these forms were made available to both students and faculty members via the Internet. Additionally, copies were printed and placed on a shelf located in the hallway outside of the office of the departmental administrative assistant so that students and faculty members could access them as needed. It became common for all students, whether they participated in the modified advising program or not, to use these forms to plan their course schedules for upcoming semesters. It also became commonplace for faculty members to use these forms for their advisees in both modified group advising sessions and during traditional one-one-one advising meetings with their advisees.

When the modified group advising program was first implemented, the department offered randomly drawn door prizes, sodas, and candy to entice students to come to the meetings. After a couple of semesters, it was realized that these enticements were no longer necessary and everything but the candy was eliminated.

At the time of a modified group advising sessions, students would arrive and record their attendance on a sign-in sheet. The administrative assistant would use this list to email all of the professors in the department to let them know if one of their advisees had attended a modified group advising session. If a student came to a modified advising session without registering for it beforehand, they would be sent to the administrative assistant so she could quickly create an advising packet for them.

To start the meeting, a single faculty member, assisted by a PowerPoint presentation, would speak for about 20 minutes to the entire group. The PowerPoint presented important generalized advising and nonadvising information. Once this presentation was complete, other faculty members would join the session. The advising packets would be distributed to each student. Using their transcripts, students would fill out their 4-year plan by marking their completed classes and classes they were currently taking. Students would then meet individually with a faculty member to discuss and select their course schedules for the next semester.

Results and Lessons Learned

Overall, the department found that once students attended a modified group advising session, they would frequently choose to use it again semester after semester. Students liked the certainty that they could come to a short meeting, be advised individually, and leave with their registration PIN number and a proposed schedule for the next semester in hand. Students also liked the convenience of not having to worry about working around their assigned advisor’s schedule or dealing with making an appointment to meet with a faculty member. After a couple of semesters, the department was routinely advising half of the department’s students through this program.

Other benefits included the ability to steer students toward departmental courses that historically had trouble meeting minimum enrollment requirements. Advisors would tell students “if it fits in your schedule, it would be helpful to your fellow peers for you to take this particular course this semester because if we do not achieve minimum enrollment requirements then the class will be cancelled.” Anecdotes indicated that this tactic was extremely useful in helping summer semester class offerings meet minimum enrollment requirements.

Encouraging students to minor in a departmental degree or to participate in other departmental offerings (e.g., HCI or UX program, robotics program) helped to ensure that departmental classes would meet the minimum number to make and would help grow these programs. In addition, modified group advising sessions gave the department a forum to answer students’ questions about new classes and new programs offered by the department.

Several faculty members in the department thought that the advising forms were so useful that they would not advise students in any manner until they had completed the 4-year plan document. The department also realized that the modified group advising process could be a bit of an administrative burden. Having a competent administrative assistant to handle the administrative process is vital to ensure the success of the program.

The department chair was also convinced that this process saved student’s time and money. It prevented them from making scheduling mistakes, taking unnecessary classes, incurring late registration or class change fees, or staying in college for extra semesters. The department chair also believed that by preventing students from making scheduling mistakes, departmental faculty and staff members had saved the time and effort it took to react to and resolve these mistakes (e.g., course substitutions).

An additional benefit of the modified group advising program is that it came to serve as an unofficial training program for new faculty members in the department on advising issues. Traditionally, new faculty members were not assigned advisees during their first year of employment to give them time to settle into the university and to allow them to become familiar with administrative policies and the nuances of the department’s curriculum and courses. While it was not required, several new faculty members chose to attend the presentation portion of a modified group advising session and then shadow other faculty members as they advised students in order to improve their skill set in this area.

A Faculty’s Personal Reflection on Student Advising

It is that time of the semester again. The 3 weeks preceding preregistration are when students make a mad dash to the office of their advisors to receive their PIN for registration. At least, that is the student’s goal. As an advisor, my goal (the narrator is another coauthor on the article) is to give them advice, including advice on selecting courses for the coming semester, advice for coordinating their classes where they will not be overloaded, and advice on reaching everyone’s goal—graduation and a job.

The registrar’s office manages a student records system which allows each advisor to see a list of the students assigned to them as advisees. Each semester as preregistration time approaches, I send an email to my advisees encouraging them to sign up for an advising appointment with me. Not only will they receive their PIN, they will also receive advice about their college career. Some of these advisees will be students I have advised for 4 years or more. Some will be in the middle of their college career. Others will be beginning freshmen. The first email goes out to all my advisees about 3 weeks prior to preregistration. A reminder will be sent to all students who have not scheduled an appointment about a week and a half into preregistration. Another email will be sent the last week of the preregistration period to individuals who have not been advised for the upcoming semester.

Scenario 1: Advising a Beginning Freshman

A name and a number, this is all I know about Robert Smith, L9876543. His name appeared on my list of advisees today. Before Mr. Smith enters the door of my office for his advising session, there is much work to be done. I need to learn as much about Mr. Smith as I can before our session begins. My first step is to open my files and take out a crisp white sheet of paper, a form actually. This 4-year plan form will see Mr. Smith go from a beginning freshman to a college graduate. It will be his guide, his North Star, for reaching the goal.

As I search the university’s online records system, I see Mr. Smith took the first semester of English composition as an early scholar student while still in high school. I record his grade attained, and semester taken on the 4-year plan. I look at Mr. Smith’s math score on the ACT and see he scored a 20. Mr. Smith will need to take a foundation course in Algebra before proceeding to a math course from the approved list in the catalog, which satisfies the math requirement. The 4-year plan makes developing a student’s schedule for the next semester very easy. Just follow the courses prescribed for the semester shown on the plan. Sounds easy, right? It is not always that easy. When Mr. Smith visits my office for an advising session, the easy plan could in fact be easy or it could be changed dramatically. I may discover Mr. Smith is working 40 hours per week and can only take two classes a semester—at night. Alternatively, I may find Mr. Smith has a disability for which he needs special accommodations. There are various reasons why the 4-year plan might turn into a multiyear plan.

Our first advising session is where I learn about the student, their career plans and goals (or the lack thereof), their life outside the university, and what they consider their academic strengths and weaknesses. I record as much information as possible on the 4-year plan, writing in the appropriate boxes information about their past courses and courses planned for the upcoming semester. I may write other information in the margins, at the bottom, or on the back. Anything I can record will help me remember specifics about this student at our next session. This form will be filed in a folder marked with the student’s name. This folder will be accessed many times over the next 4 years or so, as we have subsequent advising sessions. I am reminded of the old adage: “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Students need to know they are not just a number but a person. A real live person who will take classes interacts with teams on group projects, converse with professors, and someday be a college graduate in the real live world.

The university can place a hold on a student’s record for various reasons. They might have an unpaid parking ticket, a bill for fees that have not been paid, a release that has not been signed, and so on. This hold is recorded in the student records system and can be seen by the student and their advisor. I always check the holds on a student and strongly advise them to clear the holds immediately. Failure to clear the holds will result in a student being unable to register for classes.

The last step before a student leaves the advising session is to give them their PIN. Without this PIN, a student cannot register. I typically write this on a small sticky note and tell them to put it in their wallet for safekeeping. While the student is still sitting across from my desk, I write an email to the student recording the classes we discussed for preregistration and also their PIN. If they lose the sticky note or the list of classes I have given them, they will then have an electronic copy of their plan.

Scenario 2: Advising an Upcoming Junior

Kelli Jones came by the office today to sign up for an advising appointment. You see, Kelli has been my advisee for more than a year now and she understands the importance of early advising. If she has completed her advising session, she will be ready to preregister as soon as her classification is allowed to preregister. She comes into the office with a list of courses she is considering taking for the coming semester. I open her file and check her academic transcript in the online records system against the plan we made the last time she visited with me. I record her completion of courses from the last semester and the grade she attained in each. It is also important to check on the progress of her classes in the current semester. If she is having trouble in a class, I can give her helpful information about tutoring, talking to the professor, or possibly advice to drop the class before the last drop date to protect her GPA. Kelli is completing her sophomore year. It is at this time that she needs to apply for admission to the BBA major. There are several courses which must be completed before a student can be admitted to their chosen major. There are a few courses which must be completed either before a student is admitted or in the semester immediately following acceptance into the major (see the section of COB’s Advising Process). I check Kelli’s records to ensure she has completed these courses. I also check her GPA since a GPA of 2.0 is required for admittance to the major. I give her information on the process of applying to the BBA major, including the website where she can find the online application. Admittance to the major is crucial. Without it, a student cannot participate in upper level classes. All notes from our session are included on Kelli’s 4-year plan. I check for holds on her record and advise her to take the steps necessary to remove those holds, if any. I give her the list of classes we discussed, her PIN, and send the email to her university account summarizing our session.

As a student reaches this time in their collegiate career, they are typically taking classes which require prerequisites. Occasionally, a student has not previously completed a necessary prerequisite. It may be that they desire to take the prerequisite in the same semester as the course that requires the prerequisite. Upon approval by the instructor of the course or the head of the department in which the course resides, the advisor can request a prerequisite permit. This permit will allow the student to register for the course without having completed the required prerequisite. This permit must be entered by the departmental administrative assistant before the student can register for the course specified.

As discussed earlier, admittance into the BBA major is required before taking upper level courses. If a student has not completed the required courses to apply for admittance and has no other lower level courses in the 4-year plan they can take, a program permit can be requested for specific upper level courses to allow the student to progress through the curriculum without losing a semester of time. This situation is to be treated as a rare exception to the rule. If proper guidelines are followed early in advising, this situation should not occur as the student will have taken the courses in the proper sequence and at the proper time for the student to be granted admittance into their major. This permit must also be entered by the departmental administrative assistant.

Scenario 3: Advising a Graduating Senior

Justin Williams is not only a student and an advisee but also a treasured friend. Justin and I have been working on his college career for 4 years now. He has one semester of coursework before he will graduate. It seems like only yesterday when he entered my office for the first time. When Justin arrives for his advising session, he shows me two papers: his copy of the 4-year plan and his graduation audit. In our advising session almost a year ago, we discussed the necessity of his applying for graduation with the registrar’s office. This task can be accomplished online and must be done before a set date or the student’s graduation will be delayed a semester. Receiving the student’s application is the beginning of the graduation audit process by the registrar’s office. The student’s academic record is checked against the requirements for the major, and a list of deficiencies is sent to the student and the student’s advisor. As we review the deficiencies set forth in Justin’s audit, we happily discover all deficiencies will be met with the courses he will take in his final semester. This is always one of my goals—no surprises on the graduation audit. As I did with Kelli, I will review Justin’s academic transcript from the previous semester and record his final grade in each. I will also check the status of his classes in this current semester. Holds are checked and permits are granted if necessary. Then lastly, I will check and double check that the list of courses remaining on his 4-year plan matches the list of deficiencies on the graduation audit which matches the online degree evaluation. Any discrepancies are dealt with immediately to ensure the accuracy of the information. When all the matches are confirmed, I give him a list of the classes we discussed, his PIN, and send him an email summarizing our session. Our last advising session is complete. I remind Justin that I am still available to assist him with any issues or problems that may arise during his final semester. If I am willing to serve as a recommendation to future employers, it is at this time that I would tell Justin how happy I would be to recommend him for positions of employment. I will also encourage him to keep in touch with me as he graduates and moves into the working world. Our graduates make excellent mentors for our students.

Summary and Other Thoughts

Seniors will typically arrive for their advising appointment extremely prepared. They know what courses they need to take in order to graduate and when these classes are offered. Juniors are acutely aware of there being prerequisites to some of the upper level classes and the necessity of these prerequisites being met in a timely manner. Sophomores are becoming more focused on their curriculum and realizing the importance of taking the classes as prescribed and advised. Freshmen need a great deal of handholding as they begin this journey toward graduation. They need assistance in academic areas as well as in personal areas of their lives.

Advising students through their college career can be very rewarding. While the process can be made easy by using the 4-year plan, one must always remember that not every student follows the plan as it is laid out. As students differ from one another, the 4-year plan will also differ to meet the requirements of the students. Following the guidelines for advising the students as they progress through the prescribed curriculum will ensure, there are no surprises when the graduation audit is received. The relationship you build with the student is something both the student and the advisor will treasure.

Discussion

Summary of Contents

In this article, we attempted to depict a holistic view on student advising by collecting narrative data at four levels. At the university level, we introduced the UNA’s university advising program. At the college level, we illustrated the COB’s Advising Process. At the department level, we described the CSIS’s Modified Group Advising Approach. At the faculty level, we reported a faculty’s reflection on her personal student advising experiences.

Theoretical Implications

This article has critical theoretical implications for student advising in higher education. When assessing the quality of student advising, we typically use items such as students’ satisfaction, advisors’ satisfaction, and students’ outcomes, for example, increased knowledge of academic environment, increased understanding of career goals, and so on. (Abernathy & Engelland, 2001; Coll & Zalaquett, 2007; Kim & Feldman, 2011). This article helps us understand that the antecedents of the quality of student advising are multidimensional. This article clearly demonstrated that programs, practices, approaches, and styles at the university level, college level, department level, and faculty level could impact the quality of student advising. As such, when assembling measurement items of antecedents of the quality of student advising, we need to be certain that all four levels should be adequately represented by the items. Otherwise, the measurement scale for the antecedents of the quality of student advising will be partial, resulting in biased assessment outcomes and prejudiced conclusions.

Practical Implications

This article has important practical implications for student advising in higher education. First, student advising in higher education needs efforts from multiple levels, including university, college, department, and faculty levels. Only emphasizing the effort at a certain level will probably not be enough for the best student advising outcomes. Second, there are so many programs, practices, approaches, and styles that can be adopted in order to improve the quality of student advising. Indeed, to maximize the effectiveness and the efficiency of student advising, all stakeholders should participate and play an active role in such an all-out effort. And finally, those programs, practices, approaches, and styles used at the university, college, department, and faculty levels should evolve over time. Improvements should be made to the old ways from the students’ and faculty’s feedback and lessons learned, and innovative ways of doing things should be added to continue perfecting the student advising processes and outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations. First, even though we tried to depict a holistic view on student advising by collecting narrative data from four levels, there was no way we could do it exhaustively because of time limit and word limit. We just presented some representative programs, practices, approaches, and styles at those levels, respectively. Future research is thus encouraged to collect more such narrative data focusing on this theme. Second, those narrative data were collected from only one university, one college, one department, and one faculty member, which may limit the applicability of the research findings. Future research should try to collect data from multiple institutions. Most importantly, narrative data should be collected from multiple faculty members with their personal experiences by focusing on their routine, best practices, lessons learned, and areas to improve pertaining to student advising. Third, this article does not contain any data from students, the main service recipients of student advising. Future research should survey students for their satisfaction of advising and collect narrative data from them about their good advising experiences, not so good advising experiences, their advisor’s major strengths or best features, and what their advisor could do to improve the quality of his or her advising. Fourth, this study did not have objective data to show the effectiveness of student advising outcomes. Future research is thus encouraged to construct measurements and collect data so that the student advising outcomes can be objectively demonstrated.

Concluding Remarks

In this research, we attempted to depict a holistic view of an all-out effort for advising students for success in higher education. Practical approaches to improving the quality of student advising are described, and relevant narrative data were collected at four levels, including university, college, department, and faculty. It is our hope that this research can help people—whether they are school administrators, faculty members, or college students—have a holistic view of student advising and be successful in their role in higher education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Xihui Zhang is an associate professor of Computer Information Systems in the College of Business of the University of North Alabama. He earned a PhD in Business Administration with a concentration in Management Information Systems from the University of Memphis, 2009. His work has been published in the Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Information & Management, Journal of Database Management, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of Information Systems Education, and Journal of Information Technology Management, among others. He serves as the managing editor of The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, and he also serves on the editorial review board for several academic journals, including the Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of Information Systems Education, and Journal of Information Technology Management.

Carol Gossett is an assistant professor at the University of North Alabama. She has been teaching information systems courses since 1994. She worked in industry as a Systems Analyst for 14 years before moving to the classroom. She teaches courses in Office Applications Software, Systems Analysis and Design and Decision Support. She serves as the University test out coordinator for the Office Applications course as well as a Faculty Partner for Cengage. Mrs. Gossett was the recipient of the 2015 Advising Award for the College of Business. In her spare time, she enjoys spoiling her grandchildren, reading and fishing.

Jill Simpson is an assistant professor of Computer Information Systems in the College of Business of the University of North Alabama. She earned a PhD in Instructional Leadership with an emphasis in Instructional Technology from the University of Alabama in 2012. She serves on the editorial review board for the International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD). She has been teaching computer software courses since 2004 and has been advising students since 2010.

Ron Davis is a PhD candidate in Computer and Systems Engineering at Tennessee State University located in Nashville, TN. He is also the co-founder and chief technology officer of Payble, LLC which is a mobile applications development company. He received his undergraduate degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has a master's degree from Tennessee State University in Computer and Systems Engineering and an additional master's degree in Business Administration from LaGrange College located in LaGrange, GA. His research interests include algorithm development, student advising techniques, and student mentoring.

References

Abernathy

Engelland

(2001) The effects of frequency, recency, and academic prowess as moderators of service quality evaluations for collegiate academic advising. Marketing Management Journal 11(2): 97–107.

Aucoin

J. W.

Jones

Letvak

Crane

P. B.

Gilbert

K. M.

(2004) Targeted group advising. Nurse Educator 29(6): 226–227.

Austin

Cherney

Crowner

Hill

(1997) The forum: Intrusive group advising for the probationary student. NACADA Journal 17(2): 45–47.

Battin

J. R.

(2014) Improving academic advising through student seminars: A case study. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 25(3): 354–367.

Bloom

J. L.

Hutson

B. L.

(2008) The appreciative advising revolution, Urbana-Champaign, IL: Stipes Pubulishing LLC.

Cogdell

J. R.

(1995) The role of faculty advising in science and engineering. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1995(62): 65–70.

Coll

J. E.

Zalaquett

(2007) The relationship of worldviews of advisors and students and satisfaction with advising: A case of homogenous group impact. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 9(3): 273–281.

Conboy

Fitzgerald

Mathiassen

(2012) Qualitative methods research in information systems: Motivations, themes, and contributions. European Journal of Information Systems 21(2): 113–118.

Crookston

B. B.

(1994) A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. NACADA Journal 14(2): 5–9.

10.

Cuevas, M., Loya, M., & Bachman, R. (2015). Faculty advising fellows: Lessons learned. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal. Retrieved from https://dus.psu.edu/mentor/2015/07/faculty-advising-fellows-lessons-learned/.

11.

Dawson

G. S.

Watson

R. T.

(2007) Involved or committed? Similarities and differences in advising and mentoring in the academic and business world. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 20: 3–10.

12.

Deming

W. E.

(2000) The new economics for industry, government, education, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

13.

Dillon

Fisher

(2000) Faculty as part of the advising equation: An inquiry into faculty viewpoints on advising. NACADA Journal 20(1): 16–23.

14.

Grahn

Kahn

Kroll

(1982) A faculty team approach to group advising. Journal of College Student Personnel 17(1): 1–35.

15.

Hossler

Ziskin

Gross

J. P. K.

(2009) Getting serious about institutional performance in student retention: Research-based lessons on effective policies and practices. About Campus 13(6): 2–11.

16.

Hutson

B. L.

Bloom

J. L.

(2014) How appreciative advising is revolutionizing academic advising: Framework, evolution and possible future directions. AI Practitioner 16(2): 47–53.

17.

Kim

Feldman

(2011) Managing academic advising services quality: Understanding and meeting needs and expectations of difference student segments. Marketing Management Journal 21(1): 222–238.

18.

Montag

Campo

Weissman

Walmsley

Snell

(2012) In their own words: Best practices for advising millennial students about majors. NACADA Journal 32(2): 26–35.

19.

Montano

C. B.

Hunt

M. D.

Boudreaux

(2005) Improving the quality of student advising in higher education—A case study. Total Quality Management 16(10): 1103–1125.

20.

Musser, T. (2012, September). Theoretical reflections: Constructivist foundations for academic advising. Academic Advising Today, 35(3). Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/View-Articles/Theoretical-Reflections-Constructivist-Foundations-for-Academic-Advising.aspx.

21.

Oman

W. P.

(1986) Identifying student characteristics influencing success in introductory computer science courses. AEDS Journal 19(2–3): 226–233.

22.

Phillips

E. D.

(2013) Improving advising using technology and data analytics. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 45(1): 48–55.

23.

Shields

P. O.

Gillard

S. K.

(2002) An academic advising profile for marketing educators. Marketing Education Review 12(2): 37–46.

24.

Tinto

(1994) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2nd ed., revised and expanded. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Thompson

L. R.

Prieto

L. C.

(2013) Improving retention among college students: Investigating the utilization of virtualized advising. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 17(4): 13–26.

26.

Ullman

J. D.

(2009) Advising students for success. Communications of the ACM 52(3): 34–37.