Components of Student Satisfaction With Advising And How to Improve Satisfaction National Academic A

1
Components of Student Satisfaction With Advising
And How to Improve SatisfactionNational
Academic Advising Association ConferenceNational
ConferenceOctober 7, 2005Las Vegas,
NevadaThomas A. LechnerUniversity of
Utahtom.lechner_at_business.utah.eduGay H.
Williams, Barry A. FriedmanState University of
New York at Oswego
2
Study Purpose

• Determine the impact that interventions to
  improve advising had on student satisfaction with
  advising between 2003-2005.
• Explore the implications of these interventions
  for academic advising.

3
University Background

• State University at New York at Oswego
• Public funded state university
• 8,500 students 6,600 full time undergraduates.
• 55 major in disciplines within the College of
  Arts and Sciences, which emphasizes a traditional
  liberal studies curriculum as well as some
  professional tracks.
• 1,350 freshmen, with a mean high school grade
  average of 87.8 and an average SAT of 1089,
  enrolled in fall 2005.
• 700 transfer students, with an average GPA of
  3.0, chose Oswego as the place to pursue their
  bachelor's degrees.
• Offers undergraduate and Masters degrees
• The School of Business (17 percent) offers more
  specific profession-oriented training.

4
Background 2003 Advising

• Strengths
• High faculty involvement and interest
• Extensive freshman school wide program
• Two day school orientation including advising,
  but not by assigned advisor.
• Five meetings with advisor in freshman year.
• Student Advising Center support advising
• Areas for Improvement
• Informal guidelines
• Variable training
• Little structured advisor training in School of
  Business
• Faculty Advisor/Student Advising Center advising
  model inconsistent over the previous years.

5
Background 2003 Advising

• Senior students rate advising at SUNY-Oswego
  below average1
• How would you rate advising at your
  institution?
• How satisfied are you with advising at your
  institution?
• Dean of School of Business Student Advisory
  Council raises concerns.
• Advisors changed too frequently
• Faculty advising interest and competence
  inconsistent
• 1 Educational Benchmarking Institute
  (EBI) senior survey (2003)

6
Interventions and Measurement
7
School of Business Survey Key Questions For
Faculty and Student Advising Center
8
Survey Samples College Year
9
Survey Samples Major
10
2003 Baseline (N 482) Satisfaction with
Faculty Advisors
1 Students responded to survey items using a five
point Likert scale where low numbers were
favorable and high numbers were unfavorable.
11
2003 Baseline (N 482) Satisfaction
with Student Advising Center
1 Students responded to survey items using a five
point Likert scale where low numbers were
favorable and high numbers were unfavorable.
12
2003 Survey Baseline Student Concerns

• 27 dont know who their advisor is.
• Switching advisors too frequently.
• Lack of advising expertise, especially on the
  part of faculty.
• Only 46 report they spend the right amount of
  time with their advisor.
• 20 reported they didnt see a faculty advisor or
  the Student Advising Center.
• 55 report they do not seek advising.
• 68 dissatisfied with the transfer student
  process
• Transfer credits and course availability
• 97 want the option of keeping the same advisor
  over their college career.
• Students felt that advising should be mandatory.

13
Actions Taken and Survey Measurement

• Faculty Training
• Faculty Advising Handbook
• (annual update).
• Each faculty member assigned students in their
  major (or related major).
• Start with freshmen, keep 4 years.
• Students can elect to switch if new advisor is
  willing.

14
Intervention Timeline
15
2003 Versus 2005 Student Satisfaction with
Faculty Advisors
p lt .001, p lt .05
1 Students responded to survey items using a five
point Likert scale where low numbers were
favorable and high numbers were unfavorable.
16
2003 Versus 2005 Satisfaction with Student
Advising Center
1 Students responded to survey items using a five
point Likert scale where low numbers were
favorable and high numbers were unfavorable.
17
Students Satisfaction with Faculty
Advisors2003-2005 Improvements by College Year 1
1 Freshman excluded due to low sample size. 2
Students responded to survey items using a five
point Likert scale where low numbers were
favorable and high numbers were unfavorable.
18
Satisfaction with Student Advising
Center2003-2005 Significant Improvements by
College Year
1 Students responded to survey items using a five
point Likert scale where low numbers were
favorable and high numbers were unfavorable.
19
Students Satisfaction with Faculty
Advisors2003-2005 Significant Improvements by
Major 1
1 Other majors omitted from table due to lack of
significance or low sample size. 2 Students
responded to survey items using a five point
Likert scale where low numbers were favorable and
high numbers were unfavorable.
20
Satisfaction with Student Advising
Center2003-2005 Significant Improvements by
Major 1
1 Other majors omitted from table due to lack of
significance or low sample size. 2 Students
responded to survey items using a five point
Likert scale where low numbers were favorable and
high numbers were unfavorable.
21
2003- 2005 Advisor Contact 1
p lt .001, p lt .01, p lt .05 1
Percentage responding yes.
22
2003-2005 Student Perceptions
p lt .001, p lt .05
1 Means represents how often students reported
seeking faculty advisor input. Otherwise,
Students responded to survey items using a five
point Likert scale where low numbers were
favorable and high numbers were unfavorable.
23
2003-2005 No Significant Differences

• Importance of advice regarding registration
  process, sequence of courses and career advising.
• How often students seek advisement from Student
  Advising Center.
• Majority of students still want the option of
  having the same advisor all four years.
• Dissatisfaction remains high with respect to the
  transfer advising process.
• Students report that advisor collaboration with
  the Honors Program is somewhat important and rate
  their advisors collaboration as average.

24
2005 Survey Comment Content Analysis Main Themes
1
1 N refers to the number of students that wrote
comments relevant to the specific theme. Themes
with fewer than 10 students are not included in
the table. Overall, 167 (56) students provided
responses to the School of Business 2005 survey
open-ended questions.
25
2003-2005 Survey Comment Content Analysis Main
Themes 1
1 N refers to the number of students that wrote
comments relevant to the specific theme. Themes
with fewer than 10 students are not included in
the table. Approximately half of the students
provided comments in both years.
26
2005 Survey Comment Content Analysis Main Themes
1
1 N refers to the number of students that wrote
comments relevant to the specific theme. Themes
with fewer than 10 students are not included in
the table. Overall, 167 (56) students provided
responses to the School of Business 2005 survey
open-ended questions.