Hedging Your Bets: Common Effective Advising Practices Among Three Institutions

1
Hedging Your BetsCommon Effective Advising
PracticesAmong Three Institutions

• 2005 NACADA National Conference
• Las Vegas, Nevada
• Pamela Erickson, Washburn University
• Caroline Fox, Fort Hays State University
• Rich Robbins, Cornell University
• Concurrent Session/137

2
Models, Modes, and Practicein Academic Advising

• Theoretical literature and empirical research
  literature suggests various effective models,
  modes, and practices of advising, such as
• Developmental/Holistic
• Prescriptive
• Faculty-based
• Centralized
• Split-model
• Peer
• Etc.

3
The most effective academic advising practices
depend on

• Institutional type
• Institutional culture
• Institutional mission
• Student factors
• Economical realities
• Political climate
• Other factors

4
Best Practicesvs.Effective Practices

• Best practices are often presented with no
  evaluation or assessment of effectiveness
• Effective practices include evaluative data to
  demonstrate effectiveness

5
Comparison of Effective Practicesat Three
Varying Institutions

• Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas
• 7100 students open enrollment (Priority and
  Conditional admissions) municipally funded with
  some state funding
• Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas
• 7835 students qualified admission standards
  Kansas State Regents University, Carnegie
  Regional Masters Level II University
• Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
• 13,655 undergraduates highly selective Ivy
  League with private and state colleges, Carnegie
  Doctoral Research University - Extensive

6
Institutional Differences

• Student academic preparedness levels
• State funding levels
• Tuition-driven or not
• Private versus public
• Priority level of academic advising
• Resources for academic advising
• Advising models/practices/programming

7
Three Very Different Institutions

• however, a look at the effective academic
  advising practices at these institutions results
  in several common practices across these
  institutions

8
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong These
Institutions

• Individualized Advising (CU, FHSU, WU)
• CU faculty-based with support from college
  advising office most preferred method of
  advising by both students and advisors and
  overall positive evaluations by students
  regarding the advising process via combination of
  paper and on-line evaluations
• FHSU faculty-based with support from centralized
  advising office 86 of students rate the
  experience as good via on-line evaluations
• WU overall positive ratings of advising
  interactions for pre-major advising evaluated via
  on-line evaluation faculty advising evaluated by
  few departments

9
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong These
Institutions

• Faculty Training Workshops (CU, FHSU, WU)
• Evaluated via paper evaluations at all three
  institutions
• Combination of ratings of current event and
  open-ended items utilized to obtain qualitative
  data the latter used to assist in planning of
  future workshops
• Evaluated by both faculty/staff and students
  attending event

10
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong 2 of 3
Institutions

• Group Advising (CU, FHSU)
• Evaluated via paper evaluations
• Combination of ratings of advising process and
  open-ended items utilized to obtain qualitative
  data
• Overall positive evaluations at both institutions
• also performed at WU but not evaluated

11
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong 2 of 3
Institutions

• Peer Advising (CU, FHSU)
• Evaluated via paper evaluations
• Combination of ratings of advising process and
  open-ended items utilized to obtain qualitative
  data
• Overall positive evaluations at both institutions

12
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong 2 of 3
Institutions

• Family/Friends Days (CU, FHSU)
• Evaluated via paper evaluations
• Combination of ratings of days programming and
  open-ended items utilized to obtain qualitative
  data
• Overall positive evaluations at both
  institutions the latter used to assist in
  planning of future family/friends visitation days

13
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong 2 of 3
Institutions

• Prospective Student Visitation Days (CU, FHSU)
• Evaluated via paper evaluations
• Combination of ratings of days programming and
  open-ended items utilized to obtain qualitative
  data
• Overall positive evaluations at both
  institutions the latter used to assist in
  planning of future prospective student visitation
  days

14
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong 2 of 3
Institutions

• Annual Evaluation of Goal Attainment (CU, FHSU)
• Electronic data submitted and evaluated for all
  programmatic goals
• Achievement of goals determined via outcome data
• Informs of next years goals as well

15
Common Effective Advising PracticesAmong 2 of 3
Institutions

• Majors Information Fairs (CU, WU)
• Evaluated via paper evaluations at all three
  institutions
• Combination of ratings of current event and
  open-ended items utilized to obtain qualitative
  data the latter used to assist in planning of
  future major information fairs
• Evaluated by both faculty/staff and students
  attending event

16
Effective Advising PracticesAt 1 of 3
Institutions

• Early Alert Programming (CU)
• Required semester long first-year seminar (CU)
• Qualified Admission (FHSU)
• Succeeding in College course (FHSU)
• Prescription for Success for Conditionally
  Admitted students (WU)
• also performed at FHSU and WU but not evaluated

17
Additional Best PracticesShared But Not
Evaluated

• Electronic Advising via electronic newsletters,
  web sites, e-mails (CU, FHSU, WU)
• Faculty Advising Handbooks (CU, FHSU, WU)
• New Student Orientation activities (CU, FHSU, WU)
• Campus-wide Academic Advising group (CU, FHSU)
• Advising Awards program (CU, FHSU)
• Advising of high school students taking courses
  (FHSU, WU)

18
Conclusions

• Despite differences on many variables, several
  common effective practices are present among
  these three very different institutions of higher
  education
• These effective practices are likely
  generalizable to other institutions

19
Conclusions

• However, the most effective practices depend on
  your specific students at your specific
  institution in your institutions cultural,
  economical, and political climates at any given
  time
• Most importantly, you cannot determine whether or
  not your programming, services, and interventions
  are indeed effective unless you evaluate them!

20
THANK YOU!

• Pamela Erickson Pamela.Erickson_at_washburn.edu
• Caroline Fox CFox_at_fhsu.edu
• Rich Robbins rlr43_at_cornell.edu