Student Satisfaction With Academic Advising Organizational Models In A Multiversity

1
Student Satisfaction With Academic Advising
Organizational Models In A Multiversity

• NACADA National Conference
• Las Vegas 2005
• Tom Avants
• Arizona State University

2
Welcome, I am glad you are here!!
3
Introduce yourself to two other people and ask

• Your name
• Campus
• At what percentage are student at your campus
  satisfied or dissatisfied with academic advising?
• How do you know?

4
ABSTRACT

• This descriptive study sought to answer the
  question, What is the relationship between
  student satisfaction with academic advising and
  different academic advising organizational models
  in a multiversity setting?

5
The models used were defined by Hableys
advising model classifications Dual Model,
Satellite Model, Self-Contained Model, Total
Intake Model, Supplementary Model, Split Model,
and Faculty Only Model. Chi-square and ANOVA
procedures were used.
6
Two surveys were developed for this study an
academic advising organizational model survey and
a survey titled Academic Advising Survey. The
academic organizational model survey was given to
directors of advising and academic advising
managers to determine the organizational model
utilized by each respective college or department.
7
The Academic Advising Survey was conducted
through a phone survey with a random sample of a
total of 1,200 students in the fall semester of
2000 and spring semester of 2001. Student
demographic information included major, gender,
and academic level. Students were satisfied with
all academic advising models above the 80 level,
with the exception of the Supplementary Model,
which had a low n of only 17 students.
8
The Satellite Model had higher scores and
students indicated they were satisfied or very
satisfied at a level of 92.4. Recommendation
are offered along with suggestions for additional
research.
9
Introduction

• Good advising may be the single most
  underestimated characteristic of a successful
  college experience. (Harvard professor, Richard
  Light, 2001, p. 8)

10
Dr. Virginia Gordon

• Advising is seen as an important vehicle for
  helping students achieve educational and personal
  goals through the use of campus and community
  resources (Gordon, 1992).

11
Background (The Why)

• Late 1980s and Early 1990s
• Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR)
• Arizona Legislature
• A Performance Audit of the Universities The
  Student Experience
• Arizona State University (ASU)
• Final Report of the Consultant to Arizona State
  University on Academic Advising

12
Research Questions

• 1. What is the relationship between student
  satisfaction with academic advising and different
  academic advising organizational models in a
  multiversity setting?
• 2. . . and gender, academic level, and academic
  advising organizational model?

13

• 3. . .and the number of times a student met with
  their academic advisor?
• 4. . .and the time needed to see an advisor?
• 5. . .and students who have declared a major?
• 6. . .and students who have an assigned advisor?
• 7. . .and students preferring to have an assigned
  advisor?

14

• 8. . .and primary advisor providing accurate
  information?
• 9. . .and advisor keeping student up-to-date on
  changes in academic requirements
• 10. . .and primary willingness to discuss
  problems relating to academic progress?
• 11. . .and primary academic advisor helping
  select courses that match student abilities and
  interest?
• 12. . .and primary advisor availability for
  assistance?

15
Methodology

• The findings from empirical research were derived
  from two sources (a) The Fall 2000/Spring 2001
  Academic Advising Survey and (b) a
  survey/questionnaire given to members of the ASU
  Advisors Coordinators Board. The
  survey/questionnaire was developed utilizing
  academic organizational models established by Dr.
  Wes Habley (1963).

16
Limitations

• The study is limited to a random sample of
  undergraduate students registered for classes
  during Fall 2000/Spring 2001 academic semesters
  at Arizona State University. This investigation
  was limited to advisee satisfaction/dissatisfactio
  n with the questions asked on the Academic
  Advising Survey. There was no attempt to
  evaluate all variables that related to
  satisfaction/dissatisfaction with academic
  advising.

17
Limitations, continued

• The survey/questionnaire results were limited to
  opinions of the members of the Advising
  Coordinator Board. The results of the study
  cannot be generalized beyond the defined target
  of Arizona State University.

18
Background Literature

• Frost (2000) summarized three periods of
  development of academic advising Higher
  education before academic advising was defined,
  academic advising as a defined and unexamined,
  and academic advising as a defined and examined
  activity (pp.4-14).

19
Background Lit, continued

• First period (1636-1900)
• in loco parentis
• Second Period (1900-1970)
• John Hopkins
• Third period (1970-present)
• NACADA

20
National Surveys

• ACT NACADA
• 1979, 1983, 1987, 1993, 1997
• Third (1988) and Fourth (1993) surveys collected
  data on organizational models for academic models
  (Habley, 2004).

21
Graduating Senior Report Card

• The Auditor General of the State of Arizona
  (1994)-70 positive or very positive opinions
  regarding academic advising.