Validating Faculty Advising Through Assessment

Faculty members take on the role of primary advisors on many small campuses. Many report feeling underprepared for the advising role. Assessment of academic advising can raise the awareness and perceived importance of advising and provide helpful feedback for practitioners. We developed a 14-item online advising assessment used to evaluate four important domains of advising: academic advice, advisor availability, advisor as personable and interested, and advising about vocation. We used this assessment to evaluate advisors who participated in an advising workshop designed to enhance their relational and conceptual advising skills. Student evaluations of advisors before and after the workshop showed significant positive differences. We recommend this assessment for advising improvement and as a means of evaluating workshop efficacy.

Academic Advising Assessment Practices: Results of a National Study

Best practices of academic advising assessment involve identification of student learning outcomes, the development and use of multiple measures of student learning, and sound professional judgment to understand the information gathered and to improve student learning. However, the assessment results often come from minimal, narrow, and inconsistent evaluation practices, often based on student satisfaction surveys. Therefore, to generate a picture of the current state of assessment, we surveyed those conducting or deemed responsible for academic advising assessment. Although 80% of survey participants identified academic-advising student learning outcomes, one half assessed the achievement of those outcomes, with most using student surveys. Furthermore, 7% reported employing three or more measures while 60% reported improvements of practice and student learning based on the assessment.

From mission to measurement : advancing postsecondary academic advising assessment and practice through evaluating program theory and outcomes

[ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT AUTHOR'S REQUEST.] Through a program evaluation, this study was designed as a mixed method, causal comparative, cross-sectional inquiry into academic advising program theory and outcomes at Missouri State University (MSU). Data (i.e., advising mission statement, best practices, and surveys) revealed only implicit articulation of program theory�that is, the operational plan did not logically connect desired advising outcomes with program activities. Chi square analyses demonstrated significant differences between freshman expectations and senior experiences related to advising. ANOVA results revealed no significant GPA differences based on different amounts of advising. ANOVA results linked advisor support, advisor information, and personal responsibility to senior GPA, and regression analyses revealed each as significant GPA predictors. Qualitative data supported quantitative findings, providing insights to expand advising theory. In sum, findings were aligned with advising theory and constructs from the literature, including advisor accountability and empowerment, student responsibility, self-efficacy, study skills, and perceived advisor support (Lowenstein, 2005; Young-Jones, Burt, Dixon, and Hawthorne, 2013), and resulted in recommendations to enhance institutional advising assessment. Keywords: academic advising, advisor, evaluation, learning outcomes

Assessing Advising Outcomes

Assessing advising is critical to its improvement and to demonstrating that advising contributes to student success. Through assessment, advisors can ensure that departmental goals are continuously evaluated, that instruments are updated as needed to meet the goals of assessment, that communication is facilitated among stakeholders, and that action is taken as necessary to improve programs that affect student learning. We offer specific guidance for planning, implementing, and improving advising assessment initiatives.

Factors Students Use When Evaluating Advisors

The current research examined student perceptions of advisors in an effort to more fully understand the dimensions that students use when evaluating advisors. Factor analysis of a 63-item structured questionnaire from a sample of 224 traditional-age college students revealed four primary factors and three secondary factors. The primary factors consisted of Socio-emotional Orientation, Meeting Dynamics, Knowledge, and global Problem dimensions. A secondary factor analysis of the Socio-emotional factor yielded three subfactors: Academic Caring, Personal Caring, and Good Person. Advisors and students who are aware of this structure can discuss these dimensions and emphasize behaviors that are closely related to advising performance. Finally, the authors suggest that this schematic structure be taken into account when developing advising assessment instruments.