Campus-Wide Advising:

Short-Term Recommendations

University of Kentucky

April 22, 2015

  1. Computer Inventory

Take inventory of computers assigned to advisors—recommended that advisors have access to computer desktops (or equivalent) that are less than 3 years old and deans/department heads are encouraged to upgrade where necessary.

  1. Advising Audit

To better understand the current state of advising and the wide array of resources available to advising personnel across campus, an Advising Audit will be segmented and conducted by the (1) Short-term Advising Committee, and (2) University Senate Advising Committee (with support from Dr. Chris Thuringer, Undergraduate Ed). The purpose of this is to gather baseline data about and a cross-campus picture of the equipment, tools, etc. that advisors have available and determine needs. (timeframe- April and May 2015)

Areas to be explored in the audit will include:

  1. Hardware and technological tools (sample questions)
  2. What tools are routinely made available to your advising personnel (e.g., laptops, smart phones, iPads, etc.)
  3. Do your machines meet minimum hardware/software requirements (to be specified)?
  1. Space (sample questions)
  2. What kind of space is available to advisors (private offices, access to private space, shared office area, housed in open spaces)?
  3. What arrangements are in place to ensure advising personnel have access to private space?
  1. Professional development support for advisors (sample questions)
  2. Are funds available to your advising personnel to use for professional development activities?
  3. If so, how much is available in total and per advising FTE?
  4. Type of events/activities supported? (e.g., professional conferences, UK wide trainings, etc.)
  5. Are there in-house professional development trainings offered?
  1. Faculty advising
  2. Can you briefly describe how your unit incorporates faculty advising, if appropriate?
  3. When in students’ undergraduate experience do they advise?
  4. What are their roles and responsibilities?
  5. How do they interface with professional advisors?
  6. Are there plans to change this model?
  1. Compensation and grade level
  2. What are the titles, grade levels of advisors?
  3. What are their years of total experience, years at the institution, education?
  4. Gather information about job functions.
  1. Student to advisor ratios (embedded in a model of professional advising), hybrid (professional and faculty)
  2. Please provide your current student to advisor ratio for faculty advisors, professional advisors, and other advisors (as applicable within your department).
  3. Identify special populations served by advisors (examples to be provided).
  1. Evaluation of advising activities
  2. Effective measures through which this can be accomplished
  3. Best methods to gather data (e.g., response rate, accuracy, etc.)
  1. Professional Development (Advisor Training)

Increased opportunities for further professional training received widespread support at both advising retreats, at the Dean’s meetings, and from discussions with the Advising Network. Given this strong sentiment we recommend an immediate action to set up long-term discussions:

  1. Create an advising working group on professional development for professional, special program, and faculty advisors.

A group of 7-10 people will convene to provide short- and long-term recommendations for implementing professional development opportunities for advisors. Most members of this group should be current advisors. The group will need to review all the current recommendations, including mini-conferences;onboarding/initial advisor training; continuing education for current advisors; “Master Advisor”training; cross-campus, informal brown-bag lunches; monies available to attend and present at regional and national conferences; and other ideas. The Working Group may consider drafting an annual “Calendar of Professional Events” to be offered routinely for advising professionals across campus.

The Working Group will submit their report to the short-term advising committee, who in turn will workshop the report to the larger campus (including the Advising Network, Advising Leadership Team, Associate Deans, UG Leadership Council, among others). Adoption of the final recommendations (including budget) will be made by the University leadership (including the Provost, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education, UG Leadership Council, etc.).

  1. Position Standardization and Career Ladders (Professional Advisors)

Professional advisors across campus have noted two significant problems associated with this vocation at UK: Lack of standardized duties and job descriptions among equivalent advisor positions in different collegesand a profound scarcity of career advancement opportunities within their own colleges. Based on the overwhelming responses received, it is recommended that the following actions be taken:

  1. Determine a standardized MJR for college/unit-based advisors (with room for unit-specific essential functions)

Upon completion of the Advising Audit, a small group will be convened to draft a proposed standardized MJR for college/unit-based advisors. The standardized MJR will complement other MJR’s that allow for unit-specific functions. The purpose of this exercise is to ensure that there is a commonality among what professional advisors do across campus, while retaining discipline/unit-specific needs.

There is a full expectation that the small group charged with the first draft will be comprised from an array of programs, units and colleges. Similarly, the ensuing proposal will be widely-vetted and work-shopped to allow for multiple perspectives. There is a real sense that this task will be an intense exercise that will need to be done in a thoughtful and considerate fashion.

  1. Create an advising working group on “career ladders”

A small group of 7-10 members (to include advisor, HR and administrative representatives)will convene to provide short- and long-term recommendations on the establishment of a “career ladder” system for professional advisors to provide opportunities for professional development and advancement.

  1. Evaluation of Advising

There currently exists no consistent or standardized system of evaluation for professional, secondary, or faculty advisors across campus. This leads to inequities between merit and reward systems, a lack of common expectations for advising performance and service, and inconsistent student experiences of advising between colleges and departments. It is recommended that a standardized evaluation for all advisors be developed.

A University Senate subcommittee, led by Phil Kraemer, is charged with drafting a standardized evaluation to assess advising and/or professional advisors across campus. The committee’s work will begin in earnest in Spring 2015, with a proposed finish date during Fall 2015.

  1. Communication and Technology

Through all the discussions there is a clear need to better systematize communication across advising personnel. Campus siloes often hamper the ability to share information, curricular changes, professional development opportunities, staffing changes, among other issues. We see improvements in communication and technology to be a long-term issue. However, we firmly believe there are some changes that can be implemented immediately before longer-term solutions are discovered and applied.

  1. Create and hire a new staff position dedicated to the Advising Network

Built on the model of the University Senate and Staff Council we envision the creation of a staff position dedicated to manage the flow of information for the campus’ Advising Network. This position will be responsible for communicating, in a systematic way, all information pertinent to advisors.

Currently these responsibilities fall onto the Advising Network Chair. However, this is unsustainable. The Advising Network Chair already is expected to provide campus-wide leadership, maintain an advising load, continue other responsibilities, as well as manage the entire administrative and bureaucratic functions attendant to ensuring cross-campus communication on all curricular and advising changes and information. In addition, the Advising Network Chair is a rotating position, which means continuity to the office is limited as new individuals assume the role each year. A permanent staff member will ensure consistency in communication and administration. We envision the staff member reporting to the Advising Leadership Team Co- Chair.

Budgetary implications of this recommendation will be explored. If this recommendation is met, we will implement expeditiously.

  1. Create an Advising Working Group on Advising Technology

Similar to the creation of a Working Group on Professional Development, we recommend the creation of a Working Group on Advising Technology. It is clear through the multiple discussions held this semester that there is a real need to be able to report, troubleshoot and prioritize technological challenges as they pertain to advising. We recommend creating a small working group (7-10 people) to gather, catalogue, gather and then prioritize the most pertinent technological challenges or enhancements for advisors. Once their work is complete and vetted by the wider campus, we envision this group to work closely with UK AT to begin implementing the priority list. Budget considerations will need to be included in the group’s deliberations and final report.

It is possible that this working group will become an on-going committee.

  1. Ensure all campus advisors use Advising Hub

Throughout the semester’s discussions many cited the need for campus-wide use of advising notes. Many individuals and groups remarked that this was absolutely essential. As a result, the short-term committee recommendations a discussion commence in earnest with the UG Leadership Council about moving forward a campus-wide requirement that all advising personnel use the Advising Hub to record their advising notes. We believe strongly that this is imperative.

  1. Faculty Input

No discussion on campus-wide advising can be complete without the input of faculty. Thus far, given the nature of the advising retreats, widespread faculty input has not been gathered. We recommend that a faculty advising retreat is scheduled for May, right after the completion of the Spring semester, but after the conclusion of theAdvising Audit. A save the date announcement will be released immediately. Prior to the all-day retreat information, readings and questions will be circulated to the participants to ensure a robust discussion.

Suggested topics to include (but not limited to):

  1. What should the role of faculty be in relation to advising?
  2. Should a mentoring system be created?
  3. How do we create a culture of rewarding advising in promotion, tenure, merit raises, and evaluations?
  4. What should be the expectations of faculty who serve as primary advisors, secondary advisors, mentors, etc.?
  5. What are the core skills, competencies, and functions considered essential for faculty advisors?
  6. What are the preferred types of connections between faculty and professional advisors?
  7. What are the main challenges encountered by faculty advisors?
  8. What are the best methods and times of year to train faculty advisors?
  1. Student Input

A long-term goal for advising on campus is to move to a student-centered advising approach. That said, gathering student input for these advising discussions is critical. During the month of April, the University Senate subcommittee, led by Phil Kraemer, will draft a plan to gather student input. Ideas include conducting targeted student focus groups, followed by surveying all students during the Fall 2015 semester..

1