Advising Styles Observable in Practice: Counselor, Scheduler, and Teacher

Comments:
Folks, Maybe we should divide these articles up if we decide to stay with this approach to the project? Eric

Record: 1

Title:

Advising Styles Observable in Practice: Counselor, Scheduler, and Teacher.

Author(s):

Daller, Melissa L. ; Creamer, Elizabeth G. ; Creamer, Don G.

Source:

NACADA Journal, v17 n2 p31-38 Fall 1997.

ISSN:

0271-9517

Descriptors:

Academic Advising, Comparative Analysis, Counseling Techniques, Counselor Role, Higher Education, Individual Differences, Undergraduate Students, Higher Education

Abstract:

Ten professional academic advisors were observed in advising sessions with 35 traditional-aged undergraduates to determine whether advising styles are observable and whether conceptual differences between prescriptive and developmental advising approaches are distinguishable. Individuals were observed to use one of three styles and did not vary style among students. (Author/MSE)

Language:

English

Intended Audience:

Practitioners

Publication Type:

Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Availability:

Not available from ERIC

Journal Code:

CIJMAR1999

Entry Date:

1999

Accession Number:

EJ568860

Persistent link to this record (Permalink):

http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=ssc&db=eric&AN=EJ568860&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cut and Paste:

<A href="http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=ssc&db=eric&AN=EJ568860&site=ehost-live&scope=site">Advising Styles Observable in Practice: Counselor, Scheduler, and Teacher.</A>

Database:

ERIC

Record: 2

Title:

ARE STUDENTS MORE SATISFIED WITH ACADEMIC ADVISING WHEN THERE IS CONGRUENCE BETWEEN CURRENT AND PREFERRED ADVISING STYLES?

Authors:

Hale, Margo D. 1
Graham, Donna L. 1
Johnson, Donald M. 1

Source:

College Student Journal; Jun2009, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p313-324, 12p, 3 charts, 1 diagram

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

*UNDERGRADUATES
*RESEARCH
*COUNSELING in higher education
*UNIVERSITIES & colleges
*STUDENT affairs services
*EDUCATION & state
*EDUCATION, Higher
*EDUCATION, Secondary
UNITED States
UNITED States. Bureau of the Census

Geographic Terms:

UNITED States

Company/Entity:

UNITED States. Bureau of the Census

NAICS/Industry Codes 611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools
611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools

Abstract:

Undergraduate students (n = 429) were surveyed to determine the style of advising used by their current advisor, the students' preferred advising style, and their satisfaction with advising. A majority of students (79.8%) identified their current advisor as using a developmental advising style. Nearly all (95.5%) respondents preferred developmental advising. Students with developmental advisors and a preference for developmental advising (77.9%) had significantly (p < .05) higher satisfaction than students with prescriptive advisors and a preference for developmental advising. Students experiencing congruence between their advisor's style and their preferred advising style had significantly (p < .0001) higher satisfaction with advising than students experiencing incongruence. The effect size for congruence (or incongruence) on satisfaction was large (Cohen's d= 1.05). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of College Student Journal is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Author Affiliations:

1Department of Agricultural and Extension Education University of Arkansas

Full Text Word Count:

4657

ISSN:

01463934

Accession Number:

42517480

Persistent link to this record (Permalink):

http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=ssc&db=afh&AN=42517480&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cut and Paste:

<A href="http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=ssc&db=afh&AN=42517480&site=ehost-live&scope=site">ARE STUDENTS MORE SATISFIED WITH ACADEMIC ADVISING WHEN THERE IS CONGRUENCE BETWEEN CURRENT AND PREFERRED ADVISING STYLES?</A>

Database:

Academic Search Elite

ARE STUDENTS MORE SATISFIED WITH ACADEMIC ADVISING WHEN THERE IS CONGRUENCE BETWEEN CURRENT AND PREFERRED ADVISING STYLES?

According to Addleman (1999,p.l), "Degree completion is the true bottom line for college administrators, state legislators, parents, and, most importantly, students." A logical consequence of this statement is that student retention and graduation must be a priority goal for colleges and universities.

The mid-South doctoral university where this study was conducted has a 6-year graduation rate of 56% (Office of Institutional Research, 2007). Increasing the 6-year graduation rate to 66% by 2010 is a top priority for the university and the College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences (White, 2006; Weidemann, 2007). According to public comments by the chancellor of this university (White, 2006):

We are not graduating first time, full time, degree seeking students

at rates commensurate with their academic abilities. The prediction

model used by U.S. News [sic] indicates we should be graduating 65%

of our students. Independent of U.S. News [sic] our prediction model

calls for the same rate. (Â¶ 30)

Academic advising plays an important role in student retention (Bailey, Bauman, and Lata, 1998; Lau, 2003; Myers and Dyer, 2005; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993). According to Light (2001),"Good advising may be the single most underestimated characteristic of a successful college experience" (p. 81). Student satisfaction with academic advising is related to overall student satisfaction and retention (Corts, et al., 2000). Given the important role of academic advising in student retention, serious efforts to improve retention should be grounded in an evaluation of student perceptions, desires, and satisfaction with academic advising.

Theoretical Framework

When students graduate from a college or university, it has a positive impact on the graduates, the institution, and society (Tinto, 2004). Graduates develop greater cognitive skills and higher levels of subject matter knowledge (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005) and qualify for more desirable, higher paying careers (DeBerard, Spielmans & Julka, 2004; Donhardt, 2004). Institutions with higher retention and graduation rates are more efficient and enjoy greater levels of alumni, public, and governmental support (Lau, 2003). Finally, society benefits from a more highly educated citizenry through enhanced public discourse (Cantor, 2004), higher rates of civic participation (Bradburn, Nevill, and Cataldi, 2006), and higher tax receipts (Day and Newburger, 2002). Drawing on data from the Institute for Higher Education Policy, Tinto (2004) concluded:

People with a college education are much more likely to participate

effectively in the governance of the nation, contribute their time

and money to community service, consume fewer public services, and

commit fewer crimes. They also contribute more to economic growth and

productivity helping to create a larger economic pie for all to

share. (P.7)

Students who attend college but do not graduate fail to realize the same level of economic benefits as do graduates. The US Census Bureau (Day and Newburger, 2002) estimated the lifetime earnings of a worker with some college but no degree to be 25% higher than a worker with only a high school education. The estimated lifetime earnings of a worker with a bachelor's degree were 40% higher than for a worker with some college but no degree. According to Tinto (2004), "Does entry in college matter? Yes! But finishing college and earning a bachelor's degree matters even more!"[Emphasis in original] (p. 7).

Student Attrition and Academic Advising

Tinto (1975,1993) developed a widely accepted model of student attrition from higher education. According to this model (Figure 1), student attrition is affected by five primary factors:

(a) pre-entry attributes

(b) initial and subsequent academic goals and level of commitment to the institution

(d) academic and social integration

(e) external commitments

Tinto 's model posits that students' institutional experiences affect their level of academic and social integration within the university community, either strengthening or weakening their initial academic goals and commitment to a particular institution. The strength of these intentions and goals, in concert with students' external commitments, determine whether students will depart the institution or persist to degree completion.

Academic advising is intended to enhance students' academic and social integration into the institution (Braxton and McClendon,2001;Daller, 1997; Myers and Dyer, 2005). Effective academic advising has been shown to be an important institutional factor influencing student retention (Beal and Noel, 1980; Daller, 1997; and Tinto (2002). Metzner (1989) found that high-quality academic advising had a significant but indirect effect on retention through increased student satisfaction, higher grades, and a decreased intent to leave the institution.

Student Satisfaction with Advising

Low (2000) concluded that successful institutions share three basic attributes: "they focus on the needs of their students, they continually improve the quality of the educational experience, and they use student satisfaction data to shape their future directions" (p. 2). Student satisfaction measures how effectively campuses deliver what students expect, need, and want. When institutions meet or exceed student expectations, higher student satisfaction and retention are the result (Low, 2000).

Low (2000) and Light (2001) indicated that student satisfaction with academic advising is an important part of a successful college experience. Bailey, et al. (1998) found that non-persisting students in the 14 campus Pennsylvania State University System had a significantly lower level of satisfaction with academic advising than did persisting students.

Noel-Levitz (2006), conducted a nationwide survey of student satisfaction involving 226,423 undergraduates enrolled in 425 US colleges and universities. The researchers found that, next to quality of instruction, academic advising "is consistently the next-most-important area of the college experience to students â€¦ ahead of registration, campus safety, and support services, to name just a few" (p. 3). Noel-Levitz (2006) also found that while 73.7% of respondents were satisfied with their academic advisor's knowledge of degree requirements, only 67.2% were satisfied with their advisor's concern about their success as individuals and only 59.9% were satisfied with the degree to which their advisor helped them to set goals.

Student satisfaction with academic advising is related to overall student satisfaction and retention (Corts, et al., 2000). Given the important role of academic advising in student retention, serious efforts to improve retention should be grounded in an evaluation of student perceptions, desires, and satisfaction with academic advising.

Developmental versus Prescriptive Academic Advising

Crookston (1972) conceptualized academic advising as a form of teaching and described two styles of academic advising: developmental and prescriptive. Developmental advising is based on a personal relationship between the student and advisor, and integrates academic, career, and personal goals into advisement, rather than having a sole focus on academic goals (Jordan, 2000). Ender, Winston, and Miller (1984) defined developmental academic advising as:

A systematic process based on a close student-advisor relationship

intended to aid students in achieving educational, career, and

personal goals through the utilization of the full range of

institutional and community resources. It both stimulates and

supports students in their quest for an enriched quality of life.

Developmental academic advising relationships focus on identifying

and accomplishing life goals, acquiring skills and attitudes that

promote intellectual and personal growth, and sharing concerns for

each other and for the academic community, (p. 19) Developmental

advisors help students with issues related to personal growth. They

stimulate student growth by questioning students about their goals

and progress, as well as by listening to what students say and how

they say it (Jordan, 2000).

Developmental advisors emphasize positive strengths, abilities, and skills of students rather than focusing on limitations or failures (Jordan, 2000). Developmental advisors encourage self-reliance in students by helping students set realistic goals and make informed, responsible decisions (Jordan, 2000). Because developmental advising focuses on the entire person, developmental advisors should be more effective in fostering students' academic and social integration within the institution.

Prescriptive advising is impersonal and authority-based, answering only specific questions and not taking individual development into consideration (Jordan, 2000). According to Crookston (1972)

The relationship is obviously based on authority; the advisor is the

doctor and the student the patient. The patient comes

in with some ailment.

The doctor makes a diagnosis, prescribes something, or gives advice.

Therefore, if the student follows the advice, the problem will be

solved and all is well! (pp. 12-13)

Novice advisors often use a prescriptive advising style (Jordan, 2000). Since many students expect this type of advising (Crookston, 1972), many advisors never transition to a more developmental advising style. While prescriptive advising may be an efficient method of scheduling student courses, prescriptive advisors are likely to be less effective in fostering students' academic and social integration within the institution.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine undergraduate academic advising in the College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences (AFLS). Specific objectives were to determine:

1. Students' perceptions of their current advisor's academic advising style (prescriptive or developmental) and their preferred advisor's academic advising style (prescriptive or developmental);

2. Students' level of satisfaction with academic advising; and

3. If significant (p < .05) differences existed in undergraduate students' level of satisfaction with academic advising based on congruence (or incongruence) between their advisor's academic advising style (prescriptive or developmental) and students' preferred academic advising style (prescriptive or developmental).

Procedures

The population for this study consisted of all undergraduate students enrolled in AFLS during the spring 2006 semester (N= 1187). A list of all undergraduate AFLS lecture courses (144 courses) offered during spring 2006 was obtained from the Dean's office and used as the sampling frame. A stratified (by department and course level) random sample of 31 courses was selected for inclusion in the study. Following university IRB approval, 21 course instructors agreed to participate and arrangements were made for the researcher to administer the survey during a specified class period. The total duplicated enrollment in these courses was 576 students. A written statement concerning confidentiality and the voluntary nature of student participation was read to each class prior to distribution of the instruments. Students were instructed not to complete the instrument if they had already completed it in another course. Usable responses were provided by 429 students.