May 2003
Provide student advising and mentoring that empowers students to complete their programs of study, improves retention, increases student satisfaction, and bolsters academic achievement.
Greg Hooks (Sociology), Eloy Gonzalez (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Roger Schlesinger (History), Richard Zollars (Chemical Engineering), and Al Jamison (Associate Vice President for Educational Development, Student Affairs).
Background:
-
The current model of academic advising for course scheduling and the demands upon faculty time do not encourage mentoring as part of academic advising.
-
Academic advising is often not rewarded nor considered important as part of faculty role and responsibilities at the department level. Sometimes engaging in academic advising may result in loss of promotional opportunities.
-
Faculty able to combine mentoring with academic advising seem to find intrinsic rewards in those activities. Still, departments and the university are encouraged to formally acknowledge and reward a colleague able and willing to make such a valuable contribution.
-
Some departments/colleges have moved to professional advising. The units that have moved in this direction report satisfaction with this approach.
-
The curriculum at WSU is complex and fluid, and information systems supporting advising (DARS) is not user friendly, making course planning difficult for both faculty advisors and students.
-
All undergraduates are required to see an academic advisor prior to accessing METRO for registration. Because of lack of rewards, little/no accountability, complex curricula, and complex information systems these encounters range from excellent to poor. Many students are simply referred to departmental secretaries to lift advising holds. Most students enter WSU as undecided whether they declare a major or not. Data from the late nineties indicate 2/3 of students change majors at least once. National data suggest 2/3 change at least twice.
Two recent surveys shed light on this issue. The most recent WSU Graduate Survey of 99-00 graduates (1182 respondents - a 34% response rate) asked four questions regarding advising in the major. Generally speaking, 25% of respondents felt advising was poor or somewhat poor. Included in this assessment are advising related responses to open ended questions such as "What 2 things would you say to students new to WSU?" The National Survey of Student Engagement polled seniors and freshmen along a number of student life dimensions. Responses to how they would evaluate the quality of academic advising were similar to that of students in 51 other Doctoral Extensive (Research I) institutions, and below that of all 315 four-year institutions. It is of note however, that WSU is rare among Research I institutions for requiring all students to see an academic advisor.
Issues:
-
How big is the problem in the first place? If most advising problems result from transfers and changed majors, as Dick Law, Director of General Education reported, are there specific ways to address those particular cases?
We don't think that this is an intractable problem, which is not equivalent to saying that we are totally problem-free. It is clear that different academic units have different configurations and therefore different ways of dealing with the at times complex issue of advising / mentoring. No one-size-fits-all approach could really work to everyone's satisfaction. However, perhaps some common sense notions could guide us in devising a system that will function better. -
How/should we distinguish between mentoring and advising? Should mentoring be part of the advising system (or does it develop through student-teacher relationships that develop in the classroom, etc.)?
Advising and mentoring do not appeal equally to everyone. Rather than automatically distributing these tasks on a "number of students per faculty member basis", every department should have some people who are assigned do this because they want to this and are ready to do it well. This wouldn't prevent anyone from participating, but those who do would do so with the understanding that they are choosing to do it, and therefore are willing to receive the training that may be necessary and spend the required amount time to do the job right. Given the complexity of the undergraduate requirements and in recognition of the fact that advising will require additional training, departments that rely on faculty advisers should formally acknowledge and reward those who perform this task well. -
How should faculty advisors be rewarded?
This service has to mean more to the engaged faculty member that a 5% attached to someone's "service" on the Annual Review. While this "meaning more" is subject to interpretation, and the application of the idea would undoubtedly vary from department to department, let's be clear about the underlying principle: if we want to say it is important, let's make it important. To make it important, it must appear to be important, which means that it must be clearly, proportionately and adequately rewarded. Release time for faculty who do it? A possibility for some departments. Monetary rewards? A possibility for others. But let's not be satisfied with an honorary mention at the end of the Chair's evaluation at annual review time. If the institution makes advising and mentoring really count, the faculty's perception of its importance will change accordingly.
Recommendations:
-
Assign advising to faculty and staff interested in performing this function -- and rewarded for this task. Some departments/colleges may want to assign advising only to professionals so rewards and delivery of services become routine and advisors more accountable. The importance of academic advising and rewards for advising must be clearly articulated from the university level to department chairs to encourage more emphasis upon advising.
Whether we provide some type of reward to the faculty for advising, or hire professionals to do it, there is going to have to be some type of assessment mechanism to determine how well these individuals are doing the advising before any rewards (raises for professionals) can be given. This assessment cannot just be student opinions, since this involves too much personality. While student opinion would be a factor the system would also have to include how accurate the advising was. If such a mechanism were to be put in place who would pay for it?
Again, if this institution believes that the advising/mentoring system needs improvement, then Washington State University must invest the resources to induce institutional change. Our discussion with department chairs and administrators does not lead this workgroup to conclude that the advising and mentoring system is broken and in need of a complete overhaul. We recommend that the university address specific problems where they are clearly identified and work with the colleges and departments to improve advising systems that are currently functioning at an adequate level. -
Improved information systems. The DARS reports are difficult to understand. The system should be upgraded/modified to make it more user friendly. Although the data contained in this system is valuable for students and advisors, the user interface and reports provide too little information and it is tedious to extract this information. A one-page checklist that could be easily understood places more responsibility upon students for self-advising, and enables advisors more easily to determine course scheduling. Require only specific groups (freshmen and first semester transfer students, seniors filing the graduation "to do" list, students on academic probation etc.) to see an advisor. Mandating advising for certain groups not only places more responsibility for advising on other students, but also reduces the advising load on assigned faculty/professionals.
-
Advising first semester freshmen and new transfer students is of great importance. Because requirements change, it is important that those who advise these students stay current with requirements. Advisors assigned freshman and first semester transfer students should be required to attend at least an annual training session to include information on advising for undecided students as well as updates on curricular and programmatic changes.
-
Conduct a study to identify problems in the advising system. Washington State University compares favorably with other Research I universities, however, Research I universities in general rank below the 315 four-year universities in ratings of advising. Further investigation of these differences and a better understanding of the complaints and problems that surface at Washington State University would be valuable.