NACADA Goals for Advising: Are we meeting them

1
NACADA Goals for Advising Are we meeting them?

• Jennifer Wyatt, Ed.D.
• Appalachian State University

2
Background Information

• NACADA Development
• May 1979 NACADA was incorporated to promote
  quality academic advising on college and
  university campuses (NACADA, 1994, para.1.)
• Council for the Advancement of Standards in
  Higher Education
• Inter-association consortium established in 1979
  to develop and for purposes of developing and
  publicize standards of professional practice in
  higher education

3
Creating Goals for Academic Advising

• 1980 CAS asked NACADA to assist in developing
  standards for academic advising
• NACADA organized a task force to develop a set of
  goals for advising
• CAS used the goals to create standards for
  advising

4
NACADA Goals for Advising

• Assisting students in self-understanding and
  self-acceptance
• Assisting students in considering life goals by
  relating interests, skills, abilities, and values
  to careers, the world of work, and the nature and
  purpose of higher education
• Assisting students in developing an educational
  plan consistent with life goals and objectives
• Assisting students in developing decision-making
  skills

5
NACADA Goals for Advising (cont.)

• Providing accurate information about
  institutional policies, procedures, resources,
  and programs
• Referring students to other institutional or
  community support services
• Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating
  progress toward established goals and educational
  plans
• Providing information about students to the
  institution, college, and/or academic
  departments.
• (Habley, 2004)

6
ACT National Surveys of Academic Advising

• First national evaluation of advising
• Conducted in 1979 by American College Testing
• Stratified random sample of roughly 1000
  institutions of higher education (public
  private)
• One survey per institution
• The complete study has been replicated 5 times
• 1983, 1987, 1992, 1998, 2003

7
ACT Question on Goals

• Beginning with the 1983 survey, the survey has
  included a question about the goals
• Consider whether your current advising services
  are designed and delivered in a way such that
  each goal is satisfactorily achieved for most
  students at your school. Then, check the one
  response that BEST indicates your opinion.
• 5-point Likert scale
• 1Very Unsatisfactory
• 2Unsatisfactory
• 3Neutral
• 4Satisfactory
• 5Very Satisfactory

8
Results for Meeting Goals(For all institutions)
Habley, 2004
9
My reason for this study

• In the ACT National surveys only one person from
  each institution responded for the entire
  institution
• Many of these respondents werent really closely
  involved in the day-to-day advising operations
• 2003 Results (Habley, 2004)
• Only 24 surveys were completed by a
  Director/Coordinator of Academic Advising
• 24 were completed by Vice President/Dean of
  Academic Affairs
• The remaining 52 were completed by respondents
  in various academic departments, counseling
  departments, student affairs, enrollment
  management, admissions, or some other unit on
  campus

10
My reason for this study (cont.)

• This raised a question for me about the
  respondents complete knowledge of and
  participation in the entire advising processes
  and systems at the institutions.
• My thought was that a more accurate picture of
  how well the goals are being met may come from
  those on campus who are actually involved in the
  process of advising.
• Faculty Advisors
• Staff Advisors
• Students

11
Purpose of the Study

• The purpose of this study was to investigate the
  self-reported perceptions of faculty and staff
  advisors as to how well they are meeting the
  NACADA goals for advising. In addition, the study
  investigated the relationship between student,
  staff academic advisor, and faculty advisor
  perceptions of meeting NACADA goals for academic
  advising.

12
Research Questions

• Is there a significant difference between faculty
  advisor perception and staff advisor perception
  of meeting NACADA goals for advising?
• Is there a significant difference between staff
  advisor perception and students with staff
  advisors perception of meeting NACADA goals for
  advising?
• Is there a significant difference between faculty
  advisor perception and students with faculty
  advisors perception of meeting NACADA goals for
  advising?
• Is there a significant difference between all
  advisor perceptions and all student perceptions
  of meeting NACADA goals for advising?
• Is there a significant difference between
  students with faculty advisors perceptions and
  students with staff advisors perceptions of
  meeting NACADA goals for advising?

13
Research Site Appalachian State
UniversityBoone, North Carolina

• a member of the 16 campus UNC system
• four-year public comprehensive university
• located in rural Western North Carolina
• 14,650 students (12,980 undergraduates)
• a traditional residential institution
• mean age of students is 21.5 years
• 50.1 male and 49.8 female
• 90.9 Caucasian

(ASU, 2005)
14
Target Populations

• Four groups of participants
• Staff Advisors (n 21)
• Students advised by staff advisors (n 2,680)
• College of Arts Sciences faculty advisors
  (n 217)
• Students advised by College of Arts Sciences
  faculty advisors (n 2,869)

15
Instrument

• Researcher developed a survey instrument
• Based upon instrument used in six national
  studies done by ACT
• Each goal was listed with a Likert scale from one
  to five to measure participants perceptions of
  how well each goal had been met
• Instrument also provided participants the
  opportunity to list specific methods used to meet
  the goals
• Two forms one for advisors and one for advisees

16
Reliability Validity

• Based on the instruments similarity to the ACT
  survey, the instrument was assumed to be a
  reliable measure
• The addition of the qualitative section to
  determine the type of methods being used in
  advising should not negate this reliability.
• The instrument was reviewed by a staff advisor
  and a faculty advisor for clearness of wording
  and procedures, as well as for face validity.

17
Respondents

• 51 Faculty Advisors return rate 23.5
• 51 female
• 49 male
• 1 to 37 years advising experience
• 5 Staff Advisors return rate of 23.8
• All female (only 5 of 21 staff advisors are male)
• 3-18 years advising experience
• 122 Students return rate of 2.1
• 63.9 female
• 36 male

18
Analysis of Quantitative Data

• Compared the responses between groups
• Null hypotheses for the five research questions
  were tested using F-ratio scores
• Null hypotheses were tested at the .05 alpha
  level

19
Research Question 1There will be no difference
between faculty advisors and staff advisors

• No statistical differences found for Goals 1, 2,
  5, 7, 8
• Goal 3 assisting students in developing an
  educational plan
• faculty advisors M 3.68, SD .91
• staff advisors M 4.60, SD .54
• (F (1, 54) 4.846), p .032
• Goal 4 assisting students in developing
  decision-making skills
• faculty advisors M 2.78, SD 1.09
• staff advisors M 3.80, SD .44
• (F (1, 54) 4.221), p .045
• Goal 6 referring students to other
  institutional/community support services
• faculty advisors M 3.31, SD 1.08
• staff advisors M 4.60, SD .54
• (F (1, 55) 6.760), p .012

20
Research Question 2There will be no difference
between staff advisors and students with staff
advisors

• No significant differences found for Goals 1, 2,
  3, 4, 5, 7, 8
• Goal 6 referring students to other institutional
  or community support
• staff advisors M 4.60, SD .54
• Students with staff advisors M 3.42, SD 1.03
• (F (1, 46) 6.066), p .018

21
Research Question 3There will be no difference
between faculty advisors and students with
faculty advisors

• No significant differences found for Goals 1, 3,
  5, 6, 7, 8
• Goal 2 assisting students in considering life
  goals
• faculty advisors M 3.40, SD 1.13
• students with faculty advisors M 3.80, SD
  .80
• (F (1, 121) 4.531), p .035
• Goal 4 assisting students in developing
  decision-making skills
• faculty advisors M 3.19, SD 1.01
• students with faculty advisors M 2.78, SD
  .1.09
• (F (1, 121) 4.613), p .034

22
Research Question 4There will be no difference
between all advisors and all students

• No significant differences found for Goals 1, 2,
  3, 5, 6, 7, 8
• Goal 4 assisting students in developing
  decision-making skills
• advisors M 2.87, SD 1.08
• Students M 3.35, SD 1.02
• (F (1, 174) 7.847), p .006

23
Research Question 5There will be no difference
between students with faculty advisors and
students with staff advisors

• No significant differences found for Goals 1, 4,
  5, 6, 7, 8
• Goal 2 assisting students in considering life
  goals
• students with faculty advisors M 3.40, SD
  1.13
• students with staff advisors M 3.84, SD .98
• (F (1, 115) 4.487), p .036
• Goal 3 assisting students in developing an
  educational plan
• students with faculty advisors M 3.56, SD
  1.04
• students with staff advisors M 4.00, SD .87
• (F (1, 114) 5.413), p .025

24
Analysis of Qualitative Data

• Content Analysis
• The researcher first grouped all responses
  together by participant groups (i.e., students,
  staff advisors, and faculty advisors).
• For each goal, the researcher compiled a list of
  all reported methods used.
• Several themes of advisor roles in the data were
  noticed.

25
Qualitative Data

• Six advisor roles emerged from these data
• Communicator
• Referral Maker
• Information Provider
• Teacher
• Scheduler
• Nurturer

26
Communicator

• Advisors in this role
• talk and listen to advisees
• ask open-ended questions of advisees
• explore student interests
• maintain contact through email, letters, and
  phone calls

27
Information Provider

• Advisors in this role
• give needed information to the student
• the information may be about
• university policies procedures
• careers
• majors
• tasks the advisee needs to accomplish

28
Nurturer

• Advisors in this role
• encourage advisees
• support advisees plans
• provide a caring, positive relationship with
  advisee

29
Scheduler

• Advisors in this role
• act as clerks for registration for classes
• get students into classes
• make four-year graduation plans
• complete academic concentration contracts

30
Referral Maker

• Advisors in this role
• Refer students to other resources
• on-campus
• in the community
• on-line
• in printed material

31
Teacher

• Advisors in this role
• provide experiences for advisees
• give assignments and tasks for the advisee to
  complete in order to learn something

32
Goal One Assisting students in
self-understanding and self-acceptance

• Top three roles
• Students Nurturer, Communicator, Info Provider
• Faculty Advisors Communicator, Nurturer, Info
  Provider
• Staff Advisors Communicator, Teacher, Referral
  Maker

33
Goal Two Assisting students in considering life
goals by relating interests, skills, abilities,
and values to careers, the world of work, and
thenature and purpose of higher education

• Top three roles
• Students Communicator, Info Provider, Scheduler
• Faculty Communicator, Info Provider, Referral
  Maker
• Staff Communicator, Referral Maker, Teacher

34
Goal Three Assisting students in developing an
educational plan consistent with life goals and
objectives

• Top three roles
• Students Scheduler, Communicator, Information
  Provider
• Faculty Communicator, Info Provider, Scheduler
• Staff Referral Maker, Teacher Scheduler
  (tie), Communicator

35
Goal Four Assisting students in developing
decision-making skills

• Top three roles
• Students Teacher, Info Provider, Communicator
• Faculty Advisors Teacher, Communicator, Info
  Provider
• Staff Advisors Teacher Scheduler (tie),
  Communicator, Nurturer

36
Goal Five Providing accurate information about
institutional policies, procedures, resources,
and programs

• Top three roles
• Students Info Provider, Communicator, Referral
  Maker
• Faculty Advisors Info Provider, Referral Maker,
  Communicator
• Staff Advisors Info Provider, Communicator,
  Referral Maker

37
Goal Six Referring students to other
institutional or community support services

• Top three roles
• Students Referral Maker, Info Provider,
  Communicator
• Faculty Advisors Referral Maker, Info Provider
• Staff Advisors Communicator, Referral Maker,
  Info Provider (all tied)

38
Goal Seven Assisting students in evaluating or
reevaluating progress toward established goals
and educational plans

• Top three roles
• Students Scheduler, Communicator, Info Provider
  
• Faculty Advisors Scheduler, Communicator,
  Teacher
• Staff Advisors Communicator, Scheduler, Teacher

39
Goal Eight Providing information about students
to the institution, college, and/or academic
departments

• Top three roles
• Students Info Provider, Communicator, Referral
  Maker
• Faculty Advisors Info Provider
• Staff Advisors Info Provider, Communicator

40
Conclusions

• This study seems to affirm the findings from
  Crockett and Levitz (1983), Habley (1988, 2004),
  Habley and Crockett (1988), and Habley and
  Morales (1998) who found that the goals developed
  by NACADA were being met.
• Like the latest ACT survey (Habley, 2004), the
  lowest rating (2.78) was for Goal 4, assisting
  students with developing decision-making skills.

41

• In this study staff advisors rated themselves
  higher on all eight goals than faculty advisors
  rated themselves.
• faculty advisor ratings
• between 2.78 and 4.01 on a Likert scale of 1-5
• staff advisor ratings
• between 3.40 and 4.60 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5

42

• Advisors believed they are doing a better job
  than students believed they are doing.
• Staff advisors rated themselves higher on seven
  of the goals than students who had staff advisors
  rated their advisors.
• the exception Goal 5 - providing accurate
  information
• This trend was also seen with faculty advisors,
  with faculty rating themselves higher on seven of
  the goals than students who had faculty advisors
  rated their advisors.
• the exception Goal 4 assisting students in
  developing decision-making skills
• When looking at all advisors compared to all
  students, advisors again rated themselves higher
  on five of the eight goals
• exceptions Goal 3 assisting students in
  developing educational plan Goal 4 assisting
  students in developing decision-making skills
  Goal 8 providing information about students to
  other departments

43

• The data showed that overall students with staff
  advisors were more satisfied with their advisors
  than were students with faculty advisors.
• Students with faculty advisors rated their
  advisors higher than students with staff advisors
  rated their advisors for only one goal, Goal 5,
  providing accurate information.

44

• One interesting finding was that staff advisors
  made no negative comments about any goal and made
  no responses that a particular goal was not in
  the job description for advisors.
• In addition, all five staff advisors responded to
  all eight goals with at least two methods they
  used to meet the particular goal.
• Faculty advisors, on the other hand, reported
  that some of the goals should not be required of
  academic advisors, and quite a few faculty
  advisors said they never do this or left the
  methods section blank for one or more goals.

45
Implications for Practice

• This focus on developmental advising seems to be
  the goal in theory, but this study showed that in
  practice, advisors reported their highest scores
  in areas of the prescriptive duties of advising
  (Goals 3, 5, 7)
• Faculty advisor comments tended to show that they
  did not have the time or interest in providing a
  broad range of advising that would be considered
  developmental in nature.
• As all staff advisors reported at least two
  methods they used to meet each goal, overall they
  appeared to show more willingness to approach
  each goal during advising than did the faculty
  members.
• Advisor training in awareness of the
  developmental goals for advising is necessary for
  advisors, especially faculty advisors.

46
Recommendations for Further Research

• It is recommended that a study be conducted with
  a larger sample of staff advisors. Due to the
  academic advising organizational structure at
  Appalachian State University, the pool of staff
  advisors was small. A study with a larger group
  of staff advisors would provide more data to use
  when comparing them to faculty advisors.
• Qualitative studies should be conducted to
  ascertain what activities are actually being done
  during advising sessions. This would provide a
  richer picture of what it is that academic
  advisors actually do and how students respond to
  the activities and the advising relationship.
  This could contribute to the information needed
  by those who are working to develop a definition
  of advising.
• Additional research at a variety of institutions
  (e.g., community colleges, technical schools,
  private institutions) could provide information
  about how advising is done in other environments.
  This could contribute to the information needed
  by those who are working to develop a definition
  of advising.
• Additional research is needed to assess the
  impact of comprehensive training, evaluation, and
  compensation on faculty advising.

47
Questions?
48
References

• Appalachian State University. (2005b). IPEDS
  enrollment statistics Fall 2005. Retrieved
  November 9, 2005, from http//www.appstate.edu/ww
  w_docs/depart/irp/enrollment/ipeds/ipeds05.pdf
• Council on the Advancement of Standards. (2006).
  FAQ What CAS Standards and Guidelines are
  currently in place? Retrieved October 12, 2006,
  from http//www.cas.edu/
• Crockett, D. S., Levitz, R. (1983). A national
  survey of academic advising A final report. Iowa
  City, IA American College Testing Program.
• Habley, W. R. (1988). Introduction and overview.
  In W. R. Habley (Ed.), The status and future of
  academic advising Problems and promises (pp.
  1-10). Iowa City, IA The ACT National Center for
  the Advancement of Educational Practices.
• Habley, W. R. (2004). The status of academic
  advising Findings from the ACT sixth national
  study. Manhattan, KS National Academic Advising
  Association.
• Habley, W. R., Crockett, D. S. (1988). The
  third ACT national survey of academic advising.
  In W. R. Habley (Ed.), The status and future of
  academic advising Problems and promises (pp.
  11-76). Iowa City, IA The ACT National Center
  for the Advancement of Educational Practices.
• National Academic Advising Association. (1994).
  NACADA statement of core values of academic
  advising. Retrieved September 8, 2004, from
  NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising
  Resources Web site http//www.nacada.ksu.edu/Cle
  aringhouse/Research_Related/corevalues/htm