Baseline Data for Assessment of Academic Advising Initiative Janine M. Allen, Ph.D. Professor of...

Baseline Data for Assessment of Academic Advising Initiative

Janine M. Allen, Ph.D. Professor of Education Portland State University

Cathleen L. Smith, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Portland State University

Overview of Presentation

Method Sample Characteristics Results

– Where Students Receive Advising– Overall Satisfaction with Advising– Predictors of Retention– Advising Functions: Importance and Satisfaction

Ratings– Advising Attitudes– How Student Characteristics Impact Responses

Method

We devised a survey that asked students to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, 12 advising functions

Survey also included items that measured where students receive their advising, advising attitudes, and predictors of retention including:– Goal commitment– Institutional Commitment– Significant Relationship– Satisfaction with advising and PSU

Method

Survey was web-based and administered during on-line registration for spring term 2003

2,193 undergraduates responded to the survey, and of those, 1,834 completed both parts of the survey

Survey responses were merged with data from the Student Information System

Sample Characteristics

Population: 11,979 students Sample: 2,193 students (18.3%)

Sample Characteristics

Population Sample

Gender

Male 45.9% 38.3%

Female 54.1% 61.7%

Class

Freshman 13.2% 12.1%

Sophomore 16.1% 17.4%

Junior 27.1% 26.9%

Senior 43.6% 43.5%

Sample Characteristics

Ethnicity Population Sample

Asian American 10.3% 6.9%

African American 3.2% 2.5%

Hispanic 4.0% 3.5%

Native American 1.3% 1.4%

White 66.1% 72.0%

Multiple 1.4% 1.6%

International 3.5% 1.8%

Declined 10.2% 10.4%

Sample Characteristics

Average age:– population: 26.5 years– sample: 26.5 years

Where Students Get Primary Advising

Location No. %

Not currently getting advice 666 30.6

Adviser in Major Department 653 30.0

CECS Dean’s Office 37 1.7

CLAS Advisers 216 9.9

IASC 224 10.3

SBA Student Services 174 8.0

New Student Orientation 21 1.0

Where Students Get Primary Advising (cont.)

Location No. %

EOP 33 1.5

Student Athlete Advising 11 .5

Degree Requirements Office 15 .7

Honors College 16 .7

Science Support Center 2 .1

Other 109 5.0

Where Students Get Major Advising

Location No. %

Adviser/Professor in Major Department 486 22.8

CECS Dean’s Office 40 1.9

CLAS Advisers 128 6.0

IASC 52 2.4

SBA Student Services 158 7.4

Science Support Center 5 .2

New Student Orientation 52 2.4

EOP 23 1.1

Where Students Get Major Advising (cont.)

Location No. %

Student Athlete Advising 9 .4

Degree Requirements Office 21 1.0

Bulletin 727 34.1

Advising Handbook/Website 142 6.7

Departmental Website 147 6.9

Peers/Friends 115 5.4

Family Members 28 1.3

Where Students Get University Studies/Gen Ed Advising

Location No. %

Adviser/Professor in Major Department 200 9.7

CECS Dean’s Office 12 .6

CLAS Advisers 123 5.9

IASC 217 10.5

SBA Student Services 74 3.6

Science Support Center 0 0

New Student Orientation 108 5.2

EOP 24 1.2

Where Students Get University Studies/Gen Ed Advising(cont.)

Location No. %

Student Athlete Advising 16 .8

Degree Requirements Office 29 1.4

Bulletin 795 38.4

Advising Handbook/Website 170 8.2

Departmental Website 98 4.7

Peers/Friends 188 9.1

Family Members 18 .9

Where Students Get Advising for Type of Degree - BA/BS

Location No. %

Adviser/Professor in Major Department 400 18.9

CECS Dean’s Office 38 1.8

CLAS Advisers 149 7.0

IASC 159 7.5

SBA Student Services 144 6.8

Science Support Center 0 0

New Student Orientation 59 2.8

EOP 28 1.3

Where Students Get Advising for Type of Degree - BA/BS (cont.)

Location No. %

Student Athlete Advising 9 .4

Degree Requirements Office 23 1.1

Bulletin 717 33.8

Advising Handbook/Website 140 6.6

Departmental Website 141 6.7

Peers/Friends 89 4.2

Family Members 24 1.1

Advising Functions:How important is this advising function to you?

Integration (Holistic Advising) 1. Advising that helps students connect their

academic, career, and life goals (overall connect)2. Advising that helps students choose among

courses in the major that connect their academic, career, and life goals (major connect).

3. Advising that assists students in choosing among the various general education options that connect their academic, career, and life goals (gen ed connect)

Advising Functions:How important is this advising function to you?

Integration (Holistic Advising) (contd.)

4. Advising that assists students with deciding what kind of degree to pursue in order to connect their academic, career, and life goals (degree connect)

5. Advising that assists students with choosing out-of-class activities that connect their academic, career, and life goals (out-of-class connect)

Advising Functions:How important is this advising function to you?

Referral

6. When students need it, referral to campus resources that address academic problems (referral academic)

7. When students need it, referral to campus resources that address non-academic problems (referral non-academic)

Advising Functions:How important is this advising function to you?

Information

8. Assisting students with understanding how things work at PSU (how things work)

9. Ability to give students accurate information about degree requirements (accurate information)

Advising Functions:How important is this advising function to you?

Individuation10. Taking into account students’ skills,

abilities, and interests in helping them choose courses (skills, abilities, interests)

11. Knowing the student as an individual (know as individual)

Advising Functions:How important is this advising function to you?

Shared Responsibility

12. Encouraging students to assume responsibility for their education by helping them develop planning, problem-solving, and decision-making skills (shared responsibility)

Measures of Advising Functions

Six point Likert-type Scales How important is this advising function to you?

1 = Not Important 6 = Very Important

How satisfied are you with the advising you receive on this function? 1 = Not Satisfied

6 = Very Satisfied

Advising FunctionsRank Order of Importance Ratings

(Satisfaction Rating in parentheses)

1. accurate info 5.64

(3.87)

7. shared responsibility 4.69

(3.78)

2. major connect 5.00

(3.69)

8. referral academic 4.57

(3.71)

3. how things work 4.99

(3.52)

9. degree connect 4.47

(3.67)

4. overall connect 4.95

(3.73)

10. gen ed connect 4.43

(3.42)

5. skills, abilities, interests

4.78

(3.63)

11. referral non-

academic

4.38

(3.69)

6. know as individual 4.70

(3.51)

12. out-of-class connect 4.21

(3.21)

Advising Attitudes

It is important to develop an adviser/advisee relationship with someone on campus (advising relationship)

There should be mandatory academic advising for students (mandatory)

Advising AttitudesStrongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 6

4.21Should be mandatory advising

4.68

Important to develop advising relationship

Predictors of Retention

Goal Commitment– It’s important for me to graduate from college

(Graduate College)– I have a plan to achieve my educational goals

(Educational Plan)

Institutional Commitment– I plan to graduate from PSU (Graduate PSU)– I am confident that I made the right decision in

choosing to attend PSU (Right Decision)

Predictors of Retention

Significant Relationship– I have had at least one relationship with a faculty

or staff member at PSU that has had a significant and positive influence on me (Significant Relationship)

Satisfaction– Overall: Overall, I am satisfied with my educational

experience at PSU (Overall Satisfaction)– Advising: Overall, I am satisfied with the academic

advising I receive at PSU (Advising Satisfaction)

Predictors of Retention in Total SampleStrongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 6

Graduate College

5.80(SD .789)

Significant Relationship

4.24(SD 1.706)

Educational Plan

5.32(SD 1.078)

Overall Satisfaction

4.19(SD 1.303)

Graduate PSU 5.42(SD 1.246)

Advising Satisfaction

3.52(SD 1.525)

Right Decision 4.63(SD 1.359)

I Believe I Have Been Accurately Advised

Number Percent

Yes 1161 65.9

No 602 34.1

Consequencesfor students who answered “no”

Number Percent of those who said “no”

Had to delay graduation 165 27.4

Petitioned for exception 68 11.3

Took unnecessary class 241 40.0

Other 234 38.9

Content Analysis of ARC Petitions

Petitions where the student claimed advising error

Year No. % of total

99-00 25 16.9

00-01 14 15.2

01-02 20 19.4

02-03 9 16.0

How Student Characteristics Impact Responses

Gender Class Level (lower-division vs. upper

division) Enrollment Status (new vs. continuing) Age/Cohort Educational Source Ethnicity

Advising FunctionsImportance Ratings

By Gender

Women rated importance of all advising functions significantly higher than men,

With one exception: “shared responsibility” The greatest mean difference observed for

the two referral function

Advising FunctionsSatisfaction Ratings

By Gender

Satisfaction ratings were not significantly affected by gender

Advising FunctionsImportance Ratings

By Class Level

Lower division students differed significantly from upper division students on the importance ratings for 2 of the 12 functions

Advising FunctionsImportance Ratings

By Class Level

Lower Division Rated Higher: Referral Academic

Upper Division Rated Higher: Accurate Information

Advising FunctionsSatisfaction Ratings

By Class Level

Satisfaction ratings were not significantly affected by Class Level

Advising Functions Importance Ratings

by Enrollment Status (New vs. Continuing student)

Two advising functions rated by new students as significantly more important:

• gen ed connect• skills, interests, abilities

Advising Functions Satisfaction Ratings

by Enrollment Status (New vs. Continuing Student)

New students significantly more satisfied than continuing students on 8 of the 12 advising functions

Advising FunctionsImportance Ratings

by Age/Cohort

Older rated 6 of the 12 functions as more important:– Four of 5 integration functions– Both information functions

Advising FunctionsSatisfaction Ratings

by Age/Cohort

Older students significantly more satisfied on 10 of the 12 advising functions

Advising Functionsby Educational Source

When transfer students, whether new or continuing, were compared to native students, whether new or continuing, we found virtually no differences in either importance or satisfaction ratings

Advising FunctionsImportance Ratings

by Ethnicity

We found major differences here Significant ethnic differences found on 7

functions Where there was significance, Asian-

American and African-American students (and sometimes Multi-Ethnic students) rated the advising functions as more important than White students

Advising Function Importance Ratings by Ethnicity

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

Accurate InfoMajor ConnectHow Things Work

Overall ConnectSkills, Interests*Know as Individual

Shared Responsibility*Referral Academic***Degree Connect***

Gen Ed Connect*

Referral Non-Academic*Out-of-Class Connect***

Advising Function

Importance Rating

Multiple Ethnic (n = 27)

African Amer (n = 43)

Asian Amer (n = 125)

Native Amer (n = 25)

Hispanic (n = 66)

White (n = 1323)

Advising FunctionsSatisfaction Ratings

by Ethnicity

Satisfaction ratings were not significantly affected by ethnicity

Advising Attitudes

It is important to develop an adviser/advisee relationship with someone on campus (advising relationship)

There should be mandatory academic advising for students (mandatory)

Advising Attitudes By Gender

Women rated the importance of “advising relationship” and “mandatory,” significantly higher than men

Advising Attitudes By Class Level & Enrollment Status

Significant differences found on one of the two items (“advising relationship”):

Lower division students were more likely than upper division students, and new students more likely than continuing students, to agree that it is important to establish an advising relationship

% Not Receiving Advice

Freshman 51.0%

Sophomore 46.2%

Junior 32.7%

Senior 17.3%

Lower Division 48.1%

Upper Division 23.2%

Advising Attitudes By Age/Cohort, Educational Source, and

Ethnicity

No significant differences

Predictors of Retention By GenderStrongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 6*p< .05 **p<.01

Predictor Male Female

Graduate College* 5.75 5.85

Educational Plan** 5.24 5.37Graduate PSU 5.39 5.44Right Decision 4.64 4.63Significant Relationship 4.30 4.20Overall Satisfaction 4.21 4.18Advising Satisfaction 3.60 3.48

Predictors of Retention by Class LevelStrongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 6*p< .05 **p<.01 ***p< .001

Predictor Lower Upper

Graduate College* 5.74 5.82

Educational Plan*** 5.15 5.40Graduate PSU*** 4.83 5.67Right Decision* 4.53 4.68Significant Relationship*** 4.03 4.33Overall Satisfaction 4.25 4.17Advising Satisfaction** 3.38 3.58

Predictors of Retention by Enrollment StatusStrongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 6 *p< .05 **p<.01 ***p< .001

Predictor New Cont.

Graduate College 5.84 5.78

Educational Plan 5.32 5.32

Graduate PSU*** 5.10 5.54

Right Decision** 4.73 4.60

Significant Relationship*** 3.93 4.63

Overall Satisfaction** 4.34 4.14

Advising Satisfaction 3.57 3.51

Predictors of Retention by Educational SourceStrongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 6 *p< .05 **p<.01 ***p< .001

Predictor New Native

New Trans

Cont.Native

Cont. Trans

Graduate College 5.76 5.87 5.77 5.80

Educational Plan** 5.14 5.45 5.23 5.41

Graduate PSU*** 4.44 5.55 5.33 5.69

Right Decision 4.56 4.83 4.58 4.65

Significant Relationship*** 4.28 3.61 4.41 4.33

Overall Satisfaction 4.34 4.35 4.14 4.13

Advising Satisfaction 3.41 3.66 3.45 3.55

Predictors of Retention by Age/CohortStrongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 6 *p< .05 **p<.01 ***p< .001

Predictor <25 >25

Graduate College 5.80 5.80

Educational Plan 5.28 5.37

Graduate PSU*** 5.22 5.62

Right Decision* 4.57 4.71

Significant Relationship** 4.14 4.35

Overall Satisfaction 4.21 4.18

Advising Satisfaction** 3.44 3.61

Predictors of Retention by Ethnicity

Native American students have lower Advising Satisfaction, significantly lower than African-American, Hispanic, and Multi-Ethnic students

Multi-Ethnic Students have higher Advising Satisfaction, significantly higher than Asian American, Native American, and White students

Predictors of Retention by Ethnicity

Asian American students are less confident they made the right decision to attend PSU, significantly lower than Hispanic, White, and Multiple Ethnicity students

Asian American students are less likely to have a significant relationship with a faculty or staff member at PSU (significantly lower than all other ethnic groups)

Further Questions What are the independent effects of student

characteristics on importance and satisfaction ratings when these characteristics are considered simultaneously?

What is the model that best describes the interrelationships among these variables, e.g., how do importance and satisfaction ratings of advising functions influence retention predictors?

What are the long-term effects of these variables on student outcomes, particularly retention?

Next Steps

Integrate retention data into database Examine qualitative data to better

understand the meaning of these quantitative data

Add indicators of socioeconomic status Administer survey again, and do follow-up

analysis of ARC petitions, to examine effects of Advising Initiative

Implications for Practice

Students care about these advising functions; even the lowest ranked function (out-of-class connect) was rated on the important end of the scale

Information is paramount; two of three top-rated items in overall sample (accurate information; how things work) involve an information function that should be the focus of research on and practice of academic advising

Academic aspects of the educational experience are preeminent; functions rated least important by overall sample involved co-curricular services and activities

Implications for Practice

Increase advisors’ awareness of the need to tailor their advising strategies to the characteristics of students along a number of important dimensions

Provide advising programs that specifically target and support members of ethnic minority groups

Provide professional development opportunities and incentives to assist advisors, particularly faculty, in integrating the various advising functions in their practice