View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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