Intrusive Advising: Knowing When to Parent, and When to Stand Back Krystin Deschamps, MEd

1. Intrusive Advising: Knowing When to Parent, and When to Stand Back Krystin Deschamps, MEd Stephanie Hamblin, MS NACADA, October 5, 2011

2. Who We Are and Why are We Doing This • Krystin Deschamps • Stephanie Hamblin

3. Who are you? • A. Not an advisor • B. In my first three years of advising • C. 3-10 years of advising • D. 10+ years of advising • E. Just an awesome human being!

4. Krystin’s Population Students who are readmitted after poor academic standing. • 62% men, 38% women • Average age at readmission is ~27 • High proportion of students eligible for Student Support Services • Success rate is about 80%

5. University Advising Population • Students readmitted to USU in less than good standing • Undeclared, Undeclared Nursing Allied Health, Undeclared Business, and Associate Degree students.

6. Krystin’s Guiding Theories • King and Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model • How people interpret knowledge, and advances in stages (from no separation between facts and judgment to judgment based on rational inquiry) • Students can react emotionally and reflexively to what they perceive to be negative stimuli • I used this theory to understand where a student is emotionally

7. Krystin’s Guiding Theories, cont. • Transition Theory: Situation, Self, Support, Strategies (Schlossberg) • Situation—Timing, impact, and amount of control • Self—Coping skills, experience, and outlook • Support—People, agencies, financial • Strategies—Where academic advisors can make a difference

8. Krystin’s Guiding Theories, cont. • Marginality and Mattering (Schlossberg) • Marginality: Our belief, whether right or wrong, that we matter to someone else (p.9) • Attention, Importance, Ego extension, Dependence, Appreciation • Plays an important role in higher ed

9. Stephanie’s Guiding Theories Vygotsky – Scaffolding • Requires knowing what the student is capable of • Sufficient explanation so student can take responsibility

10. Stephanie’s Guiding Theories, cont. Kolb – Learning Styles • A. Convergers – get information on own online, then specific answers from advisors • B. Divergers – printed information to digest, then meet with advisor • C. Assimilators – immediate verbal information from advisors and opportunity ask questions • D. Accommodators – personal contact with advisor and specific information in person

11. What is meant by intervention? • E-mail if not following contract • Assisting with petitions • Requiring extra visits • Second chance • Walking vs. referring to resources • Specifying sections • Creating a schedule • Placing a hold

12. Case Study: Earl • Gender: Male • Approximate age:28 • Experience with college: CC transfer student, on probation for three semesters before suspension • Circumstances: Showed up very late for one appointment with me, was very apologetic. First generation. Guardian of younger siblings. Multiple identities. Active in student life—seen as a leader. • Problem presented: He is undecided about a major. He has poor college navigational skills. He did not meet contract; should I retain?

13. Checklist

14. Case Study: Noah • Gender:  Male • Approximate age: late 20’s • Experience with college: 24 credits AP, 7 credits transferred, 6 semesters / 43 credits at USU • Circumstances: Tends to skip classes • Problem presented: Required to meet with advisor every three weeks, met the first one, no showed the second one.  Do I send him an e-mail reminding him to make his 3 week appts. 

15. What to do with Noah • A. Send an e-mail or call to remind him to make his visits • B. Allow Natural Consequences

16. Checklist

17. Did you get the same result for Noah? • A. Yes • B. No

18. Return to Case Study • Time to practice, and ask questions

19. Case Study: Molly • Gender: Female •  Approximate age: Mid 20’s • Experience with college: 6 credits CE and transfer, 1 semester AW took time off readmitted • Circumstances: Parent wants her doing nursing classes.  Semester 1.  We talked her out of physiology in a three way call. At that point, she changed another recommended class to a non-recommended class.  Advised for 2nd semester, took some, changed others.  Only made one monthly required visit. • Problem presented: Wants to drop a class at the drop deadline, but doesn’t want to come in for a visit.

20. What to do with Molly • A. Require her to come in before allowing her to drop • B. Allow her to drop without a visit at this time

21. Did you get the same result for Molly? • A. Yes • B. No

22. References Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Hagen, P.L., Jordan, P. (2008). Theoretical foundations of academic advising. In V.N. Gordon et. Al. (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook, 2ndEd. (pp.17-35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kitchener, K.S., &King. P.M. (1990). The reflective judgment model: Ten years of research. In M. L. Commons et al. (Eds.), Adult development: Vol. II. Models and methods in the study of adolescent and adult thought (pp. 63-78). New York: Praeger. Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. Counseling Psychologist, 9 (2), 2-18. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (New Directions for Student Services, No. 48 (pp.5-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23. Contact: Krystin Deschamps: krystin.deschamps@usu.edu Stephanie Hamblin: stephanie.hamblin@usu.edu