1 / 22

NACADA, October 7, 2013

Structure and Effectiveness: Academic Advising Models at HBCUs and Impact on Retention and Graduation Rates Dr. David S. Hood, Associate Dean of University College North Carolina Central University Dr. Jennifer A. Schum , Associate Dean of University College North Carolina Central University.

druce
Download Presentation

NACADA, October 7, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Structure and Effectiveness: Academic Advising Models at HBCUs and Impact on Retention and Graduation RatesDr. David S. Hood, Associate Dean of University CollegeNorth Carolina Central UniversityDr. Jennifer A. Schum, Associate Dean of University CollegeNorth Carolina Central University NACADA, October 7, 2013

  2. Academic Advising and Retention • Cuseo (2003): Direct, causal connection between academic advising and retention yet to be established • Impact retention through: 1) student satisfaction with college experience, 2) effective educational, and career planning and decision-making, 3) utilization of support services, 4) student-faculty contact outside classroom, 5) student mentoring • Essential to advising programs: 1) mission and outcomes, 2) recognition/ reward, 3) hiring/ deployment criteria, 4) orientation/ training/ development • In Higher Education, students are leaving school at the end of their freshman year at alarming rates (McDaniel and Graham, 2001). • For every meeting with an academic advisor, the odds that a student will be retained increase by 13% (Swecker, Fifolt, & Searby, 2013)

  3. HBCUs • Filling critical gap in higher education despite substantial ideological, funding challenges (Cantey et al., 2013) • Disproportionately enroll low-income, first generation, underprepared • 324,000 attended HBCUs in 2011 (NCES, 2013) • HBCUs comprise 3% of all four-year institutions in the US, yet produce 20% of the bachelors degrees awarded to Black students (UNCF, 2013) • In US: 33% of Whites vs 20% Black adults (aged 25+) have earned bachelor’s • Average overall 6-year graduation rate in US= 50% • Black= 42%, White= 62%

  4. Academic Advising Models Habley (2004) Decentralized • Faculty-Only Model • Satellite Shared • Supplementary Model • Split Model • Dual Model • Total Intake Centralized • Self-Contained Model

  5. Faculty-Only Model • More prevalent decentralized structure • All students are assigned to a departmental advisor • Typically a professor from the student's academic discipline • Used at 28% of all institutions • Primarily the model of choice at private institutions • 36% of the private 2-year colleges • 39% of the private 4-year colleges and universities. However, when considering the two most popular shared models together, 4-year private institutions using the Supplementary or Split Models slightly outnumber (at 43%) the 4-year private institutions with the Faculty Only Model (39%).

  6. Satellite Model • Academic divisions within the institution establishes a unit responsible for advising • Professional advising faculty/staff in each unit • Styles to approaching advising vary

  7. Supplementary Model • Students are assigned to a department advisor • Central administrative unit housing professional advising staff • Usually staffoffers support through resources and training • Centers may serve students according to transfer course evaluation/ degree audit • Most popular at 2-year private and 4-year institutions • 2-year private (21%) • 4-year private (26%) • Found at 17% of all institutions

  8. Split Model • Faculty in departments and staff of an advising center oversee advising • Advising centers are usually responsible for: • Undecided majors • Academic probation • Freshmen • Pre-majors for professional program • Once declared or cleared for professional program, students are reassigned to academic major • Found at 27% of all institutions • The Split Model is dominant at 4-year public colleges and universities • Nearly half (46%) of these institutions utilize this model

  9. Dual Model • Student has two advisors • Instructional faculty • Advises on academic major-related issues • Advising Office • Advises on general requirements, procedures, and policies

  10. Total Intake Model • Staff in an administrative unit advise all students • Students are advised for a specified period of time/and or requirements have been met • After requirements are met, students receive a faculty advisor

  11. Self-Contained Model • Advising may occur in an advising center or a counseling center • Staffed primarily by professional advisors/counselors • Faculty may advise student at the center/part-time basis • Found at 14% of all institutions • Most frequently found at 2-year public colleges at 29%

  12. Statement of Problem • No data exist that shed light on the perception of Provosts/ Chief Academic Officers (CAOs) at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) on the structure and effectiveness of first year academic advising on student retention and graduation rates.

  13. Purpose of Study • The primary purpose of this study is to determine if there are statistically significant differences between first year academic advising models at HBCUs and • First year retention rates • Four-year graduation rates • CAO perceptions of program structure effectives • CAO perceptions of effectiveness with students • Additionally, this study will determine if there are statistically significant relationships between CAO perceptions of program structure effectiveness and effectiveness with students and • First year retention rates • Four-year graduation rates

  14. Research Questions • 1. Are there statistically significant differences between the Academic Advising models implemented at HBCUs during the first year and 1) first year retention and 2) four-year graduation, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics? • 2. Are there statistically significant differences between the Academic Advising models implemented at HBCUs during the first year and perceptions by CAOs of 1) effectiveness of program structure and 2) effectiveness with students? • 3. Are there statistically significant relationships between 1) effectiveness of program structure and 2) effectiveness with students, with 1) first year retention and 2) four-year graduation, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics?

  15. Survey Items • 1. FY academic advising model • 2. AA reporting line • 3. Presence of AA coordinator • 4. Presence of SLOs for FYAA • 5. Adequate training for FYAA • 6. Adequate rewards for FYAA • 7. Effective assessment of FYAA • 8. Effective collabbetween AA and FY programs • 9. Effective collabbetween AA and faculty • 10. FYAA knowledge of curricula • 11. FYAA knowledge of developmental needs of students • 12. Effectiveness of FYAA with special populations • 13. Effectiveness of FYAA with those switching majors • 14. Quality FYAA important to retention • 15. FYAA effective at increasing retention on my campus • 16. Percentage of FY in bridge/preparation program • 17. Gender • 18. Length of experience as CAO • 19. Length of experience in higher education

  16. Research Design and Population • NCCU IRB approval • Electronic survey (SurveyMonkey) • Pilot: convenience sample of 57 Advisors and academic support colleagues • open two weeks, two follow-up reminders • Study: Chief Academic Officers at 97 institutions identified as Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the U.S. • 84 contacts identified at four-year institutions • open for two weeks, two follow-up reminders • Other data taken from National Center for Education Statistics • First year retention, four-year graduation rate, total undergraduate enrollment, first year cohort, control (public/private), selectivity

  17. Pilot Results • 32 respondents; reliable instrument (Cronbach’sα= .837) • Factor Analysis on Likert scale items Q5 to Q16 • Two factors with excellent internal consistency • Factor I, Effectiveness of Program Structure scale (Cronbach’sα= .827) • Q8, AA-FY program collaboration .828 • Q7, Effective AA assessment .823 • Q5, Effective AA training .821 • Q6, Effective AA reward .820 • Q9, AA-faculty collaboration .459 • Factor II, Effectiveness with Students scale, (Cronbach’sα= .798) • Q12, AA effective withspecial populations .831 • Q10, AA knowledge of curricula .778 • Q13, AA effective withswitching majors .771 • Q11, AA knowledge of first yeardev. needs .683 • Q15, AA effective atincreasingretention .594 • Q14, AA important to retention .221

  18. Preliminary Study Results • Low response rate= 13 • 6 M/6 F= 12 (1 skipped) • Avg. higher ed. exp.= 25.92 yrs.; 66.7%= in position < 3 years • 61.5%= total intake, 23.1%= shared split • 91.7%= First Year Academic Advising reports to Academic Affairs • 30.8%= no Student Learning Outcomes for FYAA • 50%= reward structures for FYAA not effective • 33%= training /professional dev. for FYAA not adequate • 25%= assessment of FYAA not effective • 25%= collaboration between FYAA and faculty not effective • 80%= less than 25% of freshmen in summer bridge

  19. Preliminary Study Results • 91.6%= strongly agreed quality FYAA important to retention • all agreed/ strongly agreed • 75%= FYAA on campus effective at increasing retention • 25% not sure, or FYAA is not effective

  20. Next Steps • Mail paper surveys to Provosts/ CAOs to increase response rate • Alternates not appropriate for research questions • surveying Directors of Advising • surveying larger population of Provosts/CAOs

  21. DISCUSSION

  22. References • Cantey, N. I., Bland, R., Mack, L. R., & Joy-Davis, D., (2013). Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Sustaining a culture of excellence in the twenty-first century. Journal of African American Studies, 17, 142–153. • Habley, W.R. (2004). The status of academic advising: Findings from the ACT Sixth National Survey. (NACADA Monograph Series, no 10.) Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association. • Frost, S. H. (2000). Historical and philosophical foundations for academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A Comprehensive handbook (pp.3-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. • Jarrell, C. (2004). Creating a foundation for student success: From research to practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, (6), 513-524. • Makela, J. P. (2006, June). Advising community college students: Exploring traditional and emerging theory. In Brief. Office of Community College Research and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. • National Academic Advising Association. (2007). Concept of academic advising. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Concept-advising-introduction.htm • National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Historically black colleges and universities. Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=667 . • National Center for Education Statistics. (2013) . Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/index.asp • Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46-53. • United Negro College Fund (20130). About HBCUs. Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://www.uncf.org/sections/MemberColleges/SS_AboutHBCUs/about.hbcu.asp

More Related