Report of AdHoc Advising Task Force

1. Report of AdHocAdvising Task Force August 2013

2. Committee Members • Rosanne Short • Bryan Sorhan • Gladys Harvey Peterson • Barbara Steinhaus • Carol Smith • Von Pouncy • Jessi Shrout • Kathryn Locey • Perry Daughtry

3. Overview • Purpose: • Review current state of affairs regarding academic advising at Brenau University • Make recommendations to the VPAA to enhance academic advising at Brenau • Activities: • Ongoing discussion from representative group • Review of the literature/ NACADA “Best practices” • Quasi advising audit done per NACADA recommendations • Data from Brenau Institutional Effectiveness office • Survey faculty • Compile Report

4. The Preamble to NACADA’s document on Academic Advising states: • Academic advising is integral to fulfilling the teaching and learning mission of higher education. Through academic advising, students learn to become members of their higher education community, to think critically about their roles and responsibilities as students, and to prepare to be educated citizens of a democratic society and a global community. • Academic advising engages students beyond their own world views, while acknowledging their individual characteristics, values, and motivations as they enter, move through, and exit the institution. • Regardless of the diversity of our institutions, our students, our advisors, and our organizational structures, academic advising has three components: curriculum (what advising deals with), pedagogy (how advising does what it does), and student learning outcomes (the result of academic advising).

5. Topics in the literature • Defining academic advising • Models for academic advising • Advising as teaching • Faculty perceptions of academic advising • Using electronic systems for academic advising • Outcomes of academic advising

6. NACADA resources • Concept of Academic Advising • Definition, core values, standards • Findings from 2011 NACADA Faculty Survey • Advisor load • Advisor training • Faculty reward/ recognition • 51 Recommendations for Advising Audit • Management of processes • Evaluation of advising • Delivery of services: loads, contact, assigning advisors, centralizing functions • Recognition/rewards • Training • Information systems

7. Respondents • Representative of FT faculty • Distributed among colleges, majors, etc… • Years Advising • 0-34 years, mean= 9.4 yrs • Years at Brenau • .5- 34 yrs, mean= 8.3 yrs

8. Advisees • Means higher than national avg. of 25 • Sample skewed toward G’ville Day • Fair representation of student level (Grad vs. undergrad, traditional age vs. returning adult, etc. • Low # of advisees with disabilities & ESOL, concerns regarding advising: • Working Adults • Single Parents • Military students • Online only students

9. Philosophy and model of advising • Institutional Philosophy and Organizational model for advising not fully understood • Mixed reviews regarding support services for advising • Could improve in processes for communicating changes in program plans • Faculty understand processes for helping students make changes in academic plan

10. How we learn advising • Chairperson, registrar, colleague(s) and OJT top 4 resources for learning about advising • Mixed responses regarding: office manager, advising handbook, website, etc…

11. How we deliver advising services • Most faculty have some contact with advisees at least once a semester • Most advising is done outside of regular office hour times • Students would be better served at the department level

12. Philosophy of advising • Advising is: • Mentorship • Advising consists of guidance about: • Coursework • Ongoing education • Career choices, job leads • Advising role should not be: • Solely Administrative • Personal counseling (mixed reviews) • Gatekeeping (mixed reviews)

13. Model of advising • Mixed reviews regarding advising that meets the needs of special populations • Limited use of group advising • About 40% of respondents stated that their role in advising consists of a significant degree of “gatekeeping”

14. Narrative Comments • When done properly, advising is the highlight of my job as a faculty member • Hi # of advisees inhibits ‘mentoring’ functions • Gatekeeping and ‘student responsibility’ may hinder advising processes/ outcomes • Paperwork/ processes need streamlining, clarity, consistency, and electronics • Admissions and FYS advising ‘muddies’ advising, and I have to ‘undo’ information • Training is needed in advising • Advisor survey needs revision

15. SWOT Analysis

16. Recommendations • Model of advising for Brenau University • Should be reflective of mission/ strategic plan • Should delineate roles and responsibilities • Should articulate processes (e.g. flow chart or decision tree model) • # of advisees/ faculty member (10-25 /FTE) • Perhaps those who don’t advise have extra committees • Consideration on the FAR for advising (perhaps in the University Service category, rather than under “Teaching Effectiveness”) • Enhanced electronic systems to support advising • Electronic program plans • More “triggers built into the system” to alert advisors (e.g. SSI must be faculty triggered, but can “Gradebook” feature in Canvas be a trigger?)

17. Recommendations (cont’d) • Training in advising • Should be done in orientation and be conducted on annual basis during faculty development activities (virtual via Canvas or on-ground via seminar format) Topic include: • Advising for successful program planning • Advising special populations • Delineating the difference between advising and counseling • The advisor as gatekeeper or “Bad News Bear” • Monitoring outcomes of advising • Enhanced system for monitoring effectiveness of advising • Revise advisor survey to reflect diversity in programs, platforms, students

18. Potential Advising Model