Rethinking a Faculty Academic Advising Model

Robert Brill, Associate Professor of Psychology, Moravian University

Moravian College, a small liberal arts college in Pennsylvania, faced the challenges of increasing retention among first and second-year students (baseline retention rate of 80.50%) and the difficulty of recruiting faculty to advise first-year students. The existing model, which tied advising with the First-Year Writing Seminar (FYWS), was not sustainable because faculty time in training was focused on first-year writing strategies with no time devoted to advising training. Therefore, an Academic Advising Task Force (AATF), which included both faculty and the Director of Academic Advising, was charged with rethinking the faculty advising program.

Committed to a faculty advising system, the AATF sought ways to integrate the best practices of professional advising systems into faculty advising. The new advising model built upon the work of Hemwall and Trachtee (2005) in “Academic Advising as Learning: 10 Organizing Principles”, connecting advising to the teaching responsibilities of faculty, and embracing advising as a relationship with shared responsibilities between the faculty advisor and the student. While the model proposed was a faculty advising system for the four-year undergraduate experience, this overview focuses on advising first-year students.

Front-end Assessment

The AATF surveyed the faculty (n = 128) to ascertain if academic advising should continue to be yoked with teaching The First-Year Writing Seminar. Sixty-two faculty responded (48.44% response rate), representing 85% of the academic departments. Participants identified which model (advising integrated with or separated from FYWS) was most effective. Survey results demonstrated that 35.6% saw critical synergy in teaching FYWS with students they were also advising. They identified shared connections between instructor and students because students chose the FYWS theme; setting up opportunities for building rapport during class; and using class time for efficient group advising.

The survey also demonstrated the concerns of 64.4% that FYWS was challenging enough without the added advising responsibilities. Other supporting responses suggested that time was needed for more writing instruction, faculty’s lack of confidence in advising students in an unfamiliar major, a lack of confidence in teaching writing, wanting to teach FYWS without the large advising load, and being able to avoid the awkwardness of advising students who were doing poorly in their FYWS class. Finally, difficulties in recruiting faculty to serve in the dual role model provided another indication a needed change.

Advising aligned with college’s mission and values

The proposed advising program adapted an advising as teaching and learning model, complementing the college’s liberal arts mission to “ensure that reflection is a central learning outcome” (Strategic Plan 1.2.1 Success Measure 1). Advising, like teaching, is an ongoing dialogue engaging students in active learning as they shape their academic plans. Each year, faculty would be recruited to serve as First Year Faculty Advisors (FYFA). Faculty who advised in the former model were permitted to continue teaching the FYWS.

Early connection between the college and faculty advisors and students

The Director of Advising, in conjunction with the Admissions team, developed a robust communication plan to ensure that First- Year students are connected with the college as soon as they are matriculated. Students receive a welcome letter from Admissions and an email from the Dean of Student Success, asking students to complete an online orientation. The online orientation includes the following:

• Questions about the student’s “intended major” and professional interests;

• Descriptions of both the student and advisor responsibilities;

• Information about student support and accessibility services; and

• Instructions for accessing the student system and registering for the First Year Writing Seminar.

Information about students’ intended major and intended professional direction enabled advising staff to assign an appropriate advisor and build a significant portion of each student’s schedule before summer orientation. If a student is undecided, the Director of Advising speaks with the student to get additional information about the student’s interest.

One-on-one and group advising

Faculty advisors attend three summer orientations to meet with their 20 first-year students. A week before orientation, faculty advisors send a welcome email to each student, that included reflection questions about the college experience. During orientation, faculty advisors meet in small groups with advisees to discuss the responsibilities of both student and advisor in the advising relationship, emphasizing the importance of an active teaching and learning relationship, as well as the importance of being proactive in seeking academic support. Other topics discussed in small groups included the transition from high school to college, time management, and setting academic goals for the first semester and first year. Subsequent half-hour individual advising sessions allow time for advisors to get to know each student and talk about individual academic goals.

Faculty advisors meet with students individually during the first two weeks of classes, continuing the discussion about the transition to college and making any necessary course changes. Faculty identify students who need extra support. At midsemester, faculty meet with students receiving unsatisfactory or failing grades. All advisees meet to discuss spring courses and ongoing academic goals.

Faculty advisors reach out to all their advisees in the first few weeks of the spring semester to ask if there are any questions or concerns. Advisors, then, meet with advisees to discuss potential majors and course planning for the second year. All faculty advisors are required to meet with all advisees placed on probation during the first week of the Spring Semester to develop an academic plan. Advisors meet with advisees frequently to ensure advisees are following the academic plan.

Faculty advisor training

Faculty advisors are required to participate in six Professional Development Workshops (two during the first spring semester, focusing on summer orientation and the initial fall advising meetings; two during the fall semester to address mid-term interventions, academic standing, and ongoing advising issues; and two during the second spring semester to discuss declaration of major and bridges to academic departments). Advisor training topics included:

• Advising as Teaching and Learning

• Intrusive or Proactive Advising

• Developing a Philosophy of Advising

• Empowering students to take responsibility for their own learning in academic advising

• Working with Undecided Students

• Advisors as Referral Agents: Connecting Students to the College Community

• Mastering the Technology Needed for Advising

• Working with At-Risk Students

• Liberal arts approach to personal and professional development and exploration of academic majors

• Strategies for getting students engaged with pre-professional or Academic Major Requirements

The training workshops provided a philosophical framework for advising as well as practical information. Since we learn from each other, time was always provided for discussion.

Attention to Undecided Students

While workshops addressed needs of undecided students, additional programmatic support is also needed. Many students who do not get established in an academic major at the end of the first year are not prepared for the lack of structure in the sophomore year (Williams & Manning, 2014). To this end, the college saw the need to provide a course, “Exploring the Liberal Arts and Sciences,” for undeclared sophomores, with the following goals:

• Explore the relationship between intellectual and emotional skills and academic majors;

• Articulate an understanding of academic major and skills development with students in the course; with faculty members, and with alumni;

• Complete the Strong Campbell Inventory and StrengthsQuest activities to identify interests and strengths; and

• Study the history of Liberal Arts and Sciences education in the United States through stories of prominent individuals.

Retention Success

First-year to sophomore retention increased two percentage points for the first cohort engaged in the new model (2018: 82.47%) from the baseline (2017: 80.50%). This improvement level was sustained for the second cohort (2019: 82.67). This change magnitude continued for the only available first-year to Junior rate (2018 cohort: 74.39%) compared to baseline cohort (2017: 72.96%). To increase this latter metric, additional structure and support is needed for sophomores who are undecided regarding their academic major. It should be noted that these retention rate changes exist and are reported outside of any rigorous controlled design strategy, so causal inferences are not possible.

Conclusion

This faculty advising model and the subsequent retention success can be generalized to other colleges. Current “next efforts” will be to explore best practices within academic departments and work with students as they transition to the major. Ongoing efforts to ensure staffing sustainability needs to be a priority, which is not always easy in economically constrained institutions. Critical to the success of the model is support for properly trained faculty who valued advising and teaching first-year students.

References

Hemwall, M. K. & Trachte, K. C. (2005). Academic advising as learning: 10 organizing principles. NACADA Journal, 25 (2), 74 - 83.

Williams, S. R. & Manning, N. F. (2014). The sophomore transition: Considerations for effective academic advising. NACADA Clearinghouse: Academic Advising Resources. https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/ View-Articles/The-sophomore-transition-Considerations-for-effectiveacademic-advising-a3285.aspx

CONTACT

Robert Brill: brillr@moravian.edu