Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Literature Review
Amanda Sherman
Post University
LITERATURE REVIEW
2
Introduction
Colleges and universities are known to be catalysts of research, idea development and
forward thinking. Yet when inspecting the field of higher education administration, there is one
area which has remained stagnant: college advising. As the student demographic changes and
methods of distance learning continue to expand, advising models have remained relatively
constant. Finding ways to improve the current advising model to better serve the needs of
campus and online learners, could have a positive impact on students and institutions. First,
current existing advising theories will be reviewed to provide a foundation for the state of
college advising. Second, connections between advising and the student population will be
explored. And finally, problems within the administrative structure will be studied, as will the
negative impact of ineffective advising on institutions. This will provide a thorough analysis of
the landscape of higher education advising, the areas in need of improvement, and the
There are drastic inconsistencies in college advising from institution to institution in the
higher education community. This is in part due to the lack of a widely accepted advising
model. There are however, schools of thought that influence the activities in advising formats,
but the delivery methods and consistency in contact vary greatly. Developmental advising is
based upon the stages of student development throughout the college experience. The
engagement model relies on the development of a mentor relationship meant to inspire the
student and find their best academic path. And intrusive advising motivates students to seek out
success by contacting them at the first sign of academic crisis and connecting them with
LITERATURE REVIEW
3
institutional resources. These three models have been used in the development of advising
services at institutions for decades and provide a chronology of the advising practice.
Developmental Advising
Developmental advising is one of the most well-known theories of practice in the higher
developmental advising was first broken down into a five-tiered sequence by OBanion in the
early 1970s. The steps include 1.) Exploration of life goals 2.) Exploration of vocational goals
3.) Program choice 4.) Course choice 5.) Scheduling classes (McGill, 2016). This was the first
time academic advising received an organized structured approach. By the 1980s developmental
students in achieving educational, career, and personal goals through the utilization of
the full range of institutional resources. It both stimulates and supports students in their
identifying and accomplishing life goals, acquiring skills and attitudes that promote
intellectual and personal growth, and sharing concerns for each other and for the
McGill (2016) goes on to further discuss three major themes of the advising relationship (a)
assess students academic competence and readiness; (b) discuss the importance personal
campus involvement; and (c) aid in helping them to develop a life purpose and plan (p.3).
McGill (2016) asserts that the developmental model and its holistic approach retains relevance in
LITERATURE REVIEW
4
todays advising atmosphere, while Grites (2013) also agrees that developmental advising
remains at the core of every theoretical and practical approach to academic advising (p. 9).
Praxis Advising
but there have been a few key contributors to the field building on the foundation of OBanions
early work. Praxis advising, first positioned by Smith in 2002, is a hybrid of prescriptive and
developmental advising (Montag, Campo, Weissman, Walmsley & Snell, 2012). Prescriptive
registration procedures and so on; while developmental advising can be considered a two-way
relationship where advisor and student work together in developmental goals such as career
planning and course selection (Montag, et.al., 2012). Praxis advising combines the two, offering
expert advising, while also fostering a mentor relationship and focusing on developmental goals.
Robbins (2012) attests that advising needs of first-year students are prescriptive in nature, but
Intrusive Advising
Intrusive advising, also called proactive advising is a model typically used with students
whom are struggling academically. The intrusive model includes personal contact, generating
student responsibility for problem solving and decision making, assisting students in identifying
resolvable causes of poor academic performance, and offering negotiated agreements for future
actions (Vander Schee, 2007, p.1). This model focuses on shifting responsibility to the student
while providing them with the support and services necessary for success. Poole (2015) states
that there are promising research results from electronic early warning systems generating
LITERATURE REVIEW
5
information on attendance and excessive absenteeism. These early warning systems seek to
isolate the population of students in most need of advising support and concentrating staff efforts
in the most meaningful way, but it is reactionary. Fusch (2013) is more critical of intrusive
advising, stating that the weakness of early alert programs is that they rely on input from faculty
As is evidenced, there have been very few changes to the accepted advising practices
through the years. Developmental advising, now dated at a half century, is still widely used
within the higher education community. Praxis advising slightly altered the perspective of
developmental advising, adding a prescriptive element. But finally, the introduction of intrusive
advising, aimed at targeting at risk students and the advent of early warning systems, marked the
The lack of consistent and effective advising can deteriorate the students relationship
with the school, negatively influence them academically, and ultimately impact their graduation.
The first challenge is to find a model that is effective with todays college student. With the
popularity of distance learning and the addition of a larger population of adult learners, the needs
and expectations of students are changing. Models for advising also must change to better
satisfy students on campus and online. However, dissatisfaction with college advising is not a
new phenomenon, although studies have shown that advising is of importance to college
students, they have also shown that there are high levels of dissatisfaction (Vianden, 2016).
Overall the biggest concern from students is lack of communication from their advisors, and the
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
population that is most greatly affected is low-performing at risk students. If at-risk students are
not reached in time, and supported academically it could lead to their early departure from school
(Fusch, 2013).
Changing Demographic
With the advent of distance learning, institutions across the nation were exposed to a
much larger population of prospective students. But as the student population began to change,
so did their needs. Non-traditional students are loosely defined as students who have not
followed a continuous path into college, these students tend to be older than 24, may have
careers and families, and have different motivational factors for entering school (Forbus,
Newbold & Mehta, 2011). These learners not only need different ways to receive instruction,
different schedules and different support systems than had previously existed, but they need a
different approach to their advising. Developmental advising, along with other models, focuses
on the selecting a major and exploring career paths. Many adult learners are returning to school
for advancement within their chosen career, or at least with their career path in mind, therefore
they do not require the same type of counseling. Distance learners also have different
expectations of their advising systems. Research has shown that classroom learners expect a
response from an advisor within 48 hours, while online learners expected response time to be
within a few hours (Schroeder & Terras, 2015). However, Schroeder and Terras (2015) explain
that for distance learners, advisors are often the sole connection to the university, explaining their
desire for a more immediate response. For many of these adult or distance learners, the current
Student Dissatisfaction
For many students, advising services are most important when making large decisions
about courses, concentrations and majors, or when they are struggling academically and possibly
considering withdrawal from the university. These are some of the most pivotal times for a
student in the course of their educational path, yet, according to Kuh (2006), national studies
have indicated that advising is the area with which students feel least satisfied. Many studies
have been conducted to find out what students feel is lacking from their advising experience, yet
the problem persists. Smith and Allen (2006) found that students valued most getting accurate
information, receiving advising that helps them choose a major that connects their academic,
career and life goals, and gaining an understanding of how procedures at the university work.
The same study also showed that students were least satisfied with advisors making connections
to out-of-class activities such as internships or clubs, the level the advisor knew the student as an
individual, and direction on general education requirements (Smith & Allen, 2006). Similarly,
Vianden (2016) found that students were most satisfied with advisor knowledge and least
satisfied with advisors caring about students as individuals. Finding what is important to
students, and what they are satisfied and unsatisfied with is important work to continue
Lack of Communication
Problems with communication can stem from faculty or advising staff being overloaded
with large caseloads, to being poorly coached on advising techniques and styles of
communication. Leach and Wang (2015) found that in the communication discipline
specifically, faculty members struggle with advising due to a lack of training and preparation for
LITERATURE REVIEW
8
the task (p. 5). Establishing an open line of communication between advisor and advisee is vital
in the successful delivery of advising services. Gaps in communication can also occur on the
students behalf, despite attempts from an advisor to connect. Proactivity is the best strategy for
combatting student cessation, its about building relationships with our students, locating places
where they get disconnected, and helping them get reconnected (Drake, 2011, p.1).
Establishing an interpersonal connection and creating a space where the student can feel
Retention
The most devastating impact of a poor advising relationship is the loss of a student.
Withdrawal from the university not only negatively effects the institution but the student as well.
Advisors have the greatest opportunity for impact on the retention of the student population
because unlike professors their contact is over a prolonged period of time (Vianden & Barlow,
2015). This gives the advisor the opportunity to make a meaningful impact in the students
experience. Drake (2011) further breaks down the impact academic advising has on retention to
1.) student satisfaction with the college experience, 2.) effective educational and career
planning and decision making, 3.) student utilization of campus support services, 4.) student-
faculty contact outside the classroom, and 5.) student mentoring (p. 2). All of these factors
cultivate a positive student experience, and can be a main contributor to student retention.
graduation is the goal of every institution. To effectively achieve this goal, all aspects of an
institution including advising, must adapt as changes occur in demographics. As the needs of
students change, services must change as well. One indicator of successful advising is student
LITERATURE REVIEW
9
evaluation. Multiple sources have indicated that student satisfaction with academic advising is
poor in comparison with other institutional services, and that students do not feel a connection
with their advisor (Kuh, 2006) (Vianden, 2016) (Smith & Allen, 2006). A contributing factor to
relationship to an advisor can ultimately effect the students ability to persist in their education.
A weak advising system not only negatively impacts the student, but has adverse
reactions for institutions as well. Faculty often feel time constraints attempting to act in the
capacity of professor and advisor. Many institutions have no structure for advising formats or
accountability for follow up and proactive engagement with student populations. And there is
very little training provided to faculty on the proper form of advisement. The common theme is
that advising models lack institutional structure and staff support. Advisors are the students
most consistent, long-term, personal connection to the university. If a student is not engaged in
the culture of the university, and also does not have a personal connection to an advisor, they
may have little or no investment in the school, and this can lead to attrition. Losing students due
to lack of connection or academic failure not only lowers graduation rates, but lowers the amount
of tuition attained from student enrollment. Funding is also negatively affected if students are
not actively engaged in alumni relations. Students who have a positive experience with advisors
and have a strong connection to their alma mater are much more likely to contribute to the school
financially. Finally, students who are not satisfied with their advisors can negatively impact the
For many institutions, because of budgetary issues, faculty are acting in the capacity of
instructors as well as advisors. For many of these professionals, teaching is the primary goal,
and advising occurs on an as needed basis, seeing students on an individually only if they seek
out assistance. However, there are models of advising at institutions which rely on professional
advisors, whose sole purpose is to guide students through their educational process toward
successful graduation. The ideal model described by Schnall (2013) includes the student,
professional advisor and the faculty advisor working together toward a common goal. But based
on industry trends Crocker, Kahla and Allen (2014) foresee faculty advising continuing to be a
mainstay at institutions in the future. This model puts a significant time strain on faculty, and
often student advisor ratios are 1 to many hundreds, making effective advising unattainable.
Advising models vary greatly among institutions in the United States and there is very
little information on which techniques are succeeding and which are in need of improvement.
Fusch (2013) states that although the majority of institutions rely heavily on faculty advisors,
few have a system in place for assessing and improving faculty advising (p.1). For any system
assessed for improvement. Not only do advising systems vary greatly between institutions, but
within institutions themselves. Developmental advising relies on the advisor to make consistent
contact, and as Crocker, Kahla and Allen state (2014), experience displays that faculty advisors
perform with inconsistent levels of engagement. They further describe a university policy to be
put in place that sets expectations for faculty advising based on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs
LITERATURE REVIEW
11
which can be seen in abbreviated form in Appendix 1 (Crocker, Kahla & Allen, 2014). Putting
into place a system of set expectations with accountability and follow up is the best way to
ensure consistency within a universitys advising system. Yet few institutions follow this guide
Lack of Training
The most significant issue within the lack of structure in advising systems is the absence
of formal training. At many institutions, training consists of one half-day session annually
(Robbins, 2012). Considering the amount of information needed to properly assist students, and
the impact an advisor can have on a students success, this amount of time is insufficient.
Robbins (2012) states that effective advisor training consists of three main components:
informational, rational and conceptual. The information aspect covers all of the policies and
procedures advisors must be versed in, the relational relates to the interpersonal skills needed to
counsel students, and the conceptual includes information on the institutional mission, student
learning and developmental theories (Robbins, 2012). The great inconsistencies in the advising
field are party due to the lack of a proper foundation for advisors to base their interactions with
students.
The institutional deficiencies in advising not only negatively impact the student, but have
costly effects on the institution itself. The most damaging loss is of the student body, when
tuition is the primary revenue source for many institutions, and low retention rates can
successful graduation, and advising plays a role in teaching students how to become engaged in
the community (Schnall, 2013). Institutional commitment can also have a financial impact on a
university. Vianden and Barlow (2015) further explain that strong interpersonal relationships in
well as persistence and loyalty. Institutional loyalty plays a large role in the life of the
university. A student with a strong connection to advising staff could have positive implications
on alumni giving and even admissions. For example, they may exhibit pride and recommend
the institution to prospective students, and later they may contribute financially to the institution
or otherwise remain connected beyond graduation (Vianden & Barlow, 2015, p. 8). A lack of
institutional loyalty can have the opposite effect and essentially cost the institution funding.
has a significant impact on the success of an institution itself. The challenges facing institutions
today are a lack of funding to hire professional advising staff, insufficient structure and
Changes made within these areas can have a significant impact on student retention, alumni
Conclusion
The current state of advising systems in the higher education community is inconsistent
and in need of further research. The theories influencing practice in the field no longer suit the
and praxis advising are best suited for traditional students, and intrusive advising is typically
only practiced with at-risk or failing populations. Studies have shown that students are not
LITERATURE REVIEW
13
satisfied with the current models of advising, and that they feel advisors do not care about them
as individuals (Smith & Allen, 2006) (Vianden, 2016). This is in part due to gaps in
communication and could ultimately lead to student attrition. The institutional barriers include
lack of funding, structure, training and assessment. These issues lead to advising systems that
are ineffective and detrimental to not only to the student body but the institution itself, causing
loss of funds due to low retention and also disengaged alumni. Advising has a significant impact
in the higher education community, and advances in the field could have a dramatic effect on the
References
Crocker, R. M., Kahla, M., & Allen, C. (2014). Fixing Advising: A Model for Faculty Advising.
Drake, J. K. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence.
Forbus, P., Newbold, J. J., & Mehta, S. S. (2011). A Study of Non-Traditional and
Traditional Students in Terms of Their Time Management Behaviors, Stress Factors, and Coping
Ed Impact.
Leach, R. B., & Wang, T. R. (2015). Academic Advisee Motives for Pursuing Out-of-
Class Communication with the Faculty Academic Advisor. Communication Education, 64(3),
325-343. Doi:10.1080/03634523.2015:1038726
Perspective in Academic Advising. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource
Montag, T., Campo, J., Weissman, J., Walmsley, A., Snall, A. (2012). In Their Own
Words: Best Practices for Advising Millennial Students about Majors. NACADA Journal. 32(2),
26-35.
Poole, J. (2015). Assessing the Effectiveness of Targeted Intrusive Advising and Student
Robbins, R. (2012). Everything You Have Always Wanted to Know About Academic
Doi:10.1080/87568225.2012.685855
Schnall, S. (2013). Charting a Path to Success. Crains Cleveland Business, 34(8), 0013.
Schroeder, S. M., & Terras, K. L. (2015). Advising Experiences and Needs of Online,
Cohort, and Classroom Adult Graduate Learners. NACADA Journal, 35(1), 42-55.
Smith, C. s., & Allen, J. a. (2006). Essential Functions of Academic Advising: What
Vander, Schee, B. b. (2007). Adding Insight to Intrusive Advising and Its Effectiveness
Vianden, J., & Barlow, P. J. (2015). Strengthen the Bond: Relationships between
Academic Advising Quality and Undergraduate Student Loyalty. NACADA Journal, 35,(2), 15-
27.
LITERATURE REVIEW
16
Appendix 1