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

Who We Are and Why are We Doing This  Krystin Deschamps  Stephanie Hamblin

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

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% Krystin’s Population

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

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 Krystin’s Guiding Theories

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

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

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

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 Stephanie’s Guiding Theories, cont.

 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 What is meant by intervention?

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?

Checklist

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 reminding him to make his 3 week appts.

What to do with Noah  A. Send an or call to remind him to make his visits  B. Allow Natural Consequences

Checklist

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

Return to Case Study  Time to practice, and ask questions

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 2 nd 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.

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

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

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, 2 nd Ed. (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 ). New York: Praeger. Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. Counseling Psychologist, 9 (2), 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.

Contact: Krystin Deschamps: Stephanie Hamblin: