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

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

3. Who are you?  A. Not an advisor  B. In my first three years of advising  C. 3-10 years of advising  D. 10+ years of advising  E. Just an awesome human being!

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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.

11.  E-mail 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?

12. 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?

13. Checklist

14. 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 e-mail reminding him to make his 3 week appts.

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

16. Checklist

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

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

19. 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.

20. 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

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

22. 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. 63-78). New York: Praeger. Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. Counseling Psychologist, 9 (2), 2-18. 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.

23. Contact: Krystin Deschamps: krystin.deschamps@usu.edukrystin.deschamps@usu.edu Stephanie Hamblin: stephanie.hamblin@usu.edustephanie.hamblin@usu.edu