1. Northern Kentucky University Melody McMillan, mcmillanm2@nku.edu Brian Kremer, kremerb1@nku.edu Lynn Crane, cranel1@nku.edu October 2014

2. Mixed Advising Structures and Models PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS Assigned by issue Assigned by last name Assigned by major Assigned by student choice FACULTY ADVISORS ¾ time teaching Less than ¼ time advising Department chairs FRESHMEN SPECIALISTS Only in some departments Some ½ time faculty RETENTION SPECIALISTS Only in some departments ½ time faculty Assigned by major

3. The Great Divide between states… between advising centers

4. What advising structure ( s ) do you have at your home institution? ____________________________________________________

5. Mixed structures = mixed models

6. Confusion: CONFIRMED HURON REPORT FOUNDATIONS OF EXCELLENCE REPORT Centralize physical placement to deal directly with 1 st and 2 nd year students  Lack of consistency Recommendation: Create a modified central advising model Hire additional professional advisors to facilitate new model

7. New structure = new model

8. Implementation Hired 9 Network Advisors to facilitate new model Moved to central location

10. Implementation Challenges Attitude of dismissal “Sharing advisors” What will happen to me? Will students be more confused?

11. Implementation Decisions PHASE I Hire Network Advisors Network Advisors learn about “home” department(s) Begin Network Meetings PHASE II Restructure of Academic Advising Resource Center Clarify job descriptions of Network Advisors o Advisors share 20% of time 5 hours/week in central advising center Other time embedded in advising center o Strongly encouraged to collaborate 1-2 hours/month collaborating

12. Implementation Decisions Advisor Expectations Attend ‘Network Meetings’ in an effort to share updates, ideas, and collaborate on purpose o Bring info back to “home” department Establish a consistent flow of information related to departmental practices and policies

13. Implementation: RESULTS BENEFITS TO STUDENTS triage advising team advising change of major streamlined referrals advice on their time major exploration registration issues other

14. Implementation: RESULTS 1352 Walk-in students served by Network Advisors in 2013-2014 93% of students indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with their walk-in advising experience BENEFITS TO STUDENTS

15. Implementation: RESULTS BENEFITS TO STAFF Staff CollaborationIdea Sharing Team Advising Transfer Advising International Student Advising Registration logistics more efficient “official” point person Network meetings Staff education

16. A new model Staff CollaborationIdea Sharing + = consistent advising

17. Implementation Suggestions Have a plan! o Define your challenges o Establish a hierarchy o Establish goals for Network o Create collaborative job descriptions o How will you assess? Did you meet your goals? Implement the plan! o Have an initial meeting- bring everyone together o Make Network meetings happen o Integrate opportunities to learn Assess the plan! o Are students coming? Why? o Are your staff learning? Improve the plan!

18. Creating your own Network model Strengths of the advising structures at your home institution: ____________________________________________________ Challenges of the advising structures at your home institution: ____________________________________________________

19. Creating your own Network model Who could be a “network advisor”? ____________________________________________________ Who could help coordinate the “network advisors”? ____________________________________________________

20. Questions?