1. Baseline Data for Assessment of Academic Advising Initiative Janine M. Allen, Ph.D.  Professor of Education  Portland State University  Cathleen L. Smith, Ph.D.  Professor of Psychology  Portland State University

2. Overview of Presentation Method Sample Characteristics Results –Where Students Receive Advising –Overall Satisfaction with Advising –Predictors of Retention –Advising Functions: Importance and Satisfaction Ratings –Advising Attitudes –How Student Characteristics Impact Responses

3. Method We devised a survey that asked students to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, 12 advising functions Survey also included items that measured where students receive their advising, advising attitudes, and predictors of retention including: –Goal commitment –Institutional Commitment –Significant Relationship –Satisfaction with advising and PSU

4. Method Survey was web-based and administered during on-line registration for spring term 2003 2,193 undergraduates responded to the survey, and of those, 1,834 completed both parts of the survey Survey responses were merged with data from the Student Information System

5. Sample Characteristics Population:11,979 students Sample: 2,193 students (18.3%)

6. Sample Characteristics PopulationSample Gender Male45.9%38.3% Female54.1%61.7% Class Freshman13.2%12.1% Sophomore16.1%17.4% Junior27.1%26.9% Senior43.6%43.5%

7. Sample Characteristics EthnicityPopulationSample Asian American10.3%6.9% African American3.2%2.5% Hispanic4.0%3.5% Native American1.3%1.4% White66.1%72.0% Multiple1.4%1.6% International3.5%1.8% Declined10.2%10.4%

8. Sample Characteristics Average age: – population:26.5 years – sample:26.5 years

9. Where Students Get Primary Advising LocationNo.% Not currently getting advice66630.6 Adviser in Major Department65330.0 CECS Dean’s Office 37 1.7 CLAS Advisers216 9.9 IASC22410.3 SBA Student Services174 8.0 New Student Orientation 21 1.0

10. Where Students Get Primary Advising (cont.) LocationNo.% EOP 33 1.5 Student Athlete Advising 11.5 Degree Requirements Office 15.7 Honors College 16.7 Science Support Center 2.1 Other109 5.0

11. Where Students Get Major Advising LocationNo.% Adviser/Professor in Major Department48622.8 CECS Dean’s Office 40 1.9 CLAS Advisers128 6.0 IASC 52 2.4 SBA Student Services158 7.4 Science Support Center 5.2 New Student Orientation 52 2.4 EOP 23 1.1

12. Where Students Get Major Advising (cont.) LocationNo.% Student Athlete Advising 9.4 Degree Requirements Office 21 1.0 Bulletin72734.1 Advising Handbook/Website142 6.7 Departmental Website147 6.9 Peers/Friends115 5.4 Family Members 28 1.3

13. Where Students Get University Studies/Gen Ed Advising LocationNo.% Adviser/Professor in Major Department200 9.7 CECS Dean’s Office 12.6 CLAS Advisers123 5.9 IASC21710.5 SBA Student Services 74 3.6 Science Support Center 0 0 New Student Orientation108 5.2 EOP 24 1.2

14. Where Students Get University Studies/Gen Ed Advising (cont.) LocationNo.% Student Athlete Advising 16.8 Degree Requirements Office 29 1.4 Bulletin79538.4 Advising Handbook/Website170 8.2 Departmental Website 98 4.7 Peers/Friends188 9.1 Family Members 18.9

15. Where Students Get Advising for Type of Degree - BA/BS LocationNo.% Adviser/Professor in Major Department40018.9 CECS Dean’s Office 38 1.8 CLAS Advisers149 7.0 IASC159 7.5 SBA Student Services144 6.8 Science Support Center 0 0 New Student Orientation 59 2.8 EOP 28 1.3

16. Where Students Get Advising for Type of Degree - BA/BS (cont.) LocationNo.% Student Athlete Advising 9.4 Degree Requirements Office 23 1.1 Bulletin71733.8 Advising Handbook/Website140 6.6 Departmental Website141 6.7 Peers/Friends 89 4.2 Family Members 24 1.1

17. Advising Functions: How important is this advising function to you? Integration (Holistic Advising) 1. Advising that helps students connect their academic, career, and life goals (overall connect) 2. Advising that helps students choose among courses in the major that connect their academic, career, and life goals (major connect). 3. Advising that assists students in choosing among the various general education options that connect their academic, career, and life goals (gen ed connect)

18. Advising Functions: How important is this advising function to you? Integration (Holistic Advising) (contd.) 4. Advising that assists students with deciding what kind of degree to pursue in order to connect their academic, career, and life goals (degree connect) 5. Advising that assists students with choosing out-of- class activities that connect their academic, career, and life goals (out-of-class connect)

19. Advising Functions: How important is this advising function to you? Referral 6. When students need it, referral to campus resources that address academic problems (referral academic) 7. When students need it, referral to campus resources that address non-academic problems (referral non-academic)

20. Advising Functions: How important is this advising function to you? Information 8. Assisting students with understanding how things work at PSU (how things work) 9. Ability to give students accurate information about degree requirements (accurate information)

21. Advising Functions: How important is this advising function to you? Individuation 10. Taking into account students’ skills, abilities, and interests in helping them choose courses (skills, abilities, interests) 11. Knowing the student as an individual (know as individual)

22. Advising Functions: How important is this advising function to you? Shared Responsibility 12. Encouraging students to assume responsibility for their education by helping them develop planning, problem-solving, and decision-making skills (shared responsibility)

23. Measures of Advising Functions Six point Likert-type Scales How important is this advising function to you? 1 = Not Important 6 = Very Important How satisfied are you with the advising you receive on this function? 1 = Not Satisfied 6 = Very Satisfied

24. Advising Functions Rank Order of Importance Ratings (Satisfaction Rating in parentheses) 1. accurate info 5.64 (3.87) 7. shared responsibility 4.69 (3.78) 2. major connect 5.00 (3.69) 8. referral academic 4.57 (3.71) 3. how things work 4.99 (3.52) 9. degree connect 4.47 (3.67) 4. overall connect 4.95 (3.73) 10. gen ed connect 4.43 (3.42) 5. skills, abilities, interests 4.78 (3.63) 11. referral non- academic 4.38 (3.69) 6. know as individual 4.70 (3.51) 12. out-of-class connect 4.21 (3.21)

25. Advising Attitudes It is important to develop an adviser/advisee relationship with someone on campus (advising relationship) There should be mandatory academic advising for students (mandatory)

26. Advising Attitudes Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 6 4.21Should be mandatory advising 4.68 Important to develop advising relationship

27. Predictors of Retention Goal Commitment –It’s important for me to graduate from college (Graduate College) –I have a plan to achieve my educational goals (Educational Plan) Institutional Commitment –I plan to graduate from PSU (Graduate PSU) –I am confident that I made the right decision in choosing to attend PSU (Right Decision)

28. Predictors of Retention Significant Relationship –I have had at least one relationship with a faculty or staff member at PSU that has had a significant and positive influence on me (Significant Relationship) Satisfaction –Overall: Overall, I am satisfied with my educational experience at PSU (Overall Satisfaction) –Advising: Overall, I am satisfied with the academic advising I receive at PSU (Advising Satisfaction)

29. Predictors of Retention in Total Sample Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 6 Graduate College 5.80 (SD.789) Significant Relationship 4.24 (SD 1.706) Educational Plan 5.32 (SD 1.078) Overall Satisfaction 4.19 (SD 1.303) Graduate PSU5.42 (SD 1.246) Advising Satisfaction 3.52 (SD 1.525) Right Decision4.63 (SD 1.359)

30. I Believe I Have Been Accurately Advised NumberPercent Yes116165.9 No 60234.1

31. Consequences for students who answered “no” NumberPercent of those who said “no” Had to delay graduation 16527.4 Petitioned for exception 6811.3 Took unnecessary class 24140.0 Other 23438.9

32. Content Analysis of ARC Petitions Petitions where the student claimed advising error YearNo.% of total 99-002516.9 00-011415.2 01-022019.4 02-03 916.0

33. How Student Characteristics Impact Responses Gender Class Level (lower-division vs. upper division) Enrollment Status (new vs. continuing) Age/Cohort Educational Source Ethnicity

34. Advising Functions Importance Ratings By Gender Women rated importance of all advising functions significantly higher than men, With one exception: “shared responsibility” The greatest mean difference observed for the two referral function

35. Advising Functions Satisfaction Ratings By Gender Satisfaction ratings were not significantly affected by gender

36. Advising Functions Importance Ratings By Class Level Lower division students differed significantly from upper division students on the importance ratings for 2 of the 12 functions

37. Advising Functions Importance Ratings By Class Level Lower Division Rated Higher: Referral Academic Upper Division Rated Higher: Accurate Information

38. Advising Functions Satisfaction Ratings By Class Level Satisfaction ratings were not significantly affected by Class Level

39. Advising Functions Importance Ratings by Enrollment Status (New vs. Continuing student) Two advising functions rated by new students as significantly more important: gen ed connect skills, interests, abilities

40. Advising Functions Satisfaction Ratings by Enrollment Status (New vs. Continuing Student) New students significantly more satisfied than continuing students on 8 of the 12 advising functions

41. Advising Functions Importance Ratings by Age/Cohort Older rated 6 of the 12 functions as more important: –Four of 5 integration functions –Both information functions

42. Advising Functions Satisfaction Ratings by Age/Cohort Older students significantly more satisfied on 10 of the 12 advising functions

43. Advising Functions by Educational Source When transfer students, whether new or continuing, were compared to native students, whether new or continuing, we found virtually no differences in either importance or satisfaction ratings

44. Advising Functions Importance Ratings by Ethnicity We found major differences here Significant ethnic differences found on 7 functions Where there was significance, Asian- American and African-American students (and sometimes Multi-Ethnic students) rated the advising functions as more important than White students

46. Advising Functions Satisfaction Ratings by Ethnicity Satisfaction ratings were not significantly affected by ethnicity

47. Advising Attitudes It is important to develop an adviser/advisee relationship with someone on campus (advising relationship) There should be mandatory academic advising for students (mandatory)

48. Advising Attitudes By Gender Women rated the importance of “advising relationship” and “mandatory,” significantly higher than men

49. Advising Attitudes By Class Level & Enrollment Status Significant differences found on one of the two items (“advising relationship”): Lower division students were more likely than upper division students, and new students more likely than continuing students, to agree that it is important to establish an advising relationship

50. % Not Receiving Advice Freshman51.0% Sophomore46.2% Junior32.7% Senior17.3% Lower Division48.1% Upper Division23.2%

51. Advising Attitudes By Age/Cohort, Educational Source, and Ethnicity No significant differences

52. Predictors of Retention By Gender Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 6 *p<.05 **p<.01 Predictor MaleFemale Graduate College* 5.755.85 Educational Plan** 5.245.37 Graduate PSU 5.395.44 Right Decision 4.644.63 Significant Relationship 4.304.20 Overall Satisfaction 4.214.18 Advising Satisfaction 3.603.48

53. Predictors of Retention by Class Level Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 6 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Predictor LowerUpper Graduate College* 5.745.82 Educational Plan*** 5.155.40 Graduate PSU*** 4.835.67 Right Decision* 4.534.68 Significant Relationship*** 4.034.33 Overall Satisfaction 4.254.17 Advising Satisfaction** 3.383.58

54. Predictors of Retention by Enrollment Status Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 6 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Predictor NewCont. Graduate College5.845.78 Educational Plan5.32 Graduate PSU***5.105.54 Right Decision**4.734.60 Significant Relationship***3.934.63 Overall Satisfaction**4.344.14 Advising Satisfaction3.573.51

55. Predictors of Retention by Educational Source Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 6 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Predictor New Native New Trans Cont. Native Cont. Trans Graduate College5.765.875.775.80 Educational Plan**5.145.455.235.41 Graduate PSU***4.445.555.335.69 Right Decision4.564.834.584.65 Significant Relationship***4.283.614.414.33 Overall Satisfaction4.344.354.144.13 Advising Satisfaction3.413.663.453.55

56. Predictors of Retention by Age/Cohort Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 6 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Predictor <25>25 Graduate College5.80 Educational Plan5.285.37 Graduate PSU***5.225.62 Right Decision*4.574.71 Significant Relationship**4.144.35 Overall Satisfaction4.214.18 Advising Satisfaction**3.443.61

57. Predictors of Retention by Ethnicity Native American students have lower Advising Satisfaction, significantly lower than African-American, Hispanic, and Multi-Ethnic students Multi-Ethnic Students have higher Advising Satisfaction, significantly higher than Asian American, Native American, and White students

58. Predictors of Retention by Ethnicity Asian American students are less confident they made the right decision to attend PSU, significantly lower than Hispanic, White, and Multiple Ethnicity students Asian American students are less likely to have a significant relationship with a faculty or staff member at PSU (significantly lower than all other ethnic groups)

59. Further Questions What are the independent effects of student characteristics on importance and satisfaction ratings when these characteristics are considered simultaneously? What is the model that best describes the interrelationships among these variables, e.g., how do importance and satisfaction ratings of advising functions influence retention predictors? What are the long-term effects of these variables on student outcomes, particularly retention?

60. Next Steps Integrate retention data into database Examine qualitative data to better understand the meaning of these quantitative data Add indicators of socioeconomic status Administer survey again, and do follow-up analysis of ARC petitions, to examine effects of Advising Initiative

61. Implications for Practice Students care about these advising functions; even the lowest ranked function (out-of-class connect) was rated on the important end of the scale Information is paramount; two of three top-rated items in overall sample (accurate information; how things work) involve an information function that should be the focus of research on and practice of academic advising Academic aspects of the educational experience are preeminent; functions rated least important by overall sample involved co-curricular services and activities

62. Implications for Practice Increase advisors’ awareness of the need to tailor their advising strategies to the characteristics of students along a number of important dimensions Provide advising programs that specifically target and support members of ethnic minority groups Provide professional development opportunities and incentives to assist advisors, particularly faculty, in integrating the various advising functions in their practice