The objectives of the Department Academic Advising Survey were to describe: (1) the advising process in each department; (2) what advisors see as their responsibility in advising; (3) the specific advising issues considered important by advisers; (4) any process in place in departments to assess advising effectiveness; and (5) advisers' suggestions for improving current practices.

All department chairs were sent the Department Academic Advising Survey, with a request that the person primarily responsible for academic advising in the department complete the form. After a period of two weeks, a follow-up request was sent to those departments who had not yet returned the questionnaire. A total of 43 departments returned the survey; 5 departments did not return it. Appendix D is a list of participating departments. Appendix E is the assessment tool completed by participating departments.

Participants were asked to indicate the person who conducts the majority of advising of majors in their department. Fourteen (32%) of the departments reported that advising is done by a central departmental advisor who is a member of faculty, while twelve (27%) of the departments reported that all faculty members in the department are involved in advising students. Nine (21%) of the departments reported that advising is done by both faculty and staff within the department, and four (9%) of the departments reported that advising is conducted by a designated department advisor who is not a member of faculty.

The way in which those who conduct advising were selected was evaluated by the question, "How do you select persons who will become advisors?". Seventeen (42%) departments indicated that those who conduct advising are required to do so via their job description. Ten (24%) of the departments reported that advising in their department is on a voluntary basis; faculty can choose whether or not they will be involved in advising departmental majors. Eight (20%) departments reported that advising is conducted by those who are most experienced with advising. Overall, most faculty who function in a student advisory roll do so due to requirements listed in their job description.

The majority of departments do not provide formal training for staff and faculty members who conduct student advising within the departments. Thirty departments (71%) responded "no" to the question, "Does your department provide training for academic advisors?". Twelve (29%) departments answered "yes" to this question, while one department did not answer. These data indicate lack of formalized training for departmental advisors across the University. Those departments who indicated that they do provide training were asked to "briefly describe" the training provided. Responses to this request included the following:

• New faculty are provided information about the process as well as appropriate forms and instructions on using SIS (computerized student information system).
• New faculty advise with experienced faculty at first to learn the rules and how we like to have it done.
• Informal discussion and meeting with advisors and chair.
• One to two hour discussions with all advisors to standardize advisement.
• Workshops on advising and an advising manual.
• The chair works with all new faculty and provides updates on policy to all faculty.

A subject related to advisor training is whether or not departments conduct regular evaluation of the advising process within their department. Question #12 on the Department Academic Advising Survey asked respondents to answer "yes" or "no" to the question, "Does your department conduct regular evaluation of advisement?". The majority of respondents (33 departments, 77% of respondents) answered "no" to this question, while 10 departments (23%) answered "yes". The second part of this question asked those departments who answered "yes" to the question above to indicate who completes the evaluations. Of eleven departments who answered the second part of this question, 3 departments (27% of those who answered) indicated that students complete the evaluations. The remainder of responses indicated that both students and staff complete the evaluations (18%) or that faculty and staff are the sole evaluators (18%). Four departments indicated that none of the above categories was appropriate for answering who completes the evaluations.

Departments were requested to provide the following information: (a) What is the frequency of contact between students and their advisor?, and (b) Are students seen each semester on a mandatory basis?. Among departments who provided a concrete answer to question (a), the most frequent response (17 departments, 40% of responses) was that students are seen once per semester. The other responses varied from one time per year (1 department) to three times per semester (1 department). Regarding question (b), 29 departments (71% of respondents) indicated that students are not required to se an advisor each semester on a mandatory basis. Twelve departments (29%) responded that students are required to see their advisor once per semester on a mandatory basis.

Departmental respondents were asked to indicate the mean duration of advising sessions. The most frequently cited mean duration of advising sessions by departmental respondents was 16 to 30 minutes (29 departments, 69% of respondents). Respondents who indicated that the mean duration of advising sessions was either 5 to 15 minutes or more than 30 minutes were about equal; six (14%) respondents answered positively to the former, while seven (17%) respondents answered positively to the latter. A summary of student responses regarding duration of advisement meetings from both the 1993 and 1996 survey, along with departmental responses to the same question are summarized in the following chart:

These data indicate that those who completed the departmental survey in 1996 reported a longer average duration of advising meetings with students than was reported by students completing both the 1993 and 1996 survey.

Departmental respondents were asked to indicate how advisors are linked with advisees. Over half (52%) of the respondents indicated that students are initially assigned an advisor, but have the option to switch advisors if they are not satisfied. Fifteen departments (36%) indicated that advisors are assigned to advisees, while 5 departments (12%) indicated that students are free to choose their own advisor.

Important information can be derived from questioning those who withdraw from the University. Such information may include reasons for the withdrawal or may pinpoint problems within departments which can be alleviated to increase students satisfaction. A question was included on the Departmental Advising Survey which asked departments to indicate whether or not they were able to identify those students within their department who withdrew from the University. Nineteen (44%) of the departments did not answer this question. Of the 24 departments who did not answer the question, the majority (83%) of them indicated that they did not know the identity of students within their major department who withdraw from the University. Only 6 departments indicated that they identified withdrawing students and followed up via phone call or letter.

Half of the departments surveyed reward departmental advisors for their advising activities; the other half do not. The method by which departments reward advisors are summarized in the following table:

Departments were asked to indicate how effective they perceived their department to be in 14 areas. The scale of 1 to 4 was as follows: (1) very effective; (2) somewhat effective; (3) ineffective; (4) not applicable. Among departments who answered each question, percentage responding "very effective", "somewhat effective", and "ineffective" are summarized in the following table.

Over 85% of departmental respondents rated themselves "very effective" in two areas- providing accurate information on major requirements and maintaining advising conferences in a confidential manner. In addition, eighty-one (81) percent of the responding departments rated themselves "very effective" in providing accurate information on University requirements. About one fourth of responding departments rated themselves "ineffective" in providing assistance in getting a job for graduates (29%), providing guidance on scholarships and financial assistance (26%), and providing information on internships (24%).

A review of the Student Advising Survey data, above, reveals that in 1993, 80% or more of surveyed students rated the following topics "very important" or "important" to them: accurate information regarding major requirements, accurate information regarding university requirements, guidance in choosing best courses to meet students needs, information regarding internships, guidance regarding graduate school opportunities, and conversations regarding career goals. The percentage of students who answered "very important" or "important" are compared with the percentage of departments who rated themselves "highly effective" in those areas in the following table:

Departments were also asked to indicate how much emphasis is placed on each of the following topics: teaching, advising, research scholarship, other scholarly activities (community and conference presentations), and service. The scale on this question ranged from one to four: (1) much emphasis, (2) some emphasis, (3) little emphasis, and (4) no emphasis. Forty-three departments responded to this question. The percentage of departments responding to this question are summarized in the following table:

These data indicate that departments place most emphasis upon teaching and research scholarship. Departments place least emphasis on service and "other scholarly activities".

Departments were asked to respond to the question, "In the past 2 years, have there been any changes or revisions to your department's system of advising?". This was asked in order to assess whether departmental advising changes were made following completion of the last campus advising report, generated by the Office of University Assessment in 1994. Over half (64%) of the departments indicated that changes have taken place in the last 2 years. However, not all changes directly benefited students; of the 29 departments who responded that change had taken place, 12 (41%) of them indicated a change directly applicable to students. The remainder of these changes included administrative type changes such as, "We are trying to centralize the advisement process", "We now have an advisor for each area...", and "Lost management assistant; got two new faculty advisors". Of the twelve departments who indicated that change had taken place and that the change was directly related to student advising services, some comments included, "new student tracking procedures", "we now have a web page and an undergraduate manual", "We withhold call numbers until students see an advisor in the department", and "We write to students who have not come in for 3 months or more".

A question on the departmental advising survey asked departments to indicate whether or not they offer special advising sessions (e.g., group advising, advisement night/week, etc.). Thirty-one (31) percent of the departments indicated that they offer special advising sessions in addition to the one-on-one advising services. Departments were asked to indicate exactly what they offer in this area. The majority of answers included mention of group advising sessions such as, "Group advising when necessary due to large numbers", "Group briefing on scholarships", and "For nondeclared/ potential students, one 4-hr. session once per month to answer questions, give general guidance, etc.".

Departmental respondents indicated that most advising is conducted by a member or members of the faculty within that department. Selection of advisors is usually mandatory (42%) but may also be voluntary (24%). Some (20%) departments indicated that advising is conducted by a faculty member or members who are most experienced with advising. Most departments do not provide formal training for advisors. Few departments conduct regular evaluations of the advising process within their department.

Regarding the frequency that advisors meet with students, most departments indicated that they meet once per semester. Most departments do not require meetings between students and advisors. Regarding the mean duration of advising meetings with students, 69% reported that the average meetings lasts for between 16 and 30 minutes. Data from student responses to the Student Academic Advising Survey indicate that 32% of student respondents reported that their meeting lasts for between 16 and 30 minutes. This indicates a discrepancy between student and departmental respondents regarding duration of advising meetings.

Departments were asked whether or not they interview students who withdraw from either the University or their department. Results indicated that very few departments interview withdrawing students. The main reason cited for this is that departments are unable to identify withdrawing students.

Half of surveyed departments indicated that they recognize staff members who contribute to their department's advising process through rewards. Most advisors are recognized by consideration of advising issues during promotion and tenure review. Some departments also reduce the advisor's class courseload.

Regarding efficacy in providing accurate information to advisees, departments indicated that they are strong in providing accurate information on departmental requirements, UNR requirements, and assisting students in providing the best courses to meet their needs. Most departments indicated that they were less strong in providing information regarding assistance in obtaining a job for graduates, information on scholarships & internships, and providing accurate information on transfer credit options.

Within departments, emphasis is placed primarily on teaching and research scholarship. Advising was rated third out of five options regarding emphasis within departments.

Departments were asked to indicate whether any changes have been made to their system of advising in the last 2 years. This was done to assess whether the previous (1993) survey made an impact which brought about change in the advising process. While many departments indicated that change had taken place, most of these changes were administrative (e.g., "We lost management assistant, but got two new faculty advisors") and did not directly impact students.

Special advising sessions such as group advising or advisement nights are offered by about one third of the responding departments. These sessions are in addition to the one-on-one advising offered by each department.

Recommendations:

• Enhancement of the value of advising in merit, promotion, & tenure review.
• Greater dissemination of non-curricular information to advisors
• More training for advisors, possibly with a standardized advising protocol
• Routine evaluation of advising by consumers of this service
• Develop means of identifying at-risk students through the advising system

LINKS TO 1996 ADVISING SURVEY SECTIONS

Student Responses | Department Responses | 1993 and 1996 Comparison

Back to the choice page for the
1993 and 1996 Academic Advising Survey

---

Assessment Home

---

Maintained by: Mike R. Johnston
Last modified: June 30, 1998