Feedback from senior exit interviews, alumni surveys, and student focus groups at the University of Nevada, Reno has raised questions regarding the level of student satisfaction with the quality of advising received by undergraduate students. In an attempt to describe current academic advising practices and identify factors underlying student satisfaction levels, information was collected about current advising practices and student satisfaction with those practices on campus from students and departments.

Academic advising is an essential service provided by the university to students. Today, many researchers suggest that academic advising is an important component in the retention of undergraduate students (e.g., Crockett, 1985; Tinto, 1987). Writers such as Crockett (1985) and Gordon (1992) identify a number of reasons underlying the positive impact of high quality academic advising on students. They note, for example, that academic advising offers the potential of linking students' goals with institutional resources on a personalized basis. High quality advising can help students clarify their educational goals and relate these goals to their curriculum and future careers. Academic advising can also encourage academic success by assisting students with a selection of course work that is compatible with their interests, abilities, outside commitments, and career aspirations. Moreover, academic advising can facilitate referral to other services and programs at the institution and can establish a personal bond between a student and personnel of the university.

The importance of advising at the University is clear. In addition, evaluation is an important part of administering an effective, high quality, advising program (Gordon, 1992). Therefore, extensive information was collected regarding the advising process at the University of Nevada, Reno. Two advising surveys were prepared and distributed in the Fall semester of 1996. The perceptions of both students and those who advise students were systematically collected. The results of both the student academic advising survey and the department academic advising survey are presented in this report. In addition, throughout the report, comparisons of current data with previously collected (1993 advising survey) data are made.

It is important to note that the following data should not be used to make causal conclusions. That is, if students in one academic major report more satisfaction with their advising than students in another, it is erroneous to conclude that students in the latter major area of study receive lesser quality advising. The purpose of the following data is to make general conclusions regarding student satisfaction with the University's advising process.

The objectives of the student academic advising survey were to describe: (1) the advising process across the campus; (2) students' experiences and expectations of advising; (3) students' evaluation of advising effectiveness; (4) specific advising issues important to students; (5) student suggestions for improving advising practices on campus; and (6) a comparison of data obtained during the 1993 survey with data from the current survey.

Students in fourteen Western Traditions course sections and nineteen capstone courses, at least one capstone course from each college, were asked to complete the student academic advising survey. These courses were selected because their class enrollment reflects a cross-section of the students on campus. The lack of freshmen in these classes was not seen as a problem since they have had little experience with academic advising at the university. A total of 637 student surveys were completed. Appendix A is a list of classes participating in the Student Academic Advising Survey. Appendix B is the assessment tool completed by students in participating classes.

Demographics of Student Respondents

In general, the survey sample reflects the demographics of the campus undergraduate student population. The mean age of students responding was 24.1 years. Two hundred eighty two (46%) were male, and 327 (54%) were female. The racial/ ethnic breakdown of the student sample was: 507 (82%) White; 44 (7%) Asian American/ Pacific Islander; 24 (4%) Hispanic American; 13 (2%) African American; 6 (1%) American Indian/ Alaskan Native; and 21 (3%) other. Just over half (363 or 60%) of the students entered UNR as freshmen, while 242 (40%) entered as transfer students. At the time of the survey, the respondents were enrolled in an average of 13.4 credits. The class levels of the respondents were: 285 (50%) seniors, 89 (16%) juniors, 147 (26%) sophomores, and 30 (5%) freshmen.

With the exception of the class levels of respondents, demographic data closely parallel data obtained in the 1993 survey. The percentage of senior respondents remained nearly constant from the 1993 (46%) to the 1996 (50%) survey. Junior-level respondents, however, represented 32% of the sample in 1993 and only 16% of the sample in 1996. In addition, the 1996 survey was completed by a larger number of sophomore and freshman students than the 1993 survey. These data are summarized in the following table:

The most represented major areas of study among respondents was nursing and civil engineering (54 students each), followed by biology (35), mechanical engineering (31), electrical engineering (26), biochemistry (24), business (22), and anthropology (21). The least represented major areas among respondents included nutrition, geological engineering, and philosophy (1 student each), finance (2), and music (8). The major areas within the University represented in the Student Academic Advising Survey are listed in Appendix E.

The Source and Process of Advising

Students were asked whether they have an advisor currently. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the respondents indicated that they do have an advisor, while 22% indicated that they do not. Those who do not currently have an advisor were asked to skip the majority of the survey regarding their experiences with their current advisor. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of those students who indicated that they do have an advisor said that their current advisor is their first. Forty-four percent (44%) indicated that their current advisor is their second, third, or fourth advisor at the University. The most frequently cited reason for changing advisors was that the student changed their major area of study (41% of respondents answering "no" to the question, "Is this your first advisor?"). The second most frequently cited reason (22%) was that the advisor's status changed (retired, promoted, etc.). Eighteen percent (18%) of students indicated that they changed their advisor due to dissatisfaction with their previous advisor.

Students who indicated that they do have a current advisor were asked to mark any of the following statements which apply to them. The four statements were: I do not see an advisor each semester, I do not know who my advisor is now, It is too difficult for me to get an appointment with my advisor, and I have had to delay graduation due to misinformation provided by my advisor. The statements, along with the number of students answering positively to each one, are summarized in the following chart:

Respondents were asked to indicate their primary source of academic advisement. Over half of responding students (330 or 54%) indicated that their primary source of advisement was a department faculty member. Other primary advising sources identified by students included: department staff/ secretary (21 or 3%); Academic advisor for athletes (14 or 2%); International student advisor (4 or less than 1%); Degree Audit Program (1 respondent); University Catalog (144 or 24%), "other" University personnel (5 or less than 1%); friends (40 or 6%); and department or college advisors who were not faculty members (23 or 4%). Five percent of students did not respond. These data are summarized in the following chart:

The data above indicate that current students receive the majority of their advising from sources which differ from those indicated in the 1993 data. Currently, 78% of students receive their advisement from either a department faculty member (54% now, as opposed to 64% in 1996) or through the university catalog (self-advised; currently 24%). In addition, 6% of the students reported receiving their advisement primarily from friends- in contrast to only 1% in 1993. These three sources of advisement (advisor, catalog, friends) account for 84% of the surveyed students. The general trend appears to be one away from traditional sources of advisement (faculty advisor) and toward self-advisement (catalog; friends).

Selection of advisor:

The majority (74%) of students had not selected their adviser, but had in some way been assigned one. This datum is slightly lower than the percentage of students who indicated that they were assigned an advisor in 1993 (79%).

Frequency of Student Visits with Advisor:

Of those students who reported having an advisor currently, 63% of them saw their advisor once or twice during the 1995-1996 academic year. Sixty-six percent (66%) reported seeing their advisor once or twice during the 1992-1993 academic year on the 1993 survey. Data regarding the frequency that students reported seeing their advisor are summarized in the chart below:

When students were asked whether or not the number of times they saw an advisor was sufficient to address their needs, 82% indicated that it was sufficient, while 18% indicated that it was not. This number of students who found their meeting frequency sufficient in the 1996 survey is larger than the number who found their frequency of meetings sufficient in 1993 (74%). The number of students who reported having an advisor but not seeing him/ her in the 1995-1996 school year (8%) remained about the same as the 1993 survey (10%).

Average Length of advising meetings:

In general, when students visit with their advisor, they reported spending as much time with him or her on the 1996 survey as they reported on the 1993 survey. One slight change was noted in the percentage of students reporting that they spend an average of more than 30 minutes with their advisor: 4% reported this in 1993, and 9 percent reported spending more than 30 minutes on the 1996 survey. These data are summarized in the chart below:

Advising Experiences & Expectations

Students were asked to reflect upon their experiences with advising during the 1995-1996 academic year. Students who were not at UNR during the 1995-1996 school year, who had never seen an adviser at UNR, or who had consulted friends for advising were asked to skip this section.

Accuracy of Information Provided:

Less students reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the accuracy of information provided by their advisor in the 1996 survey (59%) than in the 1993 survey (76%). More students reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied in the 1996 survey (13%) than in the 1993 survey (10%). The remainder of students indicated being neutral with regard to this question or indicated that the question was not applicable to them. These data indicate that there is a declining trend in student satisfaction regarding accuracy of information provided by advisors.

Student-Adviser Communication:

Students were asked to respond to the question, "My advisor is approachable and easy to talk to" by agreeing strongly, agreeing, disagreeing, disagreeing strongly, or indicating that the question is not applicable to them. Fifty-six percent (56 %) agreed with this statement, while 15% did not agree. In the previous survey, 75% agreed while 11% did not agree. These data indicate a decreasing trend of students who agree that their advisor is approachable and easy to talk to.

Helpfulness in Course Selection:

Fifty-one percent (51%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with their adviser's helpfulness in selecting courses, while 19% reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The number reporting satisfaction show a decreasing trend from the 1993 survey, when 67% reported satisfaction and 15% reported dissatisfaction.

The Effectiveness of Advising

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the students completing the 1993 survey indicated that they agreed strongly or agreed with the statement, "I would recommend my advisor to other students". A lesser number of students completing the 1996 survey indicated that they would recommend their advisor to other students (50%). Similar 1993-1996 results were obtained regarding the question, "I would go see my advisor if I were thinking of quitting school". In 1993, 51% of the students agreed with this statement. In 1996, 43% of the students surveyed agreed with this statement. In 1993, students responding to the question, "the advisement given in the SOAR/ Orientation sessions was helpful" showed a large number of neutral attitudes, perhaps an indication that most had not participated in SOAR. Similar results were obtained in the 1996 survey- the majority of students (58%) indicated that this question was not applicable to them. In addition to the not applicable responses, 23% strongly agreed or agreed, while 19% strongly disagreed or disagreed. The following chart summarizes 1996 responses to these survey questions:

Student Expectations of Advising Content, 1993

In the 1993 survey, students were asked to indicate whether or not certain issues were important to them when meeting with their adviser. The possible responses to these issues ranged from "very important" to "not important", with a "not appropriate" category also included. Table 10 contains the issues from the 1993 survey and corresponding percentages of students responding "very important" to "important". The issues are rank ordered from most appropriate to least appropriate relative to the percentage of students responding in the "very important to important" categories for each issue.

The most important advisement issue for students was obtaining specific information about requirements and courses to take. Next was obtaining information related to career aspirations and future educational goals; information on internships, guidance on graduate school opportunities and career goals, and assistance in obtaining employment after graduation. Additionally, students considered "receiving help with academic problems" to be an important advisement issue, as well as issues related to the student-adviser relationship (e.g., that advisers will get to know the student and that conversations will be confidential).

In the 1996 survey, students were asked to "rate your advisor on the following items". Many of these items corresponded to the issues listed in table 10. This was done to assess the degree to which the advising issues rated as important to students in the 1993 survey were or were not addressed by campus advising. The survey questions and percent of students responding "very satisfied" to "satisfied" are summarized in the chart below:

In 1993, 26% of surveyed students indicated that "discussions about financial problems" were either "very important" or "important" to them. In 1996, students were asked to agree, disagree, or mark as not applicable the statement, "I am comfortable speaking with my advisor about financial difficulties". Forty-eight percent (48%) of the surveyed students indicated that this statement was not applicable to them, while 30% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, and 21% strongly disagreed or disagreed.

Specific Problems with Advising

In 1993, 16% of respondents reported that "it was more trouble than it was worth" to get to see an adviser. In 1996, 10% of respondents answered "yes" to a similar question, "It is too difficult for me to get an appointment with my advisor". In 1993, students were given an opportunity to explain negative experiences with their advisors. Some students indicated that that a negative experience with advising had delayed their graduation and/ or caused them to take additional courses. Consequently, a question was put on the 1996 survey regarding delay of graduation. In the current survey, 7% of students who indicated that they currently have an advisor answered "yes" to the statement, "I have had to delay graduation due to misinformation provided by my advisor". One would expect a lesser percentage of students to answer affirmatively to a question such as this which implies a consequence as severe as delaying graduation.

The demographics of the surveyed student population are representative of UNR's overall undergraduate student demographics. The largest percentage of student respondents are in their fourth year of study at UNR (seniors). Therefore, many respondents have had more than 1 or 2 years of experience with the advising process.

• Four out of five respondents have an advisor on campus. Most responding students who have changed their advisor at UNR did so due to a change in their major area of study.
• Three in four respondents indicated that their advisor is assigned rather than self-chosen.
• The majority of respondents to the 1996 Academic Advising Survey indicated that the majority of their advising information comes from a department faculty member (their advisor within the department).
• 10% more respondents reported their advisor as their primary source of advising information in 1993.
• In 1996, one fourth of respondents indicated that the majority of their advising information comes from the University catalog. Since the catalog was not an option on the 1993 survey, conclusions regarding 1993-1996 changes in this source of advising are not possible.
• It is possible that from 1993 to 1996, students are relying less on academic advisors and more on themselves for advising information such as the best courses to take.
• It is notable that in 1996, six times as many students reported receiving their primary advising information from friends as in 1993.
• Together, departmental advisors and the University catalog make up 80% of the reported primary source of advising information.
• Relatively few respondents reported receiving their primary advising information from the Academic Advisor for athletes, the International Student Advisor, or the Degree Audit Program.
• Respondents to the 1996 survey reported visiting their advisor about as frequently in a year as those who responded to the 1993 survey.
• The average length of advising sessions remained constant from 1993 to 1996.
• A 17% decrease in student satisfaction with the accuracy of information provided by advisors was observed from 1993 to 1996.
• A 19% decrease was observed from 1993 to 1996 regarding their opinion of the approachability of their advisor.
• Decreasing trends with respect to 1993-1996 data were also observed regarding advisor's helpfulness in course selection (16% decrease in satisfied students) and student's willingness to recommend their advisor to other students (8% decrease).
• A 47% decrease from 1993 to 1996 was observed in the number of students who reported that they would see their advisor if they were thinking about quitting school.

1996 responding students were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with ten advising issues which were reported to be important issues by at least 60% of 1993 respondents. Those issues included:

1. Provides accurate info. about courses and curriculum requirements within major
2. Provides accurate info. about courses and curriculum requirements outside the major
3. Provides guidance regarding the best courses to meet my needs
4. Provides guidance regarding graduate school opportunities
5. Helps me identify my educational goals and interests
6. Keeps up with my progress toward academic goals
7. Provides guidance regarding job opportunities
8. Maintains my communication with him/her in a confidential manner
9. Provides accurate information on transfer equivalencies
10. Provides guidance on scholarships and financial assistance

Satisfaction ratings (satisfaction scored if a student marked "very satisfied" or "satisfied") in 1996 exceeded 50% on 4 of the above 10 issues. No satisfaction rating exceeded 60%. A comparison of issues that students rated important in 1993 with student's level of satisfaction with those issues in 1996 indicates that student's major concerns are not being adequately addressed via the current advising system. The three issues rated as most important in 1993 were: accurate information regarding major requirements, accurate information regarding requirements outside the major, and providing guidance to choose the best courses to meet needs. Just over half of the surveyed students (59%) are satisfied with information they receive from their advisor regarding requirements within their major. Less than half (43%) of students are satisfied with information they receive from advisors regarding requirements outside their major. Half of the students are satisfied with the guidance they receive in choosing the best courses to meet their needs.

In conclusion, it appears, overall, that the quality of advising at UNR as reported by undergraduate students decreased from 1993 to 1996.

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