Report on Advisement

Senate/Administration Joint Committee on Advisement

Report and Recommendations

October 4, 2012

Charge:

On December 29, 2010, President Sbrega and then Senate President Greg Sethares announced the formation of a Senate/Administration Joint Committee on Advisement whose purpose was to make recommendations to “further strengthen Advisement at the College.”  The committee included five members of the administration and five Senate constituents:

§  Michael Bensink, Director, Counseling

§  David Feeney, Consultant

§  Patricia Goltermann, Director, Advising

§  Steve Kenyon, Vice President, Administration and Finance

§  Deborah Lawton, Professor, English

§  Makna Men, Senior Academic Counselor

§  Steven Ozug, Vice President, Enrollment Management

§  Frederick Rocco, Assoc. Vice President, Academic Affairs

§  Eileen Shea, Coordinator, Transfer Affairs

§  Anthony Ucci, Acting Assoc. Vice President, Academic Affairs

§  Elizabeth Whitehead, Adjunct, Reading

§  Diana Yohe, Professor, Office Administration

In addition, financial and contractual consultants were appointed.   Both President Sbrega and Professor Sethares met with committee members at their first meeting on February 23, 2011, and emphasized the spirit of collegiality and shared governance which initiated the formation of the committee, and the need for transparency and progress reports.

Given this charge, the Committee defined Advising for its purpose as the process of course selection and registration, especially during new student registration periods and returning student priority registration periods.  Members agreed that after identifying what is known, what works well and what changes to recommend, a next step could be the development of a theoretical framework to refine a mission and measures of success.  As a preliminary goal, the Committee sought ways to encourage students to seek more advising and to ensure that they receive accurate and timely information.

Before beginning our task, we agreed to maintain a spirit of collegiality, recognizing the complexity of the issues and the number of voices and perspectives to be considered. 

Process:

The committee first convened in the Spring 2011 semester, and met regularly for a year, through the Spring 2012 semester.  In its initial meetings, the Committee considered strengths of the current advising system and identified areas for future discussion.  We also reviewed data and reports that were available as well as several articles concerning advising:  CCSSE 2007, CCSSE 2009 and Noel-Levitz 2008 surveys; various BCC studies related to course withdrawal, course completion rate by session by campus, late registration, grade distribution, probation and dismissal, average GPA, and RDG 080/090 grade/credit results.  Also distributed were the 2007 BCC Advisement Roundtable Recommendations, several articles about best practices and assessment and publications from the National Academic Advising Association including “A Guide to Assessment in Academic Advising.”  Although there was much information available, we also discussed what additional information we wanted to obtain in the future.  

The Committee next created five sub-groups, each to include one administrator and one senate constituent, to research the following topics:

1.      Advising at other community colleges

2.      Who is advised

3.      The use of technology in advising

4.      Student and faculty/staff feedback

5.      The advising process at BCC

In April, and May, 2011, the Committee discussed initial findings of the sub-groups.  The co-chairs presented an update of the Committee’s work to date to the Senate on May 2, 2011.     

During the academic year 2011 - 2012, the co-chairs and sub-groups continued to meet, and the full Committee convened ten times to formulate draft recommendations.  Katie Yates, Assistant Director of Admissions, Joanne Pelletier, Vice President of Information Technology, and Jane Kitchen, EDP Systems Analyst III, provided additional feedback and information related to these recommendations.

Co-chairs presented an update of the committee work and gathered initial feedback to its draft recommendations at a Senate meeting open to constituents on April 2, 2012.

The committee completed its formal meetings with a review of its recommendations on May 16, 2012 and revision of a draft report on September 19, 2012.

Areas of discussion:

§ Survey of other Community Colleges:

The committee surveyed and reviewed responses from four community colleges who use Banner: Mount Wachusett, Massasoit, Northern Essex and Middlesex.  (See attached summary, Appendix  XXX)   There was no consistency concerning when students were advised, which students were advised, who advised them, the use of Web registration or a PIN number, or timing and methods of advising new students.   At our request, Middlesex shared summary results of a Title III funded study of 958 Business Administration and Liberal Studies students in the Fall of 2010 which indicated a significant improvement in persistence and retention for a cohort who met with advisors, career or transfer counselors, or who created academic plans using Degree Works (See appendix XXX).  One area of agreement that was noted is that all four colleges had permanent advising centers, staffed with full and part-time advisors or academic counselors.

§ Current advising/registration system:

All returning students notified and encouraged to register for classes during priority advising and registration weeks and to take advantage of one-on-one advising.  Of the total number of matriculated students, approximately 2200 -2400 students are assigned to advisors, either faculty or unit and non-unit professionals.  These neediest students, who are assigned a PIN, are required to meet with an advisor before registering for classes.  This group is identified and changes each semester because they meet one or more of the following criteria:  they are new students, have a GPA below 2.7, are enrolled in developmental courses, have D’ and F’s, have enrolled in more day than evening courses in the previous semester.  Walk-in advising and registration assistance is available from the end of the priority period through the start of the semester. Degree works is the primary online planning and advising tool, and while training for advisors and advisees is offered, it is not required.

Strengths:  Strengths of this system to recognize include the availability of one on one advising, with extended opportunities provided by the advising center staff.  In addition, many advisors possess considerable expertise in a field or program, or in the practice of advising.

Challenges: At the same time, challenges exist.  The number of criteria related to assigning student PINs makes assigning the same students to specific advisors difficult. Furthermore, students who do not see their assigned advisors during priority registration usually attend walk-in advising.  As a result, the College pays twice for the same service; the scheduling, hiring and training of part-time advisors is challenging; and no relationship can be developed between a student and an advisor.  Although some of the college community may see advising as something that happens between students and full-time faculty and staff, many more students are advised in walk-in advisement, with part-time staff.

·   Student feedback

Of the 227 students who responded to a survey administered in the spring 2011 (see appendix), 69 % felt they needed academic advising, and approximately 50 % said they either met with their advisor or attended walk-in advising for academic advice.  Almost 75 % said they preferred this method of communication over website, text messaging or printed information.  In responses to open-ended questions, students said they wanted more availability to advisors, and although they appreciated the convenience of walk-in advising, they preferred to see the same advisor for a period of time.  Very few students, only about 25 %, used or knew how to use Degree Works.

·         Faculty and Professional Staff feedback

Sixty-one advisors, both faculty and staff, responded to a survey about the advising process in the Fall 2011.  As did students, they preferred face-to face meetings, with 93 % choosing that method of communicating with advisees.  Approximately 69 % of the advisors stated that their advisees contacted them outside of the two week priority period, and 62% felt that students who were doing poorly needed advising more than students who were successful in their courses.  Although 72 % of advisors stated they had adequate information, they also said they would like more professional development in the areas of transfer, curriculum changes, Degree Works and program requirements.  Since advising is not a daily task in many cases, as one advisor commented, it is difficult to track and recall all the changes that occur in a semester or academic year without some refresher training.

Themes that emerged in responses to open –ended questions emphasized this need for additional training as well as a central location to locate and access information and expertise.  Advisors also requested seeing the same advisees each semester, and keeping walk-in options open for students.  Although there were many comments about PINs, there was no consensus about keeping or eliminating them.

·         Advising Center

The Advising Center staff, consisting of both full and part-time advisors, are primarily part-time.  The total number of advisors on duty generally varies between 5 and 12.

During the formal advising months (priority weeks, walk-in and new student registration) of September, November, December, January, April, May, June, July and August, the advising center staff served 8613 students in 2010; 7,922 students in 2011;  and 6814 students through August, 2012. 

In addition, students sought advising from “on-call” advisors.  In January though December of 2010, the number of students was 1,497; in 2011 students numbered 1,426 and in 2012 the number to date is 1,612.

Students who attended evening advising numbered 243 in 2010; 421 in 2011; and 355 to date in 2012.

As currently organized, there is no permanent location for the Advising Center.  A permanent location would:

-   eliminate confusion for students/faculty/staff. Currently, signs indicate the location which changes based on availability of cafeteria.

-   eliminate the resources used to ‘set-up’ the computers, tables, chairs, internet, printer and signs each of the 90 days per year we set up the advising area.

-   provide a private, noise free and familiar place for students to receive confidential advising

-   provide a central location for advising resources and expertise

Advising Center staff would continue their current responsibilities of formal, on-call and evening advising and also could institute some additional services such as:

-   Professional Development programs for Advisors/faculty/staff. 

-   Training for students on the use of DegreeWorks and Access BCC.

-   Group advising.

-   Advising during Orientation for New Students

-   Advising for the Late Start Cohort.

-   Connections advising, including hearings for dismissed students.

Recommendations:

The Senate/Administration Joint Committee on Advisement offers the attached

recommendations, and suggested timeline for implementation. 

Recommendation	Timeframe	Implementation
1.    Emphasize advising throughout the academic year.
§ Institute permanent Advising Center, staffed by faculty and advisors	Fall 2013
§ Hire two new full time advisors	Spring 2013 and Fall 2013
§ Have some advisors specialize in certain academic areas or with special populations, i.e. new students	Begin Spring 2013
§ Create template for an advising syllabus by and for program coordinators to distribute at orientation and/or provide electronically	Fall 2013	The National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) provides information and links to sample syllabi: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/syllabus101.htm#over
§ Revise course sequences currently in catalog to reflect priority sequence for students	Fall 2013	Include priority list in catalog and on Degree Works
§ Create opportunities to orient students to advising before priority registration	Spring 2013	Have recently implemented this through daily on-call advising; Dean of Advising might coordinate with First Year Experience staff
§ Increase opportunities and venues for professional development for advisors:  professional staff meetings or during activity periods (minimum one per year), all-academic meetings, Professional Days, Lash Center sponsored courses/workshops, intersession and summer workshops, print materials (NACADA), online reference center, online advisor support.	Ongoing (LCTL)	Advisor Training Modules – implemented Spring 12 Advisor references are on the Advising Website – under “Faculty Resources”
2.    Refine advising process to allow for a variety of ways to deliver advising within contractual guidelines and to increase student participation.
§ Allow faculty different options to fulfill their contractual advising responsibilities
- Maintain  face-to-face advising with assigned students	Current and on-going
- Provide online advising  to students who would meet criteria to be advised online	Currently have email advising addressed by on-call advisor; explore other options for faculty/staff
- Staff the Advising Center during the academic year and/or at key advising and registration periods.	Spring 2013	In addition to generalist advisors, have advisors specialize in certain areas Advising center should still use part-time advisors to deal with influx during peak periods
- Offer group advising sessions using Degree Works coordinated by the Dean of Advising and/or Program Coordinator	Spring 2013	Pre-load the Degree Works plan with courses in priority order for at least the first semester.  Subsequent semesters may be loaded based on program sequencing.
- Allow faculty who teach CSS and incorporate advising and Degree Works training to have satisfied their advising responsibilities.  At the end of course, students would be advised and registered.	Spring 2013
- Offer workload adjustment for faculty who choose to advise more or less based on their schedules/interest	Spring 2013
§ Promote priority registration by using the PIN as an incentive for students to see their advisor early.	Fall 2013	Assign PINS to those who can register early, and then either release these or assign a generic PIN for all other students at the end of the priority period
3.    Utilize available technology more effectively.
§ Revise assigning process to allow first year students to meet with the same faculty/staff advisors for three semesters or until:  change of program, or other specific criteria.	Fall 2013	Have to deal with the huge number or unassigned students Streamline criteria for assigning PINS. Joanne Pelletier will investigate feasibility
§ Offer web-based advising for distance learning students	Spring 2012
§ Recommend advisors be required to complete training in and use of DegreeWorks	Within 2 years (By Fall 2014)
§ Develop remote accessible (probably web-based) system for scheduling advising appointments and contacting student initially	As soon as possible	New software would be needed; Joanne Pelletier will investigate
§ Move toward the adoption of a paperless, electronic communication medium, eliminating the need for printed rosters, transcripts, envelopes	Fall 2013
§ Provide easy access to Degree Works through desktop or homepage icon	Spring 2013	Joanne Pelletier will work with Dean of Advising to inform the college community about this process
4.    Collect data regularly to assess advising program and to determine the effects of advising on academic performance.
§ Convene an oversight group to review the progress of implementation of the accepted recommendations.  This group should include representatives from both the enrollment and academic areas of the College	Fall 2013
§ Student participation during priority registration and walk-in registration (by program, number of credits, campus, day/evening, full-time/part-time)	Begin Fall 2014	Consider the collection of anecdotal data as well. Advisors need to return rosters at minimum
§ Student and faculty satisfaction surveys	Immediately
§ Student and faculty response to new initiatives or approaches	Within a year of implementation
§ Study the effects of advising on persistence, retention, GPA and graduation.	Fall 2013