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:
|
§ 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
|
|
