Work in Progress: Development of an Innovative Undergraduate Engineering Academic Advising Model

Margaret Ruth Hammond; Christine B. Masters

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: Faculty Development Division (FDD) Technical Session 8
Tagged Division: Faculty Development Division (FDD)
Page Count: 6
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--44224
Permanent URL: https://strategy.asee.org/44224
Download Count: 97

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Margaret Ruth Hammond Pennsylvania State University

visit author page

An academic advising and higher educational professional and educator, Margaret Hammond has over 15 years of experience in promoting academic advising best practices, application of interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks, educational inquiry, and curricular development. Margaret draws her scholarship interests from her background and education in women’s, gender and sexuality studies and student affairs in higher education. Having worked at Penn State in an advising capacity for over 12 years, Margaret is the current Director of Advising Innovation and Assessment in Penn State’s College of Engineering where she works to provide support and guidance on academic advising best practices for professional and faculty academic advisers, oversees assessment efforts, and the development and implementation of advising innovation.

visit author page

biography

Christine B. Masters Pennsylvania State University

visit author page

Christine Masters is the Assistant Dean for Academic Support and Global Programs and a Teaching Professor in the Engineering Science and Mechanics Department at the Pennsylvania State University. In between raising 4 great kids with her husband of 35 years, she taught large enrollment statics and strength of materials courses for 12 years and has been leading the efforts focused on support, global engagement, and academic integrity as Assistant Dean since 2014.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This work in progress describes the re-imagination and re-design of an undergraduate academic advising model to more effectively serve students while also better supporting and engaging faculty who have academic advising responsibilities. Academic advisers play a significant role in student success in college (De Sousa, 2005). They are one thread in the comprehensive network of support a student utilizes to identify, articulate, and achieve their educational, personal, and professional goals. Just as innovations in teaching and classroom pedagogy are considered to enhance student learning, so must the design of intentional educational interventions like academic advising.

Rather than a clerical function, academic advising is a developmental process like the application of pedagogical principles in the classroom (Tuttle, 2000); however, a perception persists that the main function of an academic adviser is to aid in course selection. This perspective does not align with advising best practices and standards, or with this large land-grant institution’s advising policies. In fact, it discourages students from further engaging in dialogue beyond the perceived advising practice (i.e., course selection). Additionally, this perspective does not make appropriate use of faculty adviser expertise and strengths. Like many institutions, there exists a mismatch between the priorities and reward structures of faculty and the time needed to appropriately prepare for and deliver effective academic advising. Professional advisers have the background and focus to more effectively help students with things like navigating institutional policies and addressing undergraduate student development issues. However, if faculty are removed entirely from academic advising, students miss out on valuable faculty connection and discipline-specific guidance.

In search of a new model, the authors interviewed advising leaders in disciplines across their institution and advising leaders in engineering programs across the Big 10 and found that nearly all assign their undergraduate students to either a professional adviser or a faculty adviser. The authors recommend a new innovative advising model where students are assigned to both, leveraging the skills of professional advisers who have backgrounds in student development AND the experiences of faculty who have discipline-specific expertise. With this change, student’s needs will be fully supported but the expectations on faculty will be more aligned with their strengths and priority responsibilities, providing the bandwidth to form stronger relationships with students around discipline-specific engagement that will be more fulfilling to the faculty and more meaningful to the students. This proposed model also supports the development of a comprehensive network for students where professional and faculty advisers have defined roles, both shared and independent from one another, that capitalizes on the individual’s expertise and skillset, where the student ultimately benefits.

References De Sousa, D.J. (2005). Promoting student success: What advisers can do (Occasional Paper No. 11). Everett, J. W., and Perez-Colon, M. (June 2015). Evaluation of a dual first year student advising program (Paper ID #12106). ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Tuttle, K. N. (2000). Academic advising. New Directions for Higher Education, 111, 15-24.

Citation
Format

Hammond, M. R., & Masters, C. B. (2023, June), Work in Progress: Development of an Innovative Undergraduate Engineering Academic Advising Model Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--44224

TY - CPAPER
AB - This work in progress describes the re-imagination and re-design of an undergraduate academic advising model to more effectively serve students while also better supporting and engaging faculty who have academic advising responsibilities. Academic advisers play a significant role in student success in college (De Sousa, 2005). They are one thread in the comprehensive network of support a student utilizes to identify, articulate, and achieve their educational, personal, and professional goals. Just as innovations in teaching and classroom pedagogy are considered to enhance student learning, so must the design of intentional educational interventions like academic advising.

Rather than a clerical function, academic advising is a developmental process like the application of pedagogical principles in the classroom (Tuttle, 2000); however, a perception persists that the main function of an academic adviser is to aid in course selection. This perspective does not align with advising best practices and standards, or with this large land-grant institution’s advising policies. In fact, it discourages students from further engaging in dialogue beyond the perceived advising practice (i.e., course selection). Additionally, this perspective does not make appropriate use of faculty adviser expertise and strengths.

Like many institutions, there exists a mismatch between the priorities and reward structures of faculty and the time needed to appropriately prepare for and deliver effective academic advising. Professional advisers have the background and focus to more effectively help students with things like navigating institutional policies and addressing undergraduate student development issues. However, if faculty are removed entirely from academic advising, students miss out on valuable faculty connection and discipline-specific guidance.

In search of a new model, the authors interviewed advising leaders in disciplines across their institution and advising leaders in engineering programs across the Big 10 and found that nearly all assign their undergraduate students to either a professional adviser or a faculty adviser. The authors recommend a new innovative advising model where students are assigned to both, leveraging the skills of professional advisers who have backgrounds in student development AND the experiences of faculty who have discipline-specific expertise. With this change, student’s needs will be fully supported but the expectations on faculty will be more aligned with their strengths and priority responsibilities, providing the bandwidth to form stronger relationships with students around discipline-specific engagement that will be more fulfilling to the faculty and more meaningful to the students. This proposed model also supports the development of a comprehensive network for students where professional and faculty advisers have defined roles, both shared and independent from one another, that capitalizes on the individual’s expertise and skillset, where the student ultimately benefits.

References
De Sousa, D.J. (2005). Promoting student success: What advisers can do (Occasional Paper No. 11).
Everett, J. W., and Perez-Colon, M. (June 2015). Evaluation of a dual first year student advising program (Paper ID #12106). ASEE Annual Conference &amp;amp; Exposition, Seattle, Washington. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Tuttle, K. N. (2000). Academic advising. New Directions for Higher Education, 111, 15-24.
AU - Margaret Ruth Hammond
AU - Christine B. Masters
CY - Baltimore , Maryland
DA - 2023/06/25
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Work in Progress: Development of an Innovative Undergraduate Engineering Academic Advising Model
UR - https://strategy.asee.org/44224
DO - 10.18260/1-2--44224
ER -