Improving Student Advisement Through Collaboration

Community colleges throughout the United States serve students from a variety of backgrounds. Many of these students need assistance to successfully navigate the course enrollment and financial aid processes, and to complete their chosen degree or certification programs. Strong academic advisement is essential to students’ abilities to navigate course requirements, financial aid requirements, and degree expectations (Strayhorn, 2015). Structuring and implementing a strong advisement process requires a multifaceted, collaborative approach that includes input from advisement staff and faculty, thus creating higher retention rates and higher levels of student satisfaction (Smith, 2002; Young-Jones, Burt, Dixon, & Hawthorne, 2013; Workman, 2015). This paper examines the impact of a new collaborative advisement program at Kaskaskia College on students, faculty, and staff.

Framing the Issue

Kaskaskia College is a small community college located in southern Illinois serving approximately 10,000 full- and part-time students per academic year. A Higher Learning Commission Annual Quality Improvement Process (AQIP) project studying student retention showed that the academic advisement process at the college lacked enough individualization for students to set goals, information on degree or certificate requirements, and career counseling. The project also showed that improving advisement could positively impact overall student retention, and certificate and degree program completion.

Before the 2012-2013 academic year, students were not required to meet with an academic advisor before registering for classes, nor were they required to meet with a faculty member to determine the required courses for degree or program completion. Many students did not know that the college catalog provided information on the courses they needed for their program or degree. These factors led to students enrolling in courses they did not need, taking longer amounts of time to degree completion, having gaps in their knowledge about particular programs, exceeding financial aid awards, and leaving the institution without completing a degree or program (Sutton & Sankar, 2011).

Decreased state and federal funding has resulted in Kaskaskia College’s budget becoming increasingly reliant on tuition revenue. Additionally, federal and state regulations are beginning to stipulate that students must make adequate progress toward graduation in a timely manner for institutions to receive funding. Strong student advisement with a collaborative partnership between advisement staff and faculty increases students’ persistence in and graduation from degree or certification programs. Additionally, students who complete degree and certification programs have greater earning power and job possibilities than those who hold a high school diploma (Baum, Ma, & Payea, 2013; Smith, 2002; Strayhorn, 2015).

Developing a Plan

Developing a new advisement process began with key stakeholder meetings. Administrative staff and faculty members who manage and would benefit from an improved advisement process met to determine how to improve the advisement process, what the benefits of improving the process would be, and what the limitations of a new advisement process would be based upon the school’s resources.

Research indicates that advisement focused on students’ needs and interests improves retention and graduation rates (Haag, Hubele, Garcia, & McBeath, 2007). The newly developed advisement plan at Kaskaskia College placed a greater emphasis on these concepts with a three-step process in which the advisement staff, faculty, and student meet at various points each semester for ongoing advisement and support. The first step requires initial intake for all new students, including an initial meeting with his or her advisor. Previously, new students were not required to meet with an advisor to discuss a graduation plan or list of required courses needed for a certificate or degree program. At these meetings, the advisor reviews the student’s transcripts and develops a graduation plan based upon the student’s interests.

The student and a faculty mentor meet to review the graduation plan as the next step in the advisement process. The faculty member suggests or recommends coursework, and the student enrolls in appropriate classes. Before the new advisement plan, students were not assigned a faculty mentor to review their coursework and receive information.

The final phase of the advisement process requires the student and faculty mentor to meet each semester to update the graduation plan. This provides the opportunity for the student and faculty mentor to ensure that the student is on track for graduation.

Implementation Successes and Challenges

The new advisement plan was considered successful immediately. This success was attributed to a number of factors. Key stakeholders were included in the planning process, which created an opportunity to share concerns, build buy in, and negotiate the process with everyone involved. Faculty had the opportunity to engage and mentor students. Faculty found this helpful with program enrollment and relationships with students. Students also appreciated the new advisement plan, as they received improved guidance regarding coursework and appreciated the mentorship from faculty.

However, challenges to the advisement plan remained. The college employed three full-time advisors. Advisors and faculty did not meet regularly to discuss changes to programming or issues regarding students’ advisement plans. This led to a breakdown in information regarding coursework and student progress. Students changed majors or coursework after meeting with faculty but did not communicate this to advisors or faculty. This created problems for faculty planning courses, as well as for students who enrolled in coursework that was not necessary.

Implementing, Reviewing, and Improving the Plan

The advisement plan rolled out over the course of two years. The initial pilot phase began in fall 2013, and focused on first-year students. The advisement plan continued in spring 2014 for the next academic year. The pilot was expanded to incoming spring 2014 students.

During the 2014-2015 academic year, the program expanded to all incoming and current students. The plan was revised based on the experiences of students, advisors, and faculty. Students met with advisors, and advisors created plans for the first year. Plans were expanded to include the students’ second year at the college. Students were also required to gain a signature from the faculty mentor before they could register for the next semester’s courses. These steps ensured that students had contact with faculty mentors, thus promoting stronger communication. These steps also increased the workload of advisors who did not have the resources to effectively complete and then revise graduation plans.

Continued Implementation and Future Goals

The success of students is the success of an institution. The new advisement plan at Kaskaskia College continues to have a positive impact on students. The collaborative efforts between advisement staff and faculty have increased student mentorship and improved focus on degree completion requirements. The advisement process has built a system that effectively guides students through the degree process. Faculty have an opportunity to mentor students and ensure they are enrolled in coursework appropriate for their degree or certificate goals.

The advisement plan needs to be continually evaluated to maintain the best process possible for student success. Addressing challenges is important to a successful advisement process. This includes establishing communication between faculty and advisement on program requirements and continual communication among key stakeholders. If these items are addressed, this collaborative advisement program will remain effective and will assist students as they move through the process of completing a degree or certificate program.

References

Young-Jones, A. D., Burt, T. D., Dixon, S., & Hawthorne, M. J. (2013). Academic advising: Does it really impact student success? Quality Assurance in Education, 21(1), 7-19. doi: 10.1108/09684881311293034

Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2013). Education pays 2013: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. The College Board.

Haag, S., Hubele, N., Garcia, A., & McBeath, K. (2007). Engineering undergraduate attrition and contributing factors. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(5), 929-940.

Smith, Joshua S. (2002). First year student perceptions of academic advisement: A quality study and reality check. NACADA Journal, 22(2) 39-49.

Sutton, K. L, & Sankar, C. (2011). Student satisfaction with advisor information. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(7/8), 71-85.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2015). Reframing academic advising for student success: From advisor to cultural navigator. The Journal of the National Academic Advising Association, 35(1), 56-63.

Workman, J. (2015). Exploring college students’ experiences with first year academic advising. NACADA Journal, 35(1).

Erin Landers is an assistant professor and the Teacher Education program coordinator at Kaskaskia College.

Opinions expressed in Learning Abstracts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the League for Innovation in the Community College.