From Myopia to Systemic Thinking

Patrick T. Terenzini, Pennsylvania State University

Editor's Note: Patrick T. Terenzini, co-author of the two-volume series How College Affects Students, will deliver the opening keynote address, October 18, 2007, at the NACADA Annual Conference in Baltimore.  Click here to learn more.

Ernie Pascarella and I have now reviewed nearly 35 years of research on how college affects students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005), and it seems entirely reasonable to ask: "Well, what did you learn, and so what?" Two sets of conclusions come to mind, one about how students learn and the other (more speculative) about how colleges shape that learning.

First, what can we conclude about how students learn? The research from cognitive science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and higher education tells us a good deal about student learning. Among an impressive array of findings, we know that learning: 1) requires an encounter with a challenge to the learner's current knowledge and belief structures; 2) requires active learner engagement with those challenges; 3) occurs best in a supportive environment that promotes reflection, consolidation, and internalization; 4) is relational and social, occurring best in the company of others and providing both enjoyable interaction and personal support; 5) is maximized in settings where both the learning activity and the learning outcome(s) have meaning for the learner, and 6) is neither time nor location bound.

The striking feature about these characteristics of student learning is that they are common across a wide array of educational outcomes and an equally broad array of different student experiences, both inside and outside the classroom. Experiences having one or more of these characteristics tend to be more educationally effective – regardless of the outcomes under study – than experiences with few or none of these traits. These educationally powerful experiences are found in the nature and integrity of curriculum, in the pedagogies instructors adopt in their classrooms, and in a host of out-of-class experiences.

Equally interesting, these traits are found to varying degrees in studies that focus largely on only one or a small set of possible influences on learning or change. For example, one cluster of studies examines the influence of some aspect of the curriculum and/or a particular instructional approach (e.g., collaborative learning, service learning) on, say, students' critical thinking or problem-solving skills. Those studies, however, frequently overlook a number of students' out-of-class experiences that may also promote the outcome under study. Another cluster of studies examines the influences of students' co-curricular experiences (e.g., in the residence hall, leadership programs, student organizations, or intercollegiate athletics) on some aspect of students' psychosocial development (e.g., identity formation, autonomy, interpersonal skills, or attitude change). Like those focusing on cognitive outcomes, studies of psychosocial development often overlook the possibilities that students' classroom or other academic-related experiences (including the kind of advising they receive) also shape the outcome under study. These patterns suggest quite clearly that most studies of college effects on students have adopted an overly narrow – one might even say myopic – conceptual focus, concentrating on only a comparative handful of factors at a time. Pascarella and I concluded that much of the current body of evidence “present[s] only a partial picture of the forces at work” (2005, p. 630).

This scholarly myopia has its administrative manifestations in our sometimes single-minded search for "best practices." When the evidence suggests that some program or intervention effectively promotes an educationally desirable outcome, practitioners adopt that practice for use on their own campuses. The practice seems reasonable enough: If something works on another, similar campus, why would it not also work on one's own? That question has a number of answers, such as different student bodies; different institutional histories, contexts, and cultures; and differences in the commitment and even the capacity of important stakeholders to make the change. What seems reasonable may not always be so.

In its scholarly form, this myopia represents a serious threat to understanding fully what constitutes educational effectiveness. In its administrative forms, this myopia also threatens the full and effective promotion of student learning. In both manifestations, the tendency is to overlook the full richness and range of the things that influence student learning. Perhaps the most important and inescapable conclusion Pascarella and I reached – in all its simplicity and all its complexity – is that student learning is shaped by multiple influences, operating in multiple settings, and affecting multiple outcomes. Student learning is clearly a function of the levels of students' engagement in their college experience, and one measure of educational effectiveness is an institution’s ability to promote high levels of student engagement. But the sixth characteristic of student learning listed above – that it is neither time nor location bound – suggests the need for a broader, more complex vision of how students learn and how we can best enhance it.

Frequently overlooked in the research we do, and in the ways we educate students, is the fact that students' educational experiences do not occur in a vacuum. Their peers (i.e., their friendship groups) and the larger peer environment constitute other important sets of influences that shape student learning. Indeed, Astin (1993) concluded that “the student’s peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years” (p. 398).

But the range of influences on learning does not stop there. Students’ individual experiences, their interactions with their friends, and the broader peer environment exist within a still larger setting – the organizational context. Organizational influences are frequently overlooked in the research on college's effects on student development and change. When considered at all, the institutional features studied are usually size, control, mission, or selectivity. Thirty-five years of research indicates that those characteristics are too distal from the student experience to have much, if any, impact on student learning (Astin, 1993; Dey et al., 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).

Re-examining what institutions do , rather than what they are, may offer potentially more productive scholarly and administrative paths. This alternative suggests a need to think more systemically, from top-to-bottom and from wall-to-wall. Educational effectiveness may lie not so much in the kinds or range of programs we offer students, but rather in the extent to which each institutional program, practice, and policy manifests one or more of the characteristics of learning listed earlier. Organizationally, the six characteristics of learning provide a kind of checklist for reviewing current organizational structures, programs, and policies and the extent to which they promote (or militate against) the characteristics of effective learning. What an institution or its units do, specifically, may be less important than that whatever is done be consistent with what we know about how students learn. Kuh and his colleagues (2005) provide clear insight into what some of those internal organizational features are and how a variety of different kinds of institutions have capitalized on them to enhance student learning. Space precludes discussion of those characteristics, but a central theme in those case studies is the ability of the institutions and their faculty and staff members to look and think beyond the boundaries of their own units and activities and to understand the place and role of what they do in relation to the role and activities of others. The product is a coherent, integrated, intentional learning environment that serves the institution's students and its educational mission.

Patrick T. Terenzini

Center for the Study of Higher Education

Pennsylvania State University, University Park

References

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four Critical Years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dey, E., Hurtado, S., Rhee, B., Inkelas, K. K., Wimsatt, L. A., & Guan, F. (1997). Improving research on postsecondary outcomes: A review of the strengths and limitations of national data sources . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PLAN TO ATTEND!

31st Annual NACADA Conference

October 18-21, 2007

Baltimore Convention Center

Advisors as Navigators:

From Orientation to Graduation and Beyond

www.nacada.ksu.edu/NationalConf/2007/index.htm

Take Advantage of the Moment!

Susan Campbell, President, NACADA

As I begin writing this article, I am watching the wind whip through the pine trees during the third Nor’easter of April 2007. I am reminded of how unpredictable life’s events really are and of how, at any given moment, we can find ourselves in places and in situations that we never thought possible or probable. As a result, we should take advantage of the opportunities before us at the moment they present themselves. One such opportunity is adoption of the NACADA Concept Statement on Academic Advising and the growing recognition that academic advising is a significant contributor to student success. In pondering this, I realize that there is a somewhat symbiotic relationship between the Concept Statement and student success. Let me explain.

We have all read the literature on academic advising and the importance of looking at academic advising as a holistic and developmental process. Toward that end, many of us have experienced the challenges of transforming academic advising on our own campuses from a point-of-service transaction coincidental with course registration to an educational process grounded in teaching and learning. For many of us, this has been a slow march—as all cultural change is. What has emerged while we have been marching is a fairly substantial body of writing that suggests that others are in agreement with us; that, indeed, academic advising, when approached holistically and developmentally, really does support student success! At this moment, we are in a good place. We must now take advantage of this moment by embracing and acting upon what is reflected in the NACADA Concept Statement on Academic Advising. As that document summarizes,

Academic advising, based in the teaching and learning mission of higher education, is a series of intentional interactions with a curriculum, a pedagogy, and a set of student learning outcomes. Academic advising synthesizes and contextualizes students’ educational experiences within the frameworks of their aspirations, abilities and lives to extend learning beyond campus boundaries and timeframes (www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Concept-Advising.htm).

 

While reinforcing our expressed beliefs that the potential for academic advising rests in helping students make sense and meaning of their educational experiences, the Concept Statement also articulates that academic advising is ‘integral’ to an institution’s fulfilling its teaching and learning mission. As such, our challenge (and it is one that many have already taken up) is to enact what it means to be ‘integral.’ To do this, we must be clear about how academic advising contributes to student learning by identifying desired student learning outcomes and intentionally designing opportunities for students to learn that which we desire them to learn. While we may not all spend time in a classroom, we are all teachers. We teach through academic advising.

The opportunity to strengthen the position of academic advising on our own campuses is upon us. There is clear recognition that academic advising positively contributes to student persistence and success. The Concept Statement on Academic Advising provides a framework to guide us in our task.

Now, more than ever, we must draw upon each other and the resources of our Association to support our work. The myriad NACADA publications and events available to us makes the expertise of our colleagues (e.g., monographs, Webinars, Institutes, Consultants’ Bureau) and resources of our Association (a strong, credible community with remarkable executive office support) readily available to our quest. Collectively and collaboratively we can continue our march toward full realization of the potential of academic advising in higher education. I encourage us all to take advantage of this moment!

Susan Campbell, President

National Academic Advising Association

(207) 780-4485

scamp@usm.maine.edu

NACADA Member Expertise Database

NACADA members are encouraged to share their expertise by registering with the NACADA Expertise Database.

This database is used to identify members' areas of expertise for media requests, authorships, presenters at NACADA events, etc. So, make your expertise known by registering or updating your information today!

Academic Advising in the Spotlight: Enhancing the Visibility of Academic Advising, Communicating the Importance of Academic Advising

Roberta “Bobbie” Flaherty, NACADA Executive Director

The purpose of this Association is to impact student development through the enhancement of academic advising. One avenue for addressing this purpose is by heightening the recognition of the importance of effective academic advising within the higher education community in general and on campuses specifically. Our challenge becomes how to get our message to those who are not members of the Association, but are key campus decision makers.

Identifying the person most likely responsible for advising at each institution is difficult since there is no one consistent title describing that person across institutions. It might be the chief academic officer, the chief student affairs officer, a director of a centralized unit, a vice president, a dean, an associate dean, etc. Thus, it is important for us to consider other methods for reaching these decision-makers.

I believe our best “promoters” are our members! You know the value of effective academic advising, you know the value of the resources available to you through NACADA, and you know the critical administrators at your institution and at nearby or “sister” institutions. So, we need you carry the message to others within your institution and beyond – yes, spread the word!

Some ways in which you might do this are:

• Organize a campus-wide group to discuss advising issues and provide input to the administration. Many such institutional groups already exist and would provide models for your consideration. In the September 2005 issue of Academic Advising Today, Debbie Barber (Kent State University) discussed how KASADA was formed and has benefited the institution (www.nacada.ksu.edu/AAT/NW28_3.htm#7).
• Network with other campus advisors using Robert Bryant, Agnes Chagani, Jennifer Endres, and Jim Galvin’s (University of Minnesota) “Strategies for Building Professional Advising Networks” in the Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources (www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Professional-development.htm).
• Form a networking group with advisors at surrounding or similar institutions and have the group become an Allied Member of NACADA – see Allied Members under “Membership” on the website (www.nacada.ksu.edu/Membership/allied_members.htm).
• Make key administrators aware of NACADA resources and events that can help them (and you) address issues your institution is facing or might consider for improvement.
• Contact the NACADA Consultants Bureau (www.nacada.ksu.edu/ConsultantsBureau/index.htm) to engage a consultant or team to conduct a review of your advising program that will highlight your strengths and provide guidance on what you might consider to further enhance your program.
• Become familiar with all the NACADA resources (especially the Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources) so that you can utilize that information in your daily work with students and in growing your academic advising program (www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/index.htm).
• Share your knowledge of resources with others so that they might share your passion for student success through effective academic advising. Establish a seminar or brown bag lunch series to address advising issues at your institution. Regularly distribute electronically across your campus an article from the NACADA Clearinghouse on a key issue on your campus.
• Refer others to NACADA resources when they ask questions on listserves, in meetings or with accreditation study groups.
• Share your knowledge of advising and NACADA with colleagues through presentations or discussions at other meetings and conferences.

Yes, YOU are important in assuring that the visibility of advising is heightened and that central administrators hear what we all know – that effective academic advising impacts student success. Your involvement and support of NACADA impacts how far and wide we can spread this important message.

Have a wonderful summer!

Roberta “Bobbie” Flaherty, Executive Director

National Academic Advising Association

(785) 532-5717

2007 NACADA Leadership Position Election Results

The election of NACADA leadership positions for terms beginning in October 2007 began on February 2, 2007 when the online voting system was made accessible to all eligible voting NACADA members. Login information and passwords were e-mailed individually to members using special mail-merge software. The positions for which candidates were seeking election included NACADA President, Vice President, Board of Directors members, Region Chairs, Commission Chairs, and Committee Chairs. The election process for these positions concluded on February 23 after which all valid votes were tallied. These newly elected leaders will begin their terms in October 2007 following the Annual Conference in Baltimore.

The election of the Division Representative for the Commission & Interest Group Division for the two-year term of October 2007-October 2009 was held immediately after the conclusion of the general election. Only current and newly elected Commission Chairs within the Commission & Interest Group Division participated in the voting process for this elected Division Representative position. The incoming appointed Division Representatives for the Administrative and Regional Divisions were recently announced by Susan Campbell, NACADA President, and those individuals will also begin a two-year term in October 2007 following the annual conference.

The 2007 leadership election results are as follows:

Board of Directors :

President (1-year term, 2007-2008): Jennifer Bloom (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Vice President (1-year term, 2007-2008): Casey Self (Arizona State University)

Board of Directors (3-year term each, 2007-2010):   

Sharon Aiken-Wisniewski (University of Utah)

Jayne Drake (Temple University)

Rob Mossack (Lipscomb University)

Division Representatives (2-year term, 2007-2009):

Elected:

Commission & Interest Group Division Representative: Victor Macaruso (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Appointed :

Administrative Division Representative: Skip Crownhart (Metropolitan State College of Denver)

Regional Division Representative: Gail Stepina (University of New Hampshire)

Region Chairs (2007-2009):

Northeast Region 1:  Susan Kolls (Northeastern University)
Mid-South Region 3:  David Goss (College of Charleston)
Great Lakes Region 5:  Lynn Freeman (University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh)
South Central Region 7:  John Paul Regalado (University of Texas-Austin)
Pacific Region 9:  Deborah Nakashima (Hawaii Pacific University)

Commission Chairs (2007-2009):

Advising Adult Learners:  Lisa Peck (Western Connecticut State University)
Advising Business Majors:  Deborah Noll (Iowa State University)
Advising Education Majors:  David Benz (University of Houston-Clear Lake)
Advising Graduate & Professional Students:  Sarah Naylor (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill)
Advising Student Athletes: Janice Robinson (Auburn University)
Advisor Training & Development: Pat Folsom (University of Iowa)
ESL & International Student Advising:  Leslie Yeager (Indiana University-Southeast)
Liberal Arts Advisors:  Sarah Ann Hones (Southern Oregon University)
Technology In Advising:  Renee Babcock (University of Texas-Austin)
Theory & Philosophy Of Advising:  Jeff McClellan (Utah Valley State College)
Two-Year Colleges:  Steve Schneider (Fox Valley Technical College)

Committee Chairs (2007-2009):

Awards Committee:  Susan Fread (Lehigh Carbon Community College)
Diversity Committee:  Jane Jacobson (Iowa State University)
Professional Development Committee: Albert Matheny (University of Florida)

Election Statistics :

Of the 9103 current members eligible to vote in the general elections, 1651 (18.1 %) participated in the online voting. This year’s voter response was slightly lower than in last year’s election, which yielded a turnout of 19.3 %, and that in 2005 (20.8 %). The eligible NACADA membership at the time the 2007 online voting system was activated was .13 % higher than that in 2006.

In the Board of Directors race, a voter response of 14.9 % (4076 votes cast out of a possible 27,309 votes) was received for the three positions being elected. Each NACADA member could vote for up to three members of the Board of Directors. For the positions of President and Vice President, response rates of 17.6 % (1602 votes) and 16.5 % (1504 votes) were received, respectively.

Of the 30 current and incoming Commission Chairs eligible to vote for the Commission & Interest Group Division Representative, 24 chairs voted (80.0%).

Of the 5367 total ballots offered for the five Region Chair races, 956 total votes were cast (17.8 %), varying as follows: Region 1 — 141 votes (12.4 % of its eligible voting members at the time ballots were made available); Region 3 — 123 votes (18.9 %); Region 5 — 325 votes (17.8 %); Region 7 — 271 votes (22.8 %); and, Region 9 — 96 votes (17.1 %).

Of the 10,180 total ballots offered for the 11 Commission Chair races, 1705 total votes were cast (16.8%), varying as follows: C01-Advising Adult Learners — 163 votes (12.4 % of the commission members); C06-Advising Graduate & Professional Students — 61 votes (15.0 %); C07-Two-Year Colleges — 193 votes (15.7 %); C11-Advising Business Majors — 124 votes (16.8 %); C12-Advising Student Athletes — 82 votes (15.9 %); C14-Technology in Advising — 252 votes (20.2 %); C17-Advisor Training & Development — 349 votes (17.2 %); C22-Advising Education Majors — 88 votes (21.4 %); C26-ESL & International Students Advising — 50 votes (15.9 %); C27-Theory & Philosophy of Advising — 189 votes (17.7 %); and, C30-Liberal Arts Advisors — 154 votes (17.0 %).

Of the 32 total ballots offered for three Committee Chair races, 21 total votes were cast (65.6 %), varying as follows: Awards Committee — 9 votes (90 % of eligible voting committee members); Diversity Committee — 4 votes (57.1 %); and, Professional Development Committee — 8 votes (53.3 %).

Three Region Chair races, four Commission Chair races, three Committee Chair races, and one Division Representative race were uncontested, which may explain some of the lower response rates received.

The NACADA Board of Directors and the Executive Office appreciate the time that NACADA members took to study the qualifications and platform statements of the candidates and cast their votes online. We also thank all individuals who participated in the election—the candidates who ran for office as well as those who nominated them. Congratulations to those who have been elected to leadership positions. Their willingness to make this commitment to NACADA is greatly appreciated.

If you or a colleague are interested in serving in a NACADA Leadership position and would like to become a candidate in next year’s elections, nominations must be submitted via the 2008 Leadership Recommendation Form to the Executive Office by Friday, November 2, 2007. An online nomination form will be available this summer on our Web site at www.nacada.ksu.edu/Election/index.htm, which can be completed and submitted electronically. NACADA members will be notified of its availability via e-mail in the monthly Member Highlights. There will also be a Word version of this form available at this same site that can be printed, completed, and sent by mail or fax to the Executive Office. Leadership Recommendation forms can also be submitted at the NACADA Annual Conference in Baltimore where forms will be available in the conference program, at the NACADA display booth, at the Commission & Interest Group Fair, and at the conference registration area.

The following totals and percentages are presented for comparison purposes:

Adapting Academic Advising Strategies to Meet the Needs of a Diversified Student Body

Alison Grewe, University of Miami

Recent statistical trends have led experts to project that ethnic minorities will become the numerical majority in the United States by the year 2010 (Cornett-Devito & Reeves, 1999). The impact of this growth is pervasive and, according to Howe & Strauss (2000), is evident in the current generation of students who are the most racially and ethnically diverse in this nation’s history. Those involved with collegiate student development must adapt current policies and practices to better meet the unique needs of our students. As academic advisors charged with facilitating the development of student potential, we must acquire new skills and strategies in order to provide more effective advising services.

At the forefront of the debate surrounding the administration of academic advising services has been the paradigm shift from a prescriptive to a developmental methodology. Proponents of the latter have contended that developmental advising supersedes the scope of prescriptive advising in that it promotes a rational process that embraces the holistic development of the student toward the achievement of a self-fulfilling life (Frost, 2000, p. 12-13). To presume however, that one mode of practice can serve the needs of all students despite social, cultural, and historical differences, is misleading. Brown and Rivas (1994) note that the perception rather should be one in which “…prescriptive advising, rather than being incompatible with a developmental approach to advising, is in fact a significant and necessary part of a thorough developmental advising methodology, one which gives due consideration to individual and group differences and needs” (p. 108). Viewing advising practices through a lens in which developmental advising falls along a continuum, therefore, may be more appropriate when engaging the current generation of students.

In fact, recent trends in the field indicate that some students prefer the directive approach of prescriptive advising. For instance, Brown & Rivas (1995) note that “many people of color have a need for concrete, tangible, structured approaches to addressing and resolving issues and problems” (p. 128). Here, the perception is that the non-directive approach seen in developmental advising techniques may be counter to cultural experiences and therefore be seen as untrustworthy and withholding of information, and thus ultimately confusing and disorienting (Cornett-DeVito & Reeves, 1999, p. 37). Therefore, in the interest of rapport building and the development of trust with a student from a minority cultural background, a “…perceived expertness [may be] crucial to developing a productive ongoing advisor-advisee interaction” (Cornett-DeVito & Reeves, 1999, p. 37). Counter to standard developmental advising practices, to reduce advisee hesitancy, the advisor may be required to take the primary responsibility for the establishment of the advising relationship and provide as much information as possible.

Advisors must be cognizant of the students’ individual and cultural characteristics and adjust their advising methodology to address students’ specific needs. To effectively meet developmental advising goals, advisors must recognize the need to change their approach with the changing environment (Priest & McPhee, 2000, p. 110). To this extent, advisors are charged with “…examining their knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and feelings” relative to a culturally diversified student body (Priest & McPhee, 2000, p. 110). Advisors who reflect upon their own beliefs, attitudes and biases are afforded an opportunity to develop an awareness of their relational style and the level to which services are provided in a competent, sensitive, and appropriate way. However, the development of advisors’ competencies should not be limited solely to an understanding of their own views but should incorporate an “understanding of the students’ life experiences and the resultant philosophical assumptions that they carry with them” (Brown & Rivas, 1995, p. 124) if the process is to be meaningful and effective.

The culmination of this perceptual awareness and the subsequent development of a competent skill set can only ensure the implementation of strategies that serve the best interest of students while ensuring a positive experience. The guidance and support provided to students during the first year is often the essential component to their integration, persistence and achievement; thus, for advisors the “challenge is to identify and implement interventions that will support increased levels of achievement and success” (Brown & Rivas, 1995, p. 126). Such interventions should include the implementation of effective referral systems, facilitating relationships with faculty mentors and professionals, and encouraging students to utilize the dynamics of a group setting to promote peer interaction and academic success. To successfully implement these strategies advisors must “acquire verbal and nonverbal communication skills necessary to be appropriately and effectively adaptable to students” (Cornett-DeVito & Reeves, 1999, p. 39).

Recent “retention studies have shown that effective academic advising is positively correlated to students’ satisfaction with their college experience” (Priest & McPhee, 2000, p. 106). Advisors who understand that minority students often underutilize advising services realize that they must continually develop their skills and strategies if they are to meet students’ diversified needs (Gordon et al., 2000; Brown & Rivas, 1995). Advisors must use varied interventions if they are to demonstrate flexibility and empathy that takes into account the world views and cultural trends presented by this new generation of students. Advisors who interact with a diversified student body must possess a skill set that incorporates knowledge about cultural groups and norms, appropriate and effective verbal and nonverbal aptitudes, and an awareness of the factors that support social and academic integration. Ultimately, as the campus student population becomes increasingly diverse, advisors must adapt their skills and strategies if they are to effectively support students in the development of their total potential.

Alison Grewe

Academic & Career Advisor in Residence

University of Miami

agrewe@miami.edu

References

Brown, T. & Rivas, M. (1994). The prescriptive relationship in academic advising as an appropriate developmental intervention with multicultural populations. NACADA Journal, 14 (2), 108-111.

Brown, T. & Rivas, M. (1995). Pluralistic advising: Facilitating the development and achievement of first-year students of color. In M.L. Upcraft & G.L. Kramer (ed.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future. (pp. 121-133). Columbia: University of South Carolina.

Cornett-Devito, M., & Reeves, K. (1999). Preparing students for success in a multicultural world: Faculty advisement and intercultural communication. NACADA Journal, 19 (1), 35-44.

Frost, S.H. (2000) Historical and Philosophical Foundations for Academic Advising. In V.N. Gordon, W.R. Habley & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A Comprehensive Handbook (pp. 3-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gordon, V.N., Habley, W.R. & Associates. (2000). Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000) Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.

Priest, R. and McPhee , S.A. (2000). Advising Multicultural Students: The reality of diversity. In V.N. Gordon, W.R. Habley & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A Comprehensive Handbook (pp. 105-115). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Foundations of Academic Advising CD 3:

Understanding Cultural Identity and Worldview Development

“As America’s ethnic and racial demographics continue to shift, not only on college campuses but throughout the nation, it is essential that administrators and practitioners prepare to effectively deliver cross-cultural services. Professionals of all ethnic and racial backgrounds need to gain multicultural awareness and multicultural competence” (Gilbert, 2005). This CD, along with its accompanying Pocket Guide, have been developed to assist in this process by addressing informational material, conceptual theories, and relational skills that relate to, first, development of intracultural competency, and then, by extension, to intercultural competency. The CD includes a series of Reflection Questions designed to assist advisors in cultural competency development.

PREVIEW   

Learn more about it at www.nacada.ksu.edu/Videos/index.htm#cultural.

Sexual Minority Students: An Academic Advisor’s Thoughts 

Kathy J. McCleaf, Mary Baldwin College

As new students arrive on our doorsteps, many are unaware of the personal growth to come. Recent researchers (Bruch et al. 2004; Banks et al. 2001; Hurtado et al.1999) have noted the changing ethnicity of students. What has not been as readily recognized in circles of multicultural understanding is the uniqueness of students who fall into the category of “other” as a sexual minority.

Savin-Williams (2001) used the term sexual minority to “refer to individuals who report that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, unlabeled, or sexually questioning, or have same-sex attractions” (p. 15). It is important that we realize that not all students will identify with these labels. Frequently, ethnic minority students will not ascribe to the use of socially constructed labels reflected in the dominate culture. Instead, they may use alternative language, e.g., Native Americans who use the term “Two Spirit” to celebrate those “believed to possess both male and female spirit” (Garrett and Barret, 2003, p. 134). Hall (as cited by Garrett and Barret) reflects that “because you are elements of both male and female– but you’re neither. You don’t fit in, you’re a go-between. And consequently, it’s easier for you to transcend from the physical to the spiritual realm” (p. 134). Use of the term sexual minority allows for inclusion of the complexity of each individual’s background and multiple intersections of their identities.

The young adult years in American culture include room for student inspection of who they are and how they can make a difference in the world. Astin and Astin (2004) noted that this generation of American students is far more ready than their predecessors to ask global questions of life purpose and engage in dialogue about issues of peace and civility. Thus, it is logical that sexual minority students may add to this conversation.

Recent research allows us a glimpse into our students’ presence. Savin-Williams (Winter, 2004) posits that today’s youth do not want the stereotypes associated with sexual identity labels. An expression of fluidity without expectation for certain behaviors is more the norm for today’s young people (Savin- Williams, 2005).

Konik and Stewart (2004) found that college students who identify as a sexual minority are linked with “more advanced global, political, religious, and occupational identity development” (p. 815) than their heterosexual peers. Advisors should note that the very gift of difference, both generational and in sexual identity, can be nurtured into a contributing gem of insight for a young gay person who participates in these global discussions. Maybe what we must learn from our advisees includes watching how our young people deny the social constraints of heterosexism, homophobia and other cultural barriers. So, how can we apply what seems intrinsic to some students as we advise them during their college careers?

Active Support Suggestions

As advisors we can contribute to the thoughts and challenges of every student by validating the contributions of minority peoples, including sexual minorities. We must continue personal efforts to educate ourselves about sexual minority individuals who are making a difference by serving in our government, our schools, and the corporate, sport, and global arenas. These contributions should be shared. Recently, a sexual minority student expressed the need for role models, both those out as heterosexuals and those out as sexual minorities: I need to see other gay people who have made it in this world; I also need to know about individuals in my career and major who have expertise in what I will need to be successful (Anonymous, personal communication, November 6, 2006, paraphrased).

Consider that all students should openly learn about sexual identity development, not just sexual minorities. Although the literature reveals only two recent studies on heterosexual identity development (Konik & Stuart, 2004; Hoffman, 2004), much like the limited literature on white identity development, majority cultures often assume that only those not fitting the majority paradigm should be researched as if a problem or an anomaly is evident (Hoffman, 2004).

Advisors who are available and affirming to students who share important milestones of romantic interest, cultural festivities, and group identification, demonstrate support that may lead to increased institutional retention and students better integrating their intellectual and social identities. Advisors who make their offices welcoming to all students show active support through the display of sexual minority affirming symbols such as rainbow flags, stickers and buttons or pink triangles on bulletin boards or book shelves.

These displays of affirmation let students know that their advisor is a safe and non-judgmental adult who welcomes discussions in regards to issues surrounding sexual minority identity or choices for major or career options. It also means understanding and actively talking about the heterocentric constraints decisions students may make. This includes having conversations about any negative dimensions of our heterocentric culture – for example, offering students considering military careers resources on how to navigate the culture of don’t ask, don’t tell. Discussion of how personal levels of authenticity may be dissonant in various settings will help students assess what comfort levels are appropriate for themselves.

Conclusion

We should do our part to make our campus climates friendlier by actively combating the homophobic statistics uncovered in recent studies (Rankin, 2005; Brown et al., 2004). Access to a resource network for sexual minorities can be a tremendous help to academic advisors and the students they serve. Connecting with a Safe Space or Safe Zone program (National Youth Advocacy Coalition, 2006) that combats homophobia and encourages dialogue around sexual identity development issues can make difficult conversations easier and bring resources closer.

Becoming a part of Safe Zone contacts provides a network of campus colleagues who can direct students toward multiple resources, including academic, health, safe social venues, spiritual, and listening and affirming adults. The program this author facilitates encourages networking for faculty and staff in supporting this population of students. Academic advisors can help all students become tomorrow’s leaders regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Advisors should become active participants in the networks that support sexual minority students.

Kathy J. McCleaf

Mary Baldwin College

kmccleaf@mbc.edu

References

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2003). Spirituality in college students: Preliminary findings from national study, John Templeton Foundation (pp. 1-7). Radnor: Higher Education Research Institute.

Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., & Hawley, W. D. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (3), 196-203.

Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students using a multiple perspectives approach. Journal of College Student Development, 45 (1), 8-26.

Bruch, P., Jehangir, R., Jacobs, W., & Ghere, D. (2004). Enabling access: Toward multicultural developmental curricula. Journal of Developmental Education 27 (3), 12-19.

Garret, M. T., & Barret, B. (2003). Two Spirit: Counseling Native American gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31