Kalani Palmer, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Paul Higgerson, University of Florida
Faculty have a long tradition of advising students in higher education. They were the first academic advisors and continued to be the principal source of academic advice at most institutions through the 1940s (Cook, 2009). To this day, faculty continue to play an influential role in advising. According to NACADA’s 2011 National Survey, 17% of the participants surveyed utilized faculty-only advising and upwards of 90% of participants had faculty advising in some form (Carlstrom & Miller, 2013). The percentage of faculty-only advisors is even higher (28.2%) for schools with enrollment below 6,000 students (Self, 2013). It is important that all advisors, including faculty, understand the expectations of them. The absence of this understanding can lead to advisors feeling like their work is not valued and might lower student satisfaction (Allen & Smith, 2008; Hart-Baldridge, 2020). Understanding and assessing these expectations is vital to ensuring students are taught what they need to know and ensuring that faculty know what they need to do. Although assessment of faculty advising is vital, it is unclear exactly how, and if, it is done.
Expectations of Faculty Advisors
Assessment of faculty advising should focus on the expected duties and outcomes. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2023), the accrediting agency for over 500 institutions, does not outline expectations for advisors but does state that the goal of advising is to “enhance retention and guide students throughout their educational experience” (Standard IV Criteria 1c). Expectations of faculty advisors can vary; however, there are some consistent expectations for the role. Guidance and support in course enrollment as well as an understanding of program requirements are primary duties of all advisors, including faculty (Dillon & Fisher, 2000; Hart-Baldridge, 2020; He & Hutson, 2017). Other functions faculty are expected to undertake include career and post-graduation advising support (Frost & Brown-Wheler, 2003; Senior et al., 2017). To be successful, faculty advisors need a strong knowledge base in these and other areas (Dillon & Fisher, 2000; Smith & Allen, 2006). Dillon and Fisher (2000) found that faculty also viewed knowledge as a top responsibility when advising students.
As students make their way through higher education, knowing where to go for assistance and who to see can present challenges. Advisors armed with the necessary institutional knowledge are in an excellent position to assist students on their journey. Assisting students in navigating this journey is a primary responsibility of academic advising (Drake, 2013; Hart-Baldridge, 2020; Smith & Allen, 2006). Faculty are in a unique position to assist students with this as many have spent their careers navigating academic institutions (Hart-Baldridge, 2020). Allen and Smith (2008) identify referrals as a primary domain of faculty advising, which can include academic and nonacademic referrals. Navigating the institution and providing referrals go hand in hand. Faculty advisors themselves see these as important aspects of their role (Allen & Smith, 2008; Dillon & Fisher, 2000). Students and faculty advisors alike stand to gain when they know where to go and who to see for support or to address questions and challenges.
Concerns in Faculty Advising
While several themes are clear regarding faculty advising expectations, there are many areas of concern. Inadequate or infrequent training is cited as a challenge, as well as the fact that being good at the role can often lead to students not in one’s caseload seeking advising (Allen & Smith, 2008; Dillon & Fisher, 2000; Hart-Baldridge, 2020; He & Hutson, 2017). Faculty often feel that their advising responsibilities are undervalued by administration (Allen & Smith, 2008; Dillon & Fisher, 2000; Hart-Baldridge, 2020). Other concerns involve the advising function in tenure and promotion (T&P) policies. Often, advising duties are classified as service; in some instances, they are barely mentioned (Allen & Smith, 2008; Dillon & Fisher, 2000; Hart-Baldridge, 2020; He & Hutson, 2017). He and Hutson (2017) note that assessment of faculty advising often looks only at advisor caseload, time spent advising, and student satisfaction. At many institutions, faculty are governed by contracts which may or may not define the advising role. Teague and Grites (1980) conducted a comprehensive review of advising expectations outlined for faculty in collective bargaining agreements, but a current review is needed. It is important to note that anything not identified in the contract could be met with resistance by the faculty. Involving faculty might help facilitate the process of defining, advising, and spelling out expectations. To alleviate faculty concerns, it is necessary to have clear expectations for faculty, ensure those expectations are assessed in a manner that fairly evaluates advising performance, and clearly identify the value of duties.
Assessment Methods
Existing research on faculty advising identified multiple methods available for assessment. Quantitative assessments (e.g., surveys with close-ended questions) of student satisfaction frequently appeared (Eduljee & Michaud, 2014; Hurt, 2004; Johnson & Morgan, 2005; Sheldon et al., 2015; Springer & Tyran, 2022; Teasley & Buchanan, 2013; Yonker et al., 2019). Powers et al. (2013) also described a quantitative measure that examined student learning outcomes such as awareness of department policies or use of the online registration system. In addition to the quantitative measures, some offered suggestions for qualitative assessments (e.g., focus groups, artifact review) of faculty advising, but these were rare (Cuseo, 2008; Hurt, 2004). A mixed method assessment approach is comprehensive and would produce the most useful findings (Cuseo, 2008), but qualitative data collection or analysis is often labor intensive and more challenging to analyze (Rahman, 2017).
Additionally, incorporating the view of multiple stakeholders seemed key (Cuseo, 2008; Hurt, 2004). Most importantly, the successful implementation of faculty advising assessment requires buy-in from faculty. To address this, some have recommended including faculty in the design and implementation of assessments (Cuseo, 2008; Hurt, 2004; He & Hutson, 2017). Unfortunately, most assessments of faculty advising relied heavily on the student perspective alone (mostly on their satisfaction with advising). The perspective of peers, staff, and administrators are noted as important, but empirical data on the inclusion of them in advising assessment did not appear in the literature. Research on peer assessment of faculty teaching provides some transferable insights to advising. Cox et al. (2013) argued that peer assessment is useful, but more so when it examined areas that student evaluations did not capture. Servillo et al. (2017) found that low-stakes peer assessment with early career faculty aided in self-reflection, resource sharing, and collaboration, which suggests it may prompt activities that support faculty learning and growth. Like the findings on peer assessment, administrators participate in faculty evaluations but not necessarily for advising. Administrators (e.g., dean) have an opportunity to provide performance feedback to faculty, but advising is often not included.
Concerns with Assessment
While assessment is needed, each institution, department, and program need to be ready for assessment. In general, the current expectations in contracts or collective bargaining agreements across the country have not been comprehensively examined in over forty years (Teague & Grites, 1980) and thus is also unknown. It is not appropriate to assess faculty advising without first establishing clear expectations. Ideally, the process for conducting faculty advising (i.e., how it is done) should also be understood before assessing the quality of advising or the achievement of student outcomes (Epstein & Klerman, 2013). The lack of clear expectations, formal training, and comprehensive formative assessment suggests that institutions of higher education (IHEs) are not prepared to assess the quality of faculty advising. Faculty may have been the first advisors, but most institutions do not appear ready for a summative assessment, which could help identify what works and for whom.
Recommendations for Policy and Practice
Overall, it is recommended that IHEs begin to implement policies, procedures, and practices that demonstrate a firm commitment to implementing and assessing quality faculty advising. It is also recommended that professional associations offer guidelines, tools, and training that support a multi-stakeholder (e.g., peers, students) assessment of faculty advising.
Clear Expectations and Management
IHEs need clear expectations for faculty advising and guidelines for caseload assignments. Faculty must be included in the establishment of expectations, especially when an institution has a collective bargaining agreement or when a program holds accreditation. It is essential that administrators set reasonable guidelines, monitor faculty caseloads, and protect faculty time. Faculty who are considered good at advising (Allen & Smith, 2008; Dillon & Fisher, 2000; Vowell, 1995) and those that identify as a member of an underrepresented group (Canton, 2013; Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group, 2017) often advise students not in their assigned caseload. Administrators play a key role in providing oversight and ensuring equity amongst faculty.
Student Learning Outcomes
Student learning outcomes for faculty advising must be created. Ensuring students are learning what we want them to know can only be evaluated through assessment of advising. When satisfaction is the focus, learning outcomes for academic advising can be overlooked (White, 2015). All stakeholders (faculty, administration, staff, and students) should be included in the creation of learning outcomes for academic advising.
Evidence-Based Formal Training
IHE’s and professional associations should offer formal training to support faculty advising practices that are evidence-based and aligned with the student learning outcomes. Ideally, professional associations affiliated with advising will offer training; however, IHEs must consider developing training programs that encompass the advising cycle. Faculty need basic knowledge and skill that is potentially university, department, or major specific (e.g., degree requirements) to support their advising work (Crocker et al., 2014). Only the IHE can provide that specific training and support to faculty.
Comprehensive Formative Evaluation
IHE’s should offer low-stakes comprehensive formative evaluations and provide evaluation results to faculty. Prior to making judgments about the impact or assessing the quality of faculty advising, ongoing assessment with continuous feedback for the purpose of improvement is needed but often missing (Dillon & Fisher, 2000; Robbins & Zarges, 2011; Springer & Tyran, 2022).
Tenure and Promotion
Last, IHE’s should include advising in the tenure and promotion process (Palmer, 2022). Institutions and professional associations can offer training and guidance on how assessment of faculty advising might be incorporated into the tenure and promotions process.
References
Allen, J. A., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 49(5), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0033
Canton, C. (2013). The “cultural taxation” of faculty of color in the academy. California Faculty Magazine, 10.
Cook, S. (2009). Important events in the development of academic advising in the United States. NACADA Journal, 29(2), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-29.2.18
Carlstrom, A. H., & Miller, M. A. (Eds.). (2013). 2011 NACADA national survey of academic advising (Monograph No. 25). NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/2011-NACADA-National-Survey.aspx
Cuseo, J. (2008). Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Cox, C. D., Peeters, M. J., Stanford, B. L., & Seifert, C. F. (2013). Pilot of peer assessment within experiential teaching and learning. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 5(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2013.02.003
Crocker, R. M., Kahla, M., & Allen, C. (2014). Fixing advising: A model for faculty advising. Research in Higher Education Journal, 26, 1–9.
Dillon, R. K., & Fisher, B. J. (2000). Faculty as part of the advising equation: An inquiry into faculty viewpoints on advising. NACADA Journal, 20(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-20.1.16
Drake, J. K. (2013). Academic advising as teaching and the advisor as teacher in theory and practice. In J. K. Drake, P. Jordan, & M. A. Miller (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college (pp. 17–32). John Wiley & Sons.
Eduljee, N., & Michaud, R. (2014). Student perceptions and levels of satisfaction about academic advising. International Journal of Psychosocial Research, 3(1), 1–12.
Epstein, D., & Klerman, J. A. (2013). When is a program ready for rigorous impact evaluation? The role of a falsifiable logic model. Evaluation Review, 36(5), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X12474275
Frost, S. H., & Brown-Wheeler, K. E. (2003). Evolution and examination: Philosophical and cultural foundations for faculty advising. In G. L. Kramer (Ed.), Faculty advising examined: Enhancing the potential of college faculty as advisors (pp. 223–244). Anker.
Hart-Baldridge, E. (2020). Faculty advisor perspectives of academic advising. NACADA Journal, 40(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-18-25
He, Y., & Hutson, B. (2017). Assessment for faculty advising: Beyond the service component. NACADA Journal, 37(2), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-16-028
Hurt, B. (2004). Using the balanced-scorecard approach for program assessment of faculty advising. NACADA Journal, 24(1–2), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-24.1-2.124
Johnson, E. J., & Morgan, B. L. (2005). Advice on advising: Improving a comprehensive university’s program. Teaching of Psychology, 32(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3201_3
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2023). Standards for accreditation and requirements of affiliation (14th ed.). https://www.msche.org/standards/fourteenth-edition/
Palmer, K. M. (2022). Using advising to make the case for tenure and promotion. Academic Advising Today, 45(3). https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/View-Articles/Using-Advising-to-Make-the-Case-for-Tenure-and-Promotion.aspx
Powers, K. L., Carlstrom, A. H., & Hughey, K. F. (2014). Academic advising assessment practices: Results of a national study. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-003
Rahman, M. S. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Robbins, R., & Zarges, K. M. (2011). Assessment of academic advising: A summary of the process. NACADA Clearinghouse. https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse.aspx
Self, C. (2013). Who advises? Advising personnel categories by institutional size. In A. H. Carlstrom & M. A. Miller (Eds.), 2011 National Survey of Academic Advising (Monograph No. 25). https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/2011-NACADA-National-Survey.aspx
Senior, C., Moores, E., & Burgess, A. P. (2017) “I can't get no satisfaction”: Measuring student satisfaction in the age of a consumerist higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(980), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00980
Servillo, K. C., Hollingsworth, A., & Hott, B. L. (2017). Partnerships for enhancing practice: A preliminary model of technology-based peer-to-peer evaluations of teaching. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(1), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416681161
Sheldon, K. M., Garton, B., Orr, R., & Smith, A. (2015). The advisor quality survey: Good college advisors are available, knowledgeable, and autonomy supportive. Journal of College Student Development, 56(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0027
Smith, C. L., & Allen, J. A. (2006). Essential functions of academic advising: What students want and get. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-26.1.56
Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group. (2017). The burden of invisible work in academia: Social inequalities and time use in five university departments. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39(2017), 228–245. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/hjsr/vol1/iss39/21/
Springer, M. C. & Tyran, C. K. (2022), Assessing the quality of faculty-delivered individual academic advising. Quality Assurance in Education, 30(2), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2021-0118
Teasley, M. L., & Buchanan, E. M. (2013). Capturing the student perspective: A new instrument for measuring advising satisfaction. NACADA Journal, 33(2), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-12-132
Teague, G. V., & Grites, T. J. (1980). Faculty contracts and academic advising. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21(1), 40–44.
Vowell, F. (1995). Developing faculty potential as excellent advisors. In G. Kramer (Ed.), Reaffirming the role of faculty advising (NACADA Monograph Series No. 1, pp. 33–39). Brigham Young University Press.
White, E. R., (2015). Academic advising in higher education: A place at the core. The Journal of General Education: A Curricular Commons of the Humanities and Sciences, 64(4), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2015.0024
Yonker, J. E., Hebreard, D., & Cawley, B. D. (2019). Validating faculty advising through assessment. NACADA Journal, 39(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-17-034
