Eric B. Braun, University of Vermont, College of Education and Social Service
In 2022, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that “the coronavirus pandemic brought major disruptions to American society. Health systems were stressed, millions of jobs were lost, businesses were shuttered, and many schools were closed” (p. 1). The pandemic impacted nearly every aspect of American higher education as well. Perhaps the most notable pivot was the abrupt shift from in-person advising (IPA) to remote academic advising (RAA). While RAA is now commonplace at colleges and universities across the United States, only a small body of scholarship has been dedicated to its impacts. This article offers advising supervisors and academic advisors a review of the post-pandemic literature focusing on RAA and its related best practices in Academic Advising Programs (AAP) today.
What learning platforms and software systems can be used to promote RAA?
Wang and Houdyshell (2021) inform us that academic advising can be facilitated through a variety of learning platforms that provide both synchronous and asynchronous communication with students. Common learning platforms include Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate, and InSpace. RAA can also be expedited through software systems specifically designed for this purpose (TrustRadius, n.d.). While the exact number of these software is unknown, G2 (Lathon, n.d.) ranked more than 45 systems that can be customized for academic advising programs at most American colleges and universities. It is now clear that there are many different technological solutions for advising programs that do not currently offer remote academic advising.
Are there significant differences between the dual modalities of RAA and IPA?
Peters, Burton, and Rich (2023) utilized a dual survey methodology sent to address this question with students and their advisors at one large university. Their findings suggest that students preferred RAA to IPA primarily because of scheduling convenience. Other findings suggest that academic advisors use RRA to create advising relationships that support student success. The authors further suggested that RRA could also be used to improve developmental advising. In conclusion, the study found no significant difference between the quality of advising between these dual modalities; participants believed that both of them met NACADA standards for advising.
Are there disparities in students’ abilities and means to access RAA?
Soria (2023) informs us that nearly one-third of all college and university students did not have any access to academic advising during the pandemic. While problematic for all students, this was especially detrimental to students who have been historically marginalized or minoritized in American higher education. Despite the proliferation of academic advising technologies, Soria warns academic advisors of the need to assess their students’ access to RAA. While the practice has become more accessible with more learning platforms and advising software, that does not mean that RRA is more equitable than it was during the pandemic. Kopp’s study (2022) reinforces this notion that, when viewed through the lens of racialized organizational theory (Ray, 2019), academic advising can no longer rely on learning outcomes that assess student agency and aptitude. Rather, advising staff need to examine how RAA favors some student groups while creating institutional barriers for others. While RRA has improved accessibility to many students in post-pandemic higher education, advising services still remain out of reach for many students who may be most in need of it.
Does RAA impact diverse student demographic groups in different ways?
In a focused quantitative study, Wang and Houdyshell (2022) found no significant difference in the knowledge or experience that students experience across gender, age, ethnicity, and majors when they compared RRA to IPA. The authors, however, did find significant differences in opinions among student age and gender groups. Students who identified as female preferred RAA to those who identified as male. Older students preferred RAA to younger students. While we can speculate on the causes for the differences among these student demographic groups, the perceived impact of RRA and IPA is worthy of further study.
Does RRA facilitate growth and human development among students?
While RRA is convenient and easy to use, Bermea (2022) challenges advising practitioners to consider its shortcomings and reinstitute a more humanistic model of advisement. IPA practice has traditionally emphasized growth and change in the direction of self-actualization. The author reminds advisors that “humanistic advising calls for advisors to see students beyond their academic profile, recognize that students' affective matters are worth intentional focus, and aid students in their holistic development as human beings” (p. 3). Developmental concerns should be addressed in face-to-face meetings. Through IPA dialogues, advisors can effectively build relationships that create humility, care, and trust with their advisees. The implication here is that RAA may reduce, or even impede, humanistic advising from occurring in the advising process.
Does RRA align with NACADA’s Pillars of Academic Advising (n.d.)?
The Concept of Academic Advising (2006), the first of the four pillars, informs us that the advising profession is “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” (para. 9). This should remain true of academic advisement regardless of the modality used for its delivery. The second pillar, Core Values of Academic Advising (2017b), establishes and defines the core values of advising work which include: caring, commitment, empowerment, inclusivity, integrity, professionalism, and respect. While there is a gap in the research on how these core values are perceived by students and staff, it remains to practitioners to convey these values across all types of meetings with their advisees. The Core Competencies of Academic Advising (2017a), the third pillar, informs practitioners that advising training programs and practices should be divided into three content areas: conceptual, informational, and relational. It’s reasonable to assume that advising information can be communicated equitably through both RAA and IPA; however, this issue has not yet been fully explored in the academic advising literature. The final pillar, the CAS Standards for Academic Advising (2019), provides industry benchmarks that advising administrators should strive to attain for their students, staff and programs. Part 11 of the standards focuses on the technology standards. While there is no specific mention of RAA in this section, it provides advising supervisors with six compelling questions to address (p. 53):
Despite their lack of specific focus on remote academic advising, NACADA’s Pillars not only promote good academic advising theory and practice within the context of American higher education today, they also seek to extend them far into the future.
References
Bermea, G. O. (January, 2022). Humanistic advising: Applying humanistic theory to the practice of academic advising. NACADA Review, 3(1), 3–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.12930/NACR-20-07.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2019). CAS self-assessment guide for academic advising programs.
Kopp, C. (2022, July). Disrupting racialized practice in a post-pandemic context. NACADA Review, 3(2), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACR-21-16
Lathon, J. D. (n.d.). Best academic advising software. G2. Retrieved January 23, 2024, from https://www.g2.com/categories/academic-advising
NACADA. The Global Community for Academic Advising. (n.d.). Pillars of academic advising. https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Pillars.aspx
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. (2006). NACADA concept of academic advising. https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Pillars/Concept.aspx
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. (2017a). NACADA academic advising core competencies model. https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Pillars/CoreCompetencies.aspx
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. (2017b). NACADA core values of academic advising. https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Pillars/CoreValues.aspx
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the elementary and secondary education system (Condition of Education). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 2, 2024, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/tcb
Peters, B., Burton, D., & Rich, S.. (2023, January). Post COVID-19: A comparative assessment of in-person and virtual academic advising. NACADA Review, 4(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACR-D-22-10
Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335.
Soria, K. M. (2023, June). Disparities in college students' access to academic advising during the COVID-19 pandemic. NACADA Journal, 43(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-22-27
TrustRadius. (n.d.). Academic advising software. Retrieved January 3, 2024, from https://www.trustradius.com/ academic- advising
Wang, C. X., & Houdyshell, M. (2021). Remote academic advising using synchronous technology: Knowledge, experiences, and perceptions from students. NACADA Journal, 41(2), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-20-27
