McNeese Logo

McNEESE STATE UNIVERSITY

Advising – QEP Topic Selection

Advising – QEP Topic Selection

Advising

Advising plays an important role in a student’s educational experience. In fact, Swecker, Fifolt, & Searby (2014) discovered that for each visit with an advisor, a student’s odds of retention increased by 13%. This synopsis describes the ever-increasing body of research on advising. It details three emerging themes in the topic and provides examples of student learning environment outcomes. Finally, the synopsis will describe elements commonly seen in Quality Enhancement Plans that include advising as a focus.

Most of the research in this area falls within one or more of three themes. The first theme is student satisfaction/preferences. Allen, Smith, & Muehleck (2014) revealed that the sample of community college students studied were more satisfied with advising prior to transferring to a 4-year university than post-transfer advising. Student satisfaction was the focus of two other studies with identical results. Both Anderson, Motto, & Bourdeaux (2014) and Hale, Graham, & Johnson (2009) discovered that when students have a preconceived notion of how they would like their advising relationship to be and those expectations are not met, then student satisfaction decreases. Barker and Mamiseishvili (2014) also determined that students prefer a personalized relationship and faculty advisors instead of professional advisors. Student satisfaction/preferences have been a recurring way to assess advising practices, leading to a large volume of research conducted with this focus.

The second theme is the area of online versus in-person advising. Amador & Amador (2014) detailed that online advising was preferred when the advising was intended to be prescriptive. In contrast, Gaines (2014) found that students prefer face to face interaction (emailing was a close 2nd), and Thompson & Prieto (2013) claimed that students and faculty alike determined that online advising was significantly inferior to face to face advising. There may likely be a correlation between students’ preference for personalized advising and the preference for face-to-face interaction.

The final theme of the research is the argument for developmental advising (focused on career and personal development) as opposed to prescriptive (focused on academic schedule development). Hale, Graham, and Johnson (2009) found that 95% of students preferred and expected developmental advising as opposed to prescriptive. Anderson, et al. (2014) suggested that advising be dynamic. Advisors should gauge which type of advising each student desires and to adjust to that type.

Some research that does not fit into one of these three themes is Powers, Aaron, & Kenneth’s (2014) research on different ways to assess advising. Additionally, Williamson, Goosen, & Gonzalez (2014) suggested in-class advising while Young-Jones, Burt, Dixon, & Hawthorne (2013) suggested using advising as a tool for student intervention.

<p">There were three main student environment outcomes. First, Rogers, Blunt & Trible (2014) and Swecker, et al. (2014) revealed that as advising became stronger, student retention also increased. Second, Young-Jones, et al. (2009) and Swecker, et al. (2014) discovered that there is a positive correlation between positive advising practices and student success. Finally, Swecker, et al. (2014) claimed that student persistence increased as advising efforts were increased.

Examples of Quality Enhancement Plans (QEPs) involving advising include such components as early intervention, academic curriculum planning, and training faculty in advising best practices.  Advising QEPs often include complementary initiatives in new student orientation and career planning. Assessment measures of academic progress in cohorts include persistence, academic standing, number of credit hours earned in the academic year, grade point average, and tracking referrals to campus resources. Some institutions adopt software such as AdvisorTrac to monitor student interactions. The National Academic Advising Association’s (NACADA) Academic Advising Inventory and the ACT Survey of Academic Advising are frequently incorporated into QEP assessment.

Examples of Advising QEPs

References

  • Allen, J. M., Smith, C. L., & Muehleck, J. K. (2014). Pre- and Post-Transfer Academic Advising: What Students Say Are the Similarities and Differences. Journal Of College Student Development, 55(4), 353-367.
  • Amador, P., & Amador, J. (2014). Academic advising via Facebook: Examining student help seeking. Internet & Higher Education, 219-16. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.003
  • Anderson, W., Motto, J. S., & Bourdeaux, R. (2014). Getting What They Want: Aligning Student Expectations of Advising with Perceived Advisor Behaviors. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 26(1), 27-51.
  • Barker, S., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2014). Reconnecting: A Phenomenological Study of Transition within a Shared Model of Academic Advising. Journal Of Student Affairs Research And Practice, 51(4), 433-445.
  • Gaines, T. (2014). Technology and Academic Advising: Student Usage and Preferences. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 43-49.
  • Hale, M. D., Graham, D. L., & Johnson, D. M. (2009). ARE STUDENTS MORE SATISFIED WITH ACADEMIC ADVISING WHEN THERE IS CONGRUENCE BETWEEN CURRENT AND PREFERRED ADVISING STYLES?. College Student Journal, 43(2), 313-324.
  • Powers, K. L., Aaron H., C., & Kenneth F., H. (2014). Academic Advising Assessment Practices: Results of a National Study. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 64-77. doi:10.12930/NACADA-13-003
  • Rodgers, K., Blunt, S., & Trible, L. (2014). A Real PLUSS: An Intrusive Advising Program for Underprepared STEM Students. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 35-42
  • Thompson, L. R., & Prieto, L. C. (2013). IMPROVING RETENTION AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: INVESTIGATING THE UTILIZATION OF VIRTUALIZED ADVISING. Academy Of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(4), 13-26.
  • Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2014). Academic Advising and First-Generation College Students: A Quantitative Study on Student Retention. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 46-53.
  • Williamson, L. V., Goosen, R. A., & Gonzalez Jr., G. F. (2014). Faculty Advising to Support Student Learning. Journal Of Developmental Education, 38(1), 20-24.
  • 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: An International Perspective, 21(1), 7-19. doi:10.1108/09684881311293034

Office of Campus Compliance & Civility | Sexual Misconduct Policy | EOE/AA/ADA | Web Disclaimer | Policy Statements | University Status & Emergency Preparedness | A member of the University of Louisiana System | Consumer Disclosure Information | Title IX | Web Accessibility Statement

Ashley Bass

I am a McNeese graduate with a bachelor's degree in Family and Consumer Science and a concentration in Child and Family Studies. As a student, I competed on the rodeo team and served on the SGA board. I earned my master’s degree in 2022 from the University of South Dakota in Educational Administration and Leadership with a concentration in Adult and Higher Ed. I have over 13 years of experience in adult education and 20 years of educational experience.

My favorite part of being a Freshman Advisor is helping students navigate their new life routine as a college freshman by offering support with in-person office visits or by email to help students meet their goals. I always remind students of my favorite BB King quote – “Education is one thing no one can ever take away from you.”  I believe that supporting students is vital to a student's success.

In my spare time, I raise registered American Brahman cattle, and I enjoy all the "country girl" things like hunting, fishing, growing a garden and cooking.

ADVISOR FOR:
  • College of Liberal Arts (excluding music)
  • Burton College of Education (ELEM and EDPR majors)