1
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
College of Arts & Science
Consultants’ Report
On March 10-13, 2010, a consulting team from the National Academic Advising Association
consisting of Eric White (The Pennsylvania State University), Casey Self (Arizona State
University), and Nancy King (Kennesaw State University) visited the University of
Saskatchewan (U of S). The charge was to conduct a review of the entire University academic
advising program and a review of advising in the College of Arts & Science (CAS) to make
recommendations for improvement. Before the visit, we were provided a great deal of
information regarding the University and the advising program.
It is important to note that the consulting team was asked to provide two written reports: one to
address the University-wide advising needs and a second to detail our observations and
recommendations specifically for the College of Arts & Science. Because CAS is the largest and
most complex of the colleges and it has carried a major responsibility for advising a
significant number of students, it clearly deserved particular attention in our review. Yet because
CAS is such an integral part of the University-wide advising program, it is inevitable that there is
some overlap in the general observations as well as the recommendations that are included in
both the team’s University Report and the CAS Report. Certainly, CAS does not—and should
not—operate as a silo, but rather as an important part of the overall University of Saskatchewan.
For this reason, there is indeed some overlap in the two reports provided by the consulting team.
During our visit, we met with a wide representation of individuals including the President,
Provost, the Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning, the Dean of the College of Arts & Science
and the three Vice-Deans of the college. We also met associate and assistant deans, numerous
department-level and college-level advisors, undergraduate program chairs, off-campus
coordinators and transition program coordinators, and University Learning Center and the
Student and Enrollment Services Division staff. In addition, we met with several groups of
students consisting of student leaders, first-year students, upper-level students, Aboriginal
2
students, the Undergraduate Forum, a large group of resident assistants, and an Open Forum for
any student to come by and discuss advising at the University. As a result of the materials
provided for us and the meetings with individuals who represented the College of Arts & Science
and others from all across the campus structure, we gained an understanding of both the college
and the campus culture.
In this report, our overall observations will cover what we believe are the strengths of the
College as well as the challenges facing the College. As might be expected, there is a great deal
of overlap between this report on the College and the University-wide report. The College of
Arts & Science is the largest and most complex of all of the colleges and it is closely connected
with all parts of the University. Finally, we will offer some recommendations for your
consideration that we believe will improve the academic advising program at the University of
Saskatchewan.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Strengths
The University of Saskatchewan is an impressive institution that has served the Province of
Saskatchewan as well as students from other parts of Canada and, indeed, the world since the
early 20th century. There is a long and proud history that is quite evident to outsiders. We were
especially impressed by an unusually high commitment to the University on the part of faculty,
staff, administrators, and students. Indeed, all of the constituencies demonstrate a great deal of
pride in the U of S that reflects well on the institution. There also seems to be a strong
commitment to facilitating student success and making improvements to the advising program.
The establishment of the U of S’s Second Integrated Plan Toward an Engaged University is an
impressive document that outlines the institution’s dedication to the changes that will be
necessary to elevate the University’s—and thus the CAS’s—status in Canada and throughout the
world. It is also worth noting that academic advising is a part of this strategic plan and the
commitment is further demonstrated by bringing in the NACADA consultants’ team. Other
strengths we noted include:
3
•
A beautiful campus, which is an important component of students’ and parents’ positive
perceptions about the institution. In fact, a number of students commented to us that they
were impressed with the beauty of the campus when they first visited the U of S.
•
A strong academic reputation and the wide diversity of programs and majors within the
CAS. Within the three major divisions of the College—humanities and arts; social
sciences; and sciences—there is a plethora of degree possibilities.
•
A stable enrollment for a number of years. However, it needs to be noted that the
demographics of Saskatchewan indicate a decline in the traditional college-going
population. This will necessitate a more competitive environment. As a result, the
retention of students will become increasingly important.
•
An extremely dedicated group of administrators, faculty, and staff. We were
exceptionally impressed with the level of friendliness and professionalism that was
evident among all those with whom we met. There are also a number of individuals who
have served the CAS and the U of S for several years demonstrating a significant
allegiance to the college and the university.
•
A clear understanding of the importance and value of strategic planning. As mentioned
above, we were extremely impressed with the The Second Integrated Plan. In particular,
the emphasis on improving the student experience is noteworthy. In fact, there are six
areas that focus on the student experience.
•
Committed leadership in the CAS. Clearly, the senior leadership in the CAS is dedicated
to moving the college forward in the area of academic advising. Because of this serious
commitment from the top down to improve the quality of the student experience both
inside and outside the classroom in the CAS, we are confident that the necessary changes
will be made.
•
Although there are areas in the CAS where understaffing is quite obvious, the resources
appear to be at least adequate. However, the allocation of these resources will have to be
realigned in order to make the desired changes in the academic advising system.
4
Challenges
•
The primary challenge for the CAS is quite clear to the review team. Without question
the college has become a “catch-all” for the University. The College of Arts & Science
has been asked to assume responsibility for providing advising to large numbers of
students who are not either majors or pre-majors in the college’s twenty-three
departments. As a result, there are many students whose advising needs are simply not
being met. Specifically, the Undergraduate Office (UGO) in the College of Arts &
Science has been given the task of advising all undecided students (hereafter referred to
as “exploratory”), first-year students, pre-majors for all non direct-entry programs, and
specific populations such as Aboriginal students, off-campus students, and Open Studies
in addition to its own students in the CAS. As a result of being quite obviously
understaffed to handle approximately 8,000 students, the accessibility and quality of
advising is clearly lacking. In addition, the needs of Arts & Science students are not
being met. As our recommendations will clearly address, this situation must be rectified
to improve the student experience. Simply putting more staff in the UGO will not
adequately address the need. Rather, there must be a philosophical shift away from the
position of viewing the CAS and the UGO as the supplier of advising for large
populations (i.e., all first-year and exploratory students) that would be more appropriately
served by a University-wide advising center. In our view, the College of Arts & Science
should focus on delivering exemplary academic advising to its own first-year students
and pre-majors and majors in the college’s twenty-three departments. Indeed, such a shift
would bring the college in line with the best practices models that exist on most
campuses with a similar scope and mission of the U of S.
•
Currently there is no shared or common understanding of what academic advising is
or what it should be. In fact, given the way advisors are spending their time in the UGO
(all advisors have duties in addition to advising), coupled with the strong connection
between “the advising window” in March and April to the process of scheduling classes,
the concept of advising is definitely lacking in scope. The current thinking in the field of
academic advising is that advising is an extension of the educational mission of the
institution. In fact, academic advising, when done well, is viewed as a form of teaching.
5
In the same way that students learn both inside and outside the classroom, teaching also
occurs outside the traditional classroom. As a result, there should be learning outcomes
established for advising.
•
Based upon input from a sizeable number of students, inaccessibility to advising is
indeed an issue that is not based upon mere “folklore.” Rather, it is apparently a
significant problem for students. Clearly, there is no way for 8,000 students to be seen in
a timely manner given the number of “part-time” advisors in the UGO. Students are
therefore understandably frustrated by what appears to them to be an unreasonable delay.
They are also confused by the complex process and upset by what they claim is incorrect
information that they receive. What students at U of S want is exactly what all students
everywhere want and need: accessibility to their advisors, accurate information, and a
concerned, caring attitude on the part of the advisors. Given the current structure and the
ratio of advisors to students, it is obvious that through no fault of the UGO staff, these
student expectations are not being met. As several students expressed to us, they are
frustrated to the point of thinking they “may not come back to the U of S.” As the
retention literature clearly demonstrates, good academic advising is a centerpiece of
retention. Conversely, attrition is oftentimes the result of students’ not receiving the
assistance they need from an institution.
•
Advising in the CAS is severely lacking in the three areas that have been recognized
as essential elements of any successful advising program.
1. Training and professional development for academic advisors
Currently no comprehensive, ongoing training program exists for the UGO staff or
the college-level advisors. We understand that advisors are allowed to attend
NACADA national conferences, which are certainly valuable professional
development activities; however, that is not sufficient. Advisors must receive
intensive training if we expect them to do their jobs well. NACADA provides many
resources to assist in the training and professional development for academic
advisors. Examples of resources both in the form of online documents and institutes
are listed below.
6
○ Examples of Mission Statements on NACADA Clearinghouse http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/MissionStatements.htm
○ NACADA provides three key documents that further detail the importance
of advising mission statements.
• CAS Standards http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Standards.htm#CAS
• Core Values http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/CoreValues.htm
• Concept of Academic Advising http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Concept
-Advising.htm
○ NACADA Assessment Institute provides a structured experience for a
group or individual to begin the process of creating a mission statement
and creating an assessment plan to determine if learning objectives are
being met - http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/AssessmentInst/2010/index.htm
○ Literature is available to enhance your understanding of appropriate
academic advising case loads http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/
advisorload.htm.
The NACADA Summer Institutes provide in-depth, professional development
experiences for academic advisors (both faculty and professionals.) To enhance the
Summer Institute experience, attendees would be provided the opportunity to develop
a Professional Development Action Plan designed for the University of Saskatchewan
advising cohort.
2. Reward and Recognition—One of the serious issues in the CAS and in the UGO is
the fact that advisors feel severely undervalued. In part, this feeling stems from the
fact that they have been placed in the lowest pay scale category. Appeals to HR to
bring their compensation in line with other professional staff on campus have been
denied. Our expectation is that when the changes in the advising structure are made
and the role of the advisors is clearly articulated, the compensation level will be
successfully readdressed. No advising program can succeed without advisors being
adequately rewarded.
7
3. Assessment—A thorough assessment plan, both formative and summative, of the
advising program and the advisors must be built into the advising system. While
student satisfaction surveys and focus groups have an important role in assessment,
other elements must also be included. For example, it is necessary not only to know
whether or not students are satisfied or “happy” with the advising they receive; but
even more, if we are viewing advising as an extension of teaching, we must determine
if students’ learning outcomes as a result of advising are being met.
•
There are not adequate tools for advisors in the college or campus-wide. The most
obvious gap is the lack of a functioning degree audit program. Indeed, it is completely
unacceptable in 2010 for advising staff to be performing manual degree audits; however,
that is exactly what is occurring in the UGO. Obviously, this is an extremely timeconsuming task to do manually. In addition, the staff is manually updating the Program
Monitor Sheets. All of this manual clerical work detracts significantly from time the
advisors should be spending in substantive face-to-face meetings with students. Clearly,
then, attention to technology must move to the top of the priority list. There are also other
advising tools that we did not see in the CAS. For example, an Advising Handbook that
can be put online and continuously updated is an extremely valuable tool for advisors to
have.
•
We observed a lack of adequate communication across campus. Although there is an
informal advisor “network” that meets fairly often, there is a need for a more formalized
and inclusive vehicle for the CAS advisors to meet with advisors from all across campus.
This is especially critical if the college follows through with recommendations for
restructuring the advising system. It will also be very important to establish clear
reporting lines in order to ensure appropriate accountability. Currently, it is unclear as to
who is responsible for particular functions.
•
There is a lack of emphasis on student needs. From an external perspective, it appears
to the review team that there is need for a shift in the CAS as well as across campus from
an emphasis on faculty and staff concerns to the student needs. Two examples can
illustrate this point. First, it is apparent that first-semester students are not receiving the
assistance they need and deserve from the institution. Time and again we heard from
8
students that they were not given any help in selecting their first-semester courses. When
we asked how they knew what to take, the answers ranged from friends or family
members who had attended college to “someone on the phone told me to pick out
whatever I wanted” to “I contacted my high school guidance counselor to help me.”
Clearly, this is not the first impression the college wishes to make with its new students.
Likewise, students report that they are not receiving the assistance they would like in
making informed decisions about their majors. Perhaps this explains in part why there is
so much shifting back and forth among the various colleges at U of S. Secondly, the lack
of advisors that are available during the summer months illustrates the need for a greater
emphasis on the concerns of students. Without question, advisors need their holidays;
however, the times should be staggered in order to have advisors available to students.
Likewise, throughout the year lunch schedules should be staggered in order to have
advisors available. Perhaps the most-telling comment we heard from students came from
a first-year CAS student who commented: “The University says that at U of S students
are not just treated like a number. I’m not even treated like a number! Nobody knows or
cares that I’m here.” While this was only one student’s comment, it is one student too
many.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The College of Arts & Science Academic Advising Review prepared by Tom Steele (Associate
Dean) and provided to the external consultants is a thoughtful document, thoroughly researched,
and asking what appear to be appropriate questions. On an initial read by the reviewers, the
impression was that academic advising in the College of Arts & Science, while not necessarily
ideal, was in pretty good shape and that after addressing a series of twelve items, the College and
its advising program would be put on the right path.
The three-day visit, however, provided the reviewers with a somewhat different perception of the
status of academic advising. Perhaps it was talking with individuals who were either providing
advising or were the recipients of advising that made the difference. Anecdotes give one picture
while data provide another. While these reviewers have always been reluctant to base final
recommendations on the impressions of typically a very small sample of students, advisors, and
9
administrators, the reviewers, in this case, were provided with a rather vast array of students and
advisors with whom to interview along with many of the significant persons impacting the
advising community. We feel confident that the themes heard throughout the interviews are
“real” and lead us to the conclusion that academic advising in the College needs to be rethought
at many levels.
In most cases throughout this report, there were deliberate attempts to address the twelve specific
items in the college’s advising review. However, in some circumstances, the reviewers felt that
the items, while worthy of discussion, would not especially provide any insights for those
responsible for change. As examples, the issue of centralized study abroad advising units:
certainly the prevailing practice is to distinguish the work of a study abroad office from that of
an academic advising office. The work of a study abroad office is certainly multi-faceted,
requiring an expertise that does not necessarily come from the typical academic advisor.
Further, the items related to staff complements in regard to industry standards and compensation
models, while worthy of analysis, seem now to be premature items to be dealt with. It is critical
that more substantive issues have to be addressed. Thus, should a new unit for the exploratory
student be established, then the issue of student to advisor ratios can be rethought. There is not a
special formula here and, in fact, NACADA and the CAS Standards and Guidelines for
Academic Advising avoid recommending specific ratios. Rather they point to examining the
nature of the students to be advised and the other responsibilities that the college expects the
advisors to assume. National data tell us prevailing practice, but they do not tell us a best
practice.
National (US) data have been collected on a semi-regular basis via surveys conducted by the
ACT, an international assessment corporation headquartered in Iowa City, Iowa. The most recent
report (data collected in 2003) indicates a range in size of advising rosters for both faculty
advisors and staff advisors. (This report is available from NACADA at
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Monographs/M10.htm.) Means, however, indicate that faculty at
four-year public institutions are carrying advising loads in the mid to high 30s, while staff
advising loads at four-year public institutions are around 280 students per advisor. When asking
advising experts to provide some actual figures that would represent a best practice in regard to
10
advisor/advisee ratios, most agree that they would prefer to see faculty with rosters in the 20s
and lower rosters for staff advisors as well. One of the reviewers who works almost exclusively
with exploratory students has found that an individual roster above 250 students becomes
counterproductive. All efforts are thus made to keep these rosters below the 250 limit. Clearly,
roster size can vary from year to year and semester to semester depending upon the number of
faculty and staff advisors available and the number of students enrolled. It is recommended that
when contemplating new models for delivering advising, that advisors not be burdened with
heavy roster sizes which could undermine the primary intention of a new initiative which would
be to provide improved academic advising for students.
Likewise, recommending specific salaries can be misguided. A university that pays its advisors
well may not necessarily demonstrate best practices in other areas of advising, while an
institution that puts advisors at the low end of some scale may exhibit best practices in other
areas. The reviewers found that advisors’ salaries in the college actually were comparable to
salaries in the United States and, in fact, somewhat higher. This comparison sheds little light on
the topic since the advisors felt that their salaries were not comparable to people who did similar
work, from their perspective, at the University. We can only surmise that Human Resources at
the University of Saskatchewan has a particular view of the academic advisor and what an
advisor does and that this view is not necessarily the view of the advisors themselves.
Lastly, the issue of service fees seems premature. While assessing fees seems to be a compelling
approach to raise funds, the consequence of such a practice is to set student expectations at a
higher level. The reviewers believe that the college should not place itself in this situation until
the recommendations of this report are implemented.
Finally, the continued reference to academic advising as a service may in itself be a deterrent to
the improvement of academic advising and to the position of academic advisors in the
University. References to academic advising as a teaching activity with specific learning
outcomes were absent from the discussion. Stressing a service mission changes the relationship
between student and advisor, sets the advisor system up to “satisfy the customer”—a worthy goal
of any service—but in a worst case scenario, reduces the academic advisor to role of “servant.”
11
All of this brings us back to the need for a culture change, from service provider to educator.
Culture change typically does not happen overnight and requires both thoughtful and compelling
leadership along with a cadre of academic advisors willing to make change. But working
together, change can happen.
As stated earlier in this report, the College of Arts & Science and the other colleges of the
University do not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, there is a great deal of interaction and, in fact, there
is no doubt more communication is needed. The interconnectedness of the College of Arts &
Science with the other colleges of the University is so apparent that recommendations which
would be implemented in the College of Arts & Science would affect the other colleges.
Recommendation #1
Establish a College Advising Council
To facilitate not only communication, but also to establish ongoing dialog for the improvement
of advising in the College, a college-based advising council needs to be established. This should
be a permanent standing council of the College made up of a broad constituency of individuals
from the College and perhaps some from outside the College.
The council membership should include professional advisors, faculty who advise, departmental
advisors, as well as central staff, and those who have a vested interest in the delivery of a viable
advising program for students. In most cases, membership can be on a rotating basis, although
some individuals by virtue of their positions could have a permanent appointment to the council.
The council should be sponsored at the highest level of the College (Office of the Dean) and
chaired by Associate Dean for Student Affairs.
Topics for discussion should be wide-ranging and should come from the dean, the faculty,
professional advisors, and students. Priorities should be established once an agenda is developed.
It is recommended that the first items for the council should be manageable and implementable
within a reasonable amount of time. These earliest initiatives that are implemented should
demonstrate to the College and University community that the council cannot only come up with
workable ideas, but can also help to facilitate their implementation.
12
The basic function of the council should be to recommend policy and procedure to those who
have the authority for implementation. Advising councils have been in existence for over a
decade and have shown themselves to be a best practice. Such an approach allows the advising
community to address issues methodically, with guidance from administration as to which
initiatives should take priority. Over time this approach should show itself to be effective in
handling matters of importance to the academic advising community.
Recommendation #2
Establish a specific time when students must declare their majors
Ironically, the laissez-faire approach to declaration of major may ultimately be an obstacle to
increased retention and to systematic academic advising. Having students in non-declared status
past the sophomore year does not especially serve well either the students or the institution. The
only support for the current approach was in the form of a philosophical statement which
stressed the belief that “forcing” students to declare a major was anti-intellectual and that
students should be free to explore curriculum as long as they wished. While this approach may
sit well with a few on campus, it nonetheless begs the question of how to handle the declaration
of major process. A few simple milestones can be established. Once these are publicized and
become part of the University of Saskatchewan culture, it will become second nature to students
to see a particular point in time at the University as the time to declare their majors.
For consideration: allow students to declare their majors sometime between their second and
fourth semesters, but no later than their fifth semesters. Making the deadline at the dividing line
between the traditional first two years of a program and the last two years brings a certain
symmetry to the decision and also allows sufficient time for those students who might need the
full two years to make the decision. Obviously, if students need less than the two full years, then
the option should be available to declare a major at the end of the first year of study. For most
students, declaring a major upon entry to the University is unnecessarily early. This option
should only be reserved for programs that might require a very unique sequence of courses
which start in the first semester of study and when not taken in proper sequence would affect the
length of time that the student would have to remain in enrollment.
13
While the fourth-semester deadline should be enforced, provision can be made for exceptions
(upon the ruling of a dean, for example). Exceptions might be made in cases where a student
needed a particular course to effect the change of major, but the course was not available in a
timely fashion. A summer enrollment between the fourth and fifth semesters might also be made
available to students as a way to prepare for declaration of major should they need some extra
time to declare the major. Such exemptions though should be used sparingly, and the message on
campus coming especially from the academic advising community, should be that it is a
student’s responsibility to decide upon and qualify for a major by the fifth semester of
enrollment.
Recommendation #3
Change registration schedule
When registration schedules are compacted and advising appointments are associated with when
students are allowed to register, the consequent impression for students (and even sometimes
unfortunately for those who are advisors) is that advising is a “registration” activity and nothing
more. Furthermore, as a consequence, less than best practices are implemented, such as limiting
advising appointments to only a specified period of time before a student can register. This
approach, in isolated departments, is in effect at the University of Saskatchewan. Under such
circumstances, it is no wonder that students have a limited view of academic advising and its
goals and purposes.
Spreading the registration period out can allow for a more measured approach to scheduling
advising appointments, will help to alleviate the last minute schedulers or conversely bunching
up advising appointments, thus further limiting the amount of time that an advisee can spend
with an advisor.
Spreading out the registration schedule may mean that departments have to plan their course
offerings earlier than is currently practiced. Once again, this may require a change in culture, but
such planning also may shed more light on course availability and the impact of scheduling
courses every other year on student retention. Likewise, students, when they register, should
know immediately the status of their schedules. Students should not be leaving the campus and
14
finding out later what courses they got as a result of their registration requests. The more
students can clarify their schedules before they leave campus, the more secure they will feel
about their next semester. And consequently, less last-minute planning will occur.
Recommendation #4
Revamp the summer experience for incoming first-year students
The reviewers were surprised to see how little attention was paid to academic advising in
programming for first-year students in the summer before first enrollment. In actuality, the
summer is a good time to introduce students to the notion of academic advising, to engage
students in a discussion of why they are coming to the University of Saskatchewan, what they
hope to accomplish with their studies, any impediments to their further study, and determining
and registering for their classes for their first semester of study.
While it is important to explain to students the registration procedures at the University of
Saskatchewan, it is also vitally important to put this registration process into an academic
context. In fact, the culture shift for the University of Saskatchewan is to view this summer
program as the first stage of academic advising. Prevailing wisdom suggests that reaching
students early with some basic language of the University specifically, and higher education in
general, and some precepts about academic advising will assure, when attention from students
is at its peak, that information will be more readily retained by the students.
Judicially deciding what is critical for a new student to know and delivering it in effective venues
will go a long way to improving the practice of academic advising at the University.
Whether this program is implemented on campus or at off-campus sites for those too far away to
travel should be of little consequence since content should be the same for all students. As a last
activity for such a program, students could register and finish the program with a completed
schedule, not a list of courses for which they will register unassisted later in the summer.
15
Recommendation # 5
Certifying students for graduation should be the responsibility of departments
Placing the responsibility for certifying students for graduation with academic advisors is an
inappropriate use of advisors’ time and expertise. Such a responsibility merely compounds the
notion that academic advisors are clerks and thus relegated somehow to the lower rungs of the
Human Resources ladder.
Reassigning this responsibility to the departments who can certify the completion of degree
requirements frees the advisors for more of the consequential tasks of academic advising. With
the installation of a fully-functioning degree audit system (see Recommendation # 9), this role of
graduation certification finally ends up as it should be: a technically-driven program functioning
almost totally free of human intervention.
Recommendation # 6
More emphasis on the exploratory student (a new structure)
The exploratory student at the University of Saskatchewan gets easily lost in the shuffle of
handling so many students in the UGO. Those having experience working with exploratory
students know that they do not always end up in the college to which they are originally assigned
upon admission. The assignment of exploratory students to the College of Arts & Science at the
most superficial level makes sense because unofficially arts and science colleges are often
viewed as the “catch all” units in universities. Such an approach serves neither the College of
Arts & Science well, nor the exploratory student who may have no interests in any majors in the
College. Consequently, the current approach asks Arts & Science to advise students who may
never declare a major in the college. Such a dilution of workforce energies is simply
counterproductive.
Research on exploratory students indicates that they are an at-risk population for retention and
eventual graduation unless they are provided with specialized academic advising. Simply left to
their own devices, exploratory students tend to leave the institution often in frustration because
16
they have been provided little or no advice on how to make a decision and how to maneuver
through a complex organization.
Exploratory students deserve their own unit of enrollment (in other words, an academic home).
At the University of Saskatchewan, this unit could be placed under the auspices of the Vice
Provost for Teaching and Learning. It could have its own director and a staff of professional
advisors who are skilled in and enjoy meeting the challenges of advising the exploratory student.
This unit could also enroll those students in transition from one college to another.
All colleges at the University of Saskatchewan report that some of their students who originate
with them at the point of admission, at some time in their academic careers wish to move away
from the original choice and often into other colleges. In fact, the reviewers talked to many
students who changed their majors and colleges. This movement was viewed as a rather common
practice and perfectly acceptable as students came to match their interests with their abilities and
their academic performance in various curricula. However, these students (the major changers),
like the exploratory students, are also at risk because the paths from one program to another are
either unclear to these students or present, on first examination, rather insurmountable hurdles.
Those students who need a way station as they move from one degree granting program to
another could easily be housed within this special academic unit.
Recommendation # 7
Reposition the academic advising of the Open Students
Those students who have already faced academic turmoil are now relegated to the fringes of the
University. To ultimately help return these students to mainstream study and official degree
status, these students should be assigned to the division which would handle the exploratory
student and the students in transition. This is a much more efficient use of personnel, for these
students not only need help to raise their averages, they also are in a period of transition and thus
housing them within the new unit would fit nicely into the mission of this unit.
17
Recommendation # 8
Assign every student to an advisor
Ultimately, a successful academic advising exchange depends upon the students having a
relationship of trust with an advisor. This trusting relationship is based on a number of factors:
that advisors will care about their advisees as individuals and as students of the University of
Saskatchewan who ultimately can be successful. This trust is also dependent upon the
availability of the advisor either online within a responsible amount of time or via a face-to-face
appointment.
Students need and want help to navigate the institution and they look to their academic advisor
for such assistance. Finally, students as advisees are looking for consistent and accurate
information from their advisors. If a student can trust his or her advisor to care, to be there when
needed, and to provide accurate information, then the foundation has also been established to
help promote the retention of students. A basic premise in the retention literature is that students
who are retained are those students who have found someone on the campus that they feel truly
has a stake in their academic and personal success. This special sense of belonging can come
from a faculty member who takes a particular interest in a student’s academic plans and perhaps
invites him or her into his/her lab as a partner, or a member of the student affairs staff who helps
the student make an adjustment to university life when no support for university study can be
found at home, or an academic advisor who works with a student to craft a program of study
which is meaningful to the student, using both the formal curriculum and the co-curriculum to
make for a successful and fulfilling university experience.
Academic advising is a logical venue where support for the retention efforts of a university can
be found. It is common practice to assign students to an advising center (but to no one particular
advisor in the center) with the goal that a student can see any advisor more readily than an
assigned advisor. While there might be some merit in this approach, the benefits of having an
assigned advisor outweigh what is basically an artificial benefit. While students might be
assigned to a specific advisor in an advising center, there is certainly no reason why for quick
questions and concerns (rotating the advising staff to serve students on a walk-in/call-in basis)
18
that students couldn’t see someone other than their own advisor. This approach allows for both
the demand for advisor availability to be met, but still allows the student to have one person as
an advising contact if so desired.
Recommendation # 9
Establish a fully-functioning degree audit system
No academic advising program in the 21st century should be without a fully functioning degree
audit system. While the University of Saskatchewan has made some strides in this direction, such
a system is currently not in place. As a tool for both students and academic advisors, the
automatic degree audit is indispensable. Such a system especially frees up academic advisors to
engage in the more substantive aspects of advising. But having a degree audit system readily
available to students also puts information directly at their disposal which enhances the
imperative that student’s take responsibility for their own academic progress. Having a degree
audit available to them addresses this very concept.
Degree audits also provide exploratory students with a “what if” capability. Exploratory students
and also students in transition need to know how all their credits would be used in any program
of study they are considering. For those skeptical about the introduction of technology to replace
previous manual operations, the efficiency of a degree audit system cannot be challenged. Here
is one example where technology truly enhances the work of humans.
The academic advising community has embraced the degree audit as a best practice. Installing
such a system at the University of Saskatchewan should be a priority. If either technical or
financial resources are currently lacking at the University to bring this to fruition, the strategic
planning initiations of the institution must address the urgency of this recommendation.
Recommendation #10
Better communication between the College and departments
As can be typical in large decentralized universities, communication tends to be uneven.
Accurate and timely communication in the realm of academic advising is essential to assure that
19
students and advisors have the correct information (that they can trust) and when they need it.
Advisors need to be apprized of changes in policy and procedures that effect their advising of
students. Students should not roam (on their own) from advisor to advisor seeking either
verification of information or information that suits their own purposes. Students need to have
trust in the system that is advising them.
How better communication is brought about starts with an analysis of how information flows
centrally to departments, from department to department, and from department back to central
offices. The College of Arts & Science also needs to be aware of information that comes to the
college from outside sources (such as the Registrar’s office) and how this information is then
disseminated within the college.
An analysis of information flow (Who is responsible for information dissemination? Who
determines who gets what information?) is needed. When dealing with advising information,
usually the more the responsibility for dissemination is centralized, the more efficient the system
becomes. Depending upon too many people to make decisions about information dissemination
is typically a recipe for communication chaos.
Further, the media in which information is disseminated should be determined. What would
work best if put on an established Web site? What works best via a listserv? Is any
communication worthy of hard copy? These questions also need to be addressed when the
college puts together a communication system.
Recommendation # 11
Develop a College of Arts & Science mission statement for academic advising
Not having a mission statement for the academic advising in the College of Arts & Science
leaves those who practice advising and those who supervise advising adrift with little guidance
as to how advising should be delivered and what the outcomes should be. From one perspective,
it could be argued that no academic advising program should even move forward and continue
without some guiding mission statement and that this particular recommendation should take
absolute priority.
20
There can be no doubt that a mission statement is needed. Having such a statement provides a
touchstone for all those who practice advising. It is something one can return to time after time to
validate one’s own practice. If practice seems to deviate from the mission, then it may be time to
examine whether practice has simply gone afield or that the mission statement may need some
updating.
Developing a mission statement may, at first blush, appear to be a relatively simple task. After
all, they do not tend to be particularly lengthy and they tend to be short on detail. But, the
process by which a mission statement is hammered out may expose differences of opinion or
perhaps far-reaching differences in philosophy. Nonetheless, the process of coming to a final
product—a mission statement that all can live with—is a tremendous professional development
activity. Many resources are available in the literature to assist, ranging from a chapter in the
Gordon, Habley, and Grites’ Handbook on Academic Advising, to samples of mission statements
available from NACADA, and at university Web sites.
Having a mission statement will provide a foundation for the practice of academic advising in
the College of Arts & Science. It will allow for the development of statements of responsibility
for advisors and advisees, suggest guidance for the assessment of advising, and provide the
basics for an academic advising curriculum for students.
Recommendation #12
Streamline the evaluation of transfer credits
One of the most vexing situations for academic advisors is to have to work with students without
fully evaluated credits from other institutions at their disposal. Without such a convenience, the
advising process is slowed up, students begin to question the efficiencies of the institution, and
opportunities for course repetition are more possible. Both students and academic advisors at the
University of Saskatchewan spoke to the difficulty of not always having the disposition of
transfer credits readily available to them. Who handles this process is probably less important
than that it gets done in a deliberate manner.
21
Perhaps the most challenging part of evaluating transfer credits is when the credits would
typically be assigned to a major and how a department at the University of Saskatchewan would
view credits in their major discipline from another university. Often this is where the process
becomes entangled: Which courses need an evaluation from a department? Who in the
department evaluates the credits? What documents are needed to make such an evaluation? And
how quickly do the credits, if viable, end up in the official record of the students or at least in a
database that the students can access? Likewise, once such an evaluation is completed, does it go
into some sort of transfer credit data bank to be accessed in the future should another student
request transfer of the same credits?
Since this can be a rather complex process, perhaps looking to those on campus who have
experience with either process improvement or process reengineering (often those with a
business background can be useful in this reengineering) might be called upon for consultation.
Regardless of what is approach is settled on, all will benefit from an updating and streamlining
of this procedure.
Recommendation # 13
Provide access to off campus advisors with access to course grades
The University of Saskatchewan is more than a physical plant in Saskatoon. Students are
attending programs at far-reaching “branches” of the institution and have access to academic
advisors at these sites. Some of these advisors mention not being able to access grades directly
because of what appears to be some policy that excludes advisors with certain employment
statuses. As a consequence, advisors are on the phone to staff in the College of Arts & Science
seeking verification of student grades. Such an approach is inefficient and should be rectified.