AQIP Academic Advising Enhancement Team members:
Kerri Sleeman (chair), Lois Blau, Leonard Bohmann, Theresa Jacques, Danise Jarvey, Jean Kampe, Mary
Ann Klooster, Jim Loman, Gloria Melton, Tom Merz
Executive Summary
The Academic Advising Enhancement Action Project goal is to improve academic advising at Michigan
Tech. In reviewing past reports, current structure, and best practices and other materials, the following recommendations were developed. Each recommendation is explained in greater detail in the accompanying report.
Recommendation 1:
Centralize the authority and responsibility for coordinating and assessing academic advising through a Director of Academic Advising within the Provost’s office.
Recommendation 2:
Put academic advising on a formal, institution-wide, continuous cycle of assessment that is developed within a teaching/learning pedagogical framework.
Recommendation 3:
Create a university-wide academic advisor for undecided, exploring and re-admitted students.
Recommendation 4:
Give colleges and schools the resources to implement assessment and increase the advising staff so that student/advisor ratios move closer to National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) recommended ratios.

Introduction
The Academic Advising Enhancement Action Project goal is to improve academic advising at Michigan
Tech through a review of previous task force and committee advising recommendations (see Appendix
A); a study of national and current Michigan Tech best practices in advising; evaluation of the current
Michigan Tech advising structure (see Appendix B , C); review of student satisfaction with advising at
Michigan Tech; and research on alternative advising structures such as centralized advising, common first year advising, or a student drop-in center.
Following are the Team’s recommendations, rationale, and further explanation:
Recommendation 1:
Centralize the authority and responsibility for coordinating and assessing academic advising through a Director of Academic Advising within the Provost’s office.
The current advising structure at Michigan Tech is decentralized providing autonomy to academic units, but unless carefully coordinated, decentralization results in a loosely structured academic advising system that is differently valued within each academic unit. Campus-wide coordination will help to ensure consistency of advising philosophy and practice while respecting the academic unit autonomy.
Past task force recommendations, advisor surveys, student focus groups, campus constituent feedback, and best practices support the establishment of an institutional structure for campus-wide accountability and central advising resources for advisor training, advisor evaluation, and advising assessment. The practice of academic advising is closely intertwined with the Center for Orientation,
Mentoring, Parents, and Academic Student Success (COMPASS), first-year orientation, career counseling, counseling services, academic departments, the Dean of Student’s office, judicial affairs, residence halls, learning centers, and many others. The new Director of Academic Advising will facilitate the coordination of these groups. Though reporting to the Provost’s office, the physical office of the
Director would most likely sit in the COMPASS or the Dean of Student’s office due to the inherent nature they provide in supporting students and the needed collaboration between entities.
It is important that advisors be up-to-date on University policy, different academic offerings, financial aid opportunities, career information, applicable technology, advising theory, and emerging trends in advising [1]. The new Director of Academic Advising will plan and implement training for academic advisors.
Following are the recommended duties and responsibilities of the new Director of Academic Advising:
• Lead and administer all aspects of advising including program development, implementation, evaluation and modification
• Design and provide training for advisors with a focus on best practices and developing advising techniques

• Develop and conduct ongoing assessment of academic advising for continuous improvement
• Oversee university wide initiatives in the area of academic advising and communicate expectations of advisors (e.g. meet with students on probation, hold first year advising meetings, other proactive advising practices (best practices)
• Establish and maintain communications to faculty and staff regarding advising updates
• Develop and maintain academic advising webpage and support materials
• Supervise academic advisor for exploratory students and support staff
• Advise exploratory and transitional students
• Monitor best practices in academic advising for possible changes to university academic advising
• Chair university’s academic advising association (council , network)
• Interface with all departments to facilitate student success and support the school’s persistence efforts and promote academic advising resources
• Oversee an annual operating budget
• Participate in professional conferences and individual professional development
Recommendation 2:
Put academic advising on a formal, institution-wide, continuous cycle of assessment that is developed within a teaching/learning pedagogical framework.
The overall plan of continuous assessment (see Appendix D ) allows each unit to first establish goals, measurable outcomes, and success criteria, and then to tailor their assessment to see how well they are meeting their own goals. This approach maintains a unit’s autonomy with respect to advising while providing an avenue of accountability. The new Director of Academic Advising (see recommendation 1) would lead the cycle of assessment, aiding each unit/area in developing measures and implementing improvements.
In addition to campus-wide assessments of academic advising, the Council for the Advancement of
Standards (CAS Standards) for Academic Advising should be utilized throughout campus advising
(http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/resources/Standards.htm).
Recommendation 3:
Create a university-wide academic advisor for undecided, exploring and re-admitted students.
While there are some excellent programs in place for students who are undecided or exploring options before deciding on a major, a gap remains in this area. Some students progress toward a degree while being unsure of their major, including those sure of a college/school but unable to decide on or transfer to a specific major. These “undecided” students may have a vague idea of direction they want to go in while exploring options. During this time, many of them make decisions independently without consulting any advisor. Without a focus, they may be at a higher risk for probation status or attrition.

Without an advisor, they may not be taking courses allowing them to progress toward a degree in a timely manner.
In cases where the advisee load is high, advisors are likely to lack the time necessary to assist students in the labor-intensive process of selecting a major and/or assisting them with academic and career advising. Student satisfaction survey results from Michigan Tech students indicate a demand for more one-on-one time with advisors.
Of concern is the fact that, while there is an advisor for students whose status is engineering undeclared and a program for General Arts & Sciences, students who don’t fall into either category are without an academic advisor.
An Academic Advisor for exploring students should:
• Report to the Director of Academic Advising
• Provide academic counseling for students to who are undecided
• Provide accurate and timely resource referrals
• Assist students with planning and selecting courses while they are deciding on a major
• Help students understand University and degree requirements and develop a responsible approach to academic planning.
• Monitor the academic and career development progress of students until they have declared a major
• Provide a quick, drop-in option for students with simple questions that are unable to access their advisor or who are unsure who their advisor is or should be
Recommendation 4:
Give colleges and schools the resources to implement assessment and increase the advising staff so that student/advisor ratios move closer to National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) recommended ratios.
In the 2009 National Survey of Student Engagement Michigan Tech students ranked the quality of advising as significantly better than students at other universities within our Carnegie classification [2].
Also, in Michigan Tech's 2009 Student Satisfaction Survey over 85% of the students were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the availability of academic advisors [3] and over 80% of the students were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of our academic advising [4].
According to a 2003 ACT national survey on academic advising, the mean student/academic advisor contacts per year at universities similar to Michigan Tech was 4.8 for full time advisors and 4.1 for faculty advisors [5, 6]. But according to the Michigan Tech Student Satisfaction Survey, over 75% of the students meet with their advisor 3 times or less during the year [7]. A reason for this discrepancy is that
Michigan Tech has comparatively few advisors given our student population.

According to the ACT survey [5, 6], the mean number of students per full time advisor is 285 for fouryear public institutions. For faculty advisors at four-year public institutions it is 38.2 students per advisors.
There are 34 faculty at Michigan Tech providing academic advising. Two of these faculty are 1/2 time lecturers whose primary responsibility is academic advising. Additionally, there are 15 staff members who provide academic advising. Eight of these have advising as their primary responsibility. There are approximately 10 FTE advisors and 32 faculty advisors. Using 300 students per full time advisor and 40 students per faculty advisor (based on the ACT national survey), we would expect our advisors to reasonably advise 4,280 students. This comparison is a little misleading in that it overstates the expected advising load. Most of our faculty advisors are in academic programs having relatively smaller numbers of majors. This results in the advising load of our faculty advisors to have a mean value of about 20 students, not the 40 used in the analysis. If a typical advising load of 20 students per faculty advisory is used, we would expect our advisors to advise 3,640 students.
The Michigan Tech undergraduate population is slightly over 5,900 students. This means that Michigan
Tech has between 62% and 73% of the advisors that are typically found at four-year public colleges and universities.
Based on these numbers, it is important that the colleges and schools be given the resources to implement the recommendations in this report and to increase the advising staff; to do otherwise leaves
Michigan Tech students disadvantaged regarding academic advising.
Closing
Upon acceptance of recommendations, per the AQIP proposal, the final task of the Academic Advising
Enhancement Action Project Team is to lead implementation of the approved recommendations. The original timeline indicated implementation of recommendations through summer and fall 2010 with completion by December 31, 2010. Therefore, with this submittal, the team stands ready to begin implementation.
References:
[1] Kuh, G. D., et al, Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter , American Association for Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, 2005
[2] Question 12 on the NSSE: Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received at your institution? Scale 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=good, 4=excellent. Michigan Tech Freshman mean = 3.19, Carnegie Class mean = 2.98, effect size of difference = 0.24, p<0.001. Michigan Tech
Seniors mean = 3.02, Carnegie Class mean = 2.79, effect size of difference = 0.24, p<0.001.

[3] Question 33 on the Student Satisfaction Survey: Please tell us how satisfied you are with the following - Availability of academic advisors. Very Satisfied - 50.57%, Somewhat Satisfied - 34.8%,
Somewhat dissatisfied - 7.72%, Very dissatisfied 3.86%, no opinion - 3.06%.
[4] Question 34 on the Student Satisfaction Survey: Please tell us how satisfied you are with the following - Quality of academic advising within your major. Very Satisfied - 48.27%, Somewhat Satisfied -
31.69%, Somewhat dissatisfied - 10.12%, Very dissatisfied 6.06%, no opinion - 3.86%.
[5] Advisor Load , by Wes Habley, NACADA Clearinghouse - Academic Advising Resources, http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/advisorload.htm
, last accessed April 20,
2010.
[6] The Status of Academic Advising: Findings from the ACT Sixth National Survey , Wesley R. Habley, ed.,
NACADA, 2004, 100 pages, ISBN No. 978-1-935140-10-8
[7] Question 40 on the Student Satisfaction Survey: How often did you meet/talk in person with your academic advisor this academic year. Not at all - 8.68%, Once - 19.67%, 2-3 times - 49.07%, 4-6 times
16.75%, 7-9 times - 2.52%, 10 or more times 3.31%. The mean value was 2.8 visits/year.

Appendix:
Appendix A: Matrix of past report recommendations
Appendix B: AQIP Team Dean’s and Department Chairs Survey, Spring 2010
Appendix C: AQIP Team Advisor Survey, Spring 2010
Appendix D: Plan for continuous assessment

Appendix A: Matrix of past report recommendations
Reports
Recommendations
Retention
Task Force
Report
(December
1994-95)
Retention
Task Force:
Recommen dations &
Discussion
(December
1995)
Retention
Review
Committee
(December
1998)
The
Committee for the
Continuous
Improvemen t of
Academic
Advising
(February
1999)
Reports
Report:
Committee for the
Continuous
Improveme nt of
Academic
Advising
(May 1999)
Recommen dations &
Priorities for the
2002-2003
Fiscal Years
(December
2000 )
Retention
Workshop on
Student
Success
(Novemb er 2001)
Final
Report of the 2006
Student
Success
Task Force
(June 2006)
Student
Success/Col laborative
Advising
Recommen dations
(January
2007)
Student
Success /
Collaborative
Advising
Committee
Recommend ations (July
2008)
Increase advisor availability
Create comprehensive advising center
Encourage long-term academic planning
Engage in proactive advising and monitoring
Provide rewards for faculty, staff, and students to participate in one-onone outreach activities
Improve linkage between student services and student academic achievement
Adopt institutional statement on academic advising; set goals and expectations
Assure that students receive guidance in development of life and scholarship skills
Establish reasonable advising loads
Establish a new professional staff position to coordinate academic advising
Train advisors and encourage developmental activities; reinforce that advising should be consistent
Inform students of other majors
(orientation course, major/minor week/fair, posters,
Lode articles, My
Plan, etc.)
Consider a peer advising program (use student leaders)
Stress importance of advising through additional support and recognition; x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

stress idea that advising is teaching; not just course scheduling
Provide centralized and departmental support for advising; create advisor resources such as handbook, cheat sheet, and inform them of opportunities outside their department
Encourage department orientations; ensure advisors are involved
Build a strong, shared information base on retention and student success
Develop an advising syllabus or learning outcomes to outline everything we want first-year students to learn/know; develop training related to the syllabus
Centralize the listing of advisors, web content, and other resources; create
"who to go to for what" flowchart
Use printed catalog/improve online catalog
Survey departments for advising structure and conduct needs assessment
Create online class that includes advising, summer reading, orientation info., etc.
Revise first-year advising for first term
Determine impact of
DARS
Create Advising Task
Force
Designate transfer advisor within each department x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Appendix B: AQIP Team Dean’s and Department Chairs Survey, Spring 2010

Appendix C: AQIP Team Advisor Survey, Spring 2010

Appendix D: Plan for continuous assessment
Assessment Stages:
1.
Conduct a needs assessment for advising to determine for each individual unit (i.e., by department or college/school) what advising is, how it is implemented, the human resources used, and the advising load. This will allow us to begin with an accurate picture of the current state of advising in each unit. Status: Completed Fall 2009 by AQIP Team.
2.
Submit a recommendation to upper administration that calls for prioritizing academic advising with expectations for a continuous cycle of assessment in order to improve academic advising and to establish institution-wide accountability: a.
Draft an institutional strategic plan for academic advising or include academic advising in the current institutional strategic plan b.
Request units to draft unit plans for academic advising that align with the institutional plan c.
Request academic units to draft goals for advising in terms of measurable student learning outcomes and the success criteria for those measured outcomes that establish whether goals are met. d.
Conduct complete campus-wide rigorous assessment of academic advising using unit plans, goals, student outcomes, and success criteria to determine how well units are meeting goals (this will establish a baseline for each unit) e.
Through a central campus office with a director of academic advising, develop avenues, actions, and resources to improve advising (e.g., advising syllabi, development of learning and process outcomes, advisor training, advisor evaluation, etc.) f.
Establish an institutional culture that requires and documents a continuous cycle of assessment/revision/assessment… for advising g.
Establish an institutional structure for campus-wide accountability
3.
Implement assessment in steps (see plan below) –
Assessment Plan - to be handled by the advising director
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes:
1.
Conduct needs assessment to see where we are (C ompleted Fall 2009 by AQIP Team )
2.
Develop assessment framework based on student learning outcomes, process outcomes, metrics, and success criteria
3.
Develop generic draft instruments for a pilot implementation
4.
Conduct pilot assessment with selected units (volunteer basis) and include both STEM and non-
STEM units in that pilot
5.
Review results – request external reviewer (such as Rich Robbins)
6.
Revise assessment framework and customize tools for individual units

7.
Conduct full-scale campus-wide rigorous assessment for unit baselines
8.
Review unit baseline results
9.
Determine a schedule for student learning outcomes assessments (e.g., alternate years for each outcome)
10.
Send baseline results, recommended avenues to improve, and assessment schedules to units
Assessment of advisor effectiveness:
1.
Student evaluations
2.
Pre-assessment and post-assessment strategies
3.
Qualitative assessment methods
4.
Analysis of behavior records
5.
Advisor self-assessment
6.
Peer assessment
7.
Assessment by an advisor coordinator or an advising director