Academic Advising

Academic Advising: Quality Matters More Than Quantity

The advising needs of new students differ from the emphasis on graduation and post-college planning for seniors, but interactions with advisors and the quality of the advising experience are important for all students. The analyses below examine two characteristics of advising—the number of times a student discussed academic interests, course selections, or academic performance with an advisor and the quality of those advising experiences–among 10,000 first-year students and nearly 15,000 seniors at 55 US and two Canadian institutions.

Frequency of Discussion About Academic Matters

It is generally recommended that students meet with their advisor at least once per semester. It is thus unsurprising that only 3% of first-year students and 6% of seniors never discussed their academic interests, course selections, or academic performance with an academic advisor, faculty member, or a success or academic coach (hereafter collectively referred to as advisor) during the 2018–19 school year. Indeed, more than half of both first-year students and seniors had five or more such meetings (Table 1).

Table 1: Number of Times Students Discussed Their Academic Interests, Course Selections, or Academic Performance with an Advisor

012345 or more
First-year students3%6%11%11%13%56%
Seniors6%7%11%10%13%53%

Advising Quality

NSSE’s Topical Module on Academic Advising includes 10 questions regarding students’ experiences with an advisor, including how much an advisor was available when needed, provided prompt and accurate information, and actively listened to student concerns. We combined these responses for an overall measure of advising quality, and then grouped the scores into four categories ranging from low to high (Table 2).

Table 2: Quality of Academic Advising

LowLow-MediumMedium-HighHigh
First-year students11%38%38%14%
Seniors15%36%34%15%

Note: Scores were computed for students who responded “Very little” to “Very much” (excluding “Not applicable”) on at least six of the 10 items. Students who had no advising meetings were excluded. The 10 items representing advising quality are from question 3 of NSSE’s Topical Module on Academic Advising: nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/NSSE_2020_Academic_Advising_Module.pdf

These results reveal that the frequency of advising is not nearly as important as the quality of advising to crucial aspects of student engagement and success.

Advising in the First Year

For first-year students, the perception of institutional emphasis on support for academic success and use of learning support services remained nearly constant regardless of how many discussions students had with advisors, but it was positively related to quality of advising (Figure 5). For example, students who experienced high-quality advising reported much higher institutional emphasis on supporting academic success (about 3.5 on the 4-point scale) regardless of the frequency, compared to those who experienced low-quality advising (2.3 to 2.6). We found a similar pattern for institutional emphasis on use of learning support services. This suggests that advising quality matters much more to students’ perception of academic support than the number of meetings with an advisor.

figure 5 graph

Similarly, first-year students’ intention to return for their second year showed only a modest relationship with the number of discussions with an advisor, while those who experienced higher levels of advising quality were more likely to plan to return the following year (Figure 6). For example, among first-year students who met 5 or more times with an advisor, there was a 17 percentage-point difference on intention to return between those who experienced high- and low-quality advising (94% versus 77%).

figure 6

Academic advising for first-year students can also facilitate interactions with faculty. Although Student-Faculty Interaction was nearly constant across the number of advising discussions, it was positively related to advising quality (Figure 7). (See p. 15 for details on NSSE’s measure of Student-Faculty Interaction).

figure 7

My advisor has helped me discover my artistic talents, challenged my work, and best of all has been my number one supporter. She always makes time to discuss my work and my career goals for after college. I spend the majority of my time in the studio, and would not have it any other way.

SENIOR, ART AND DESIGN, CONNECTICUT COLLEGE

Institution Data Use Story

Using NSSE Data in Strategic Decision Making for Advising

In Eastern Connecticut State University’s NSSE 2010 results, end-of-survey comments clearly indicated that the advising system was broken and that depending on faculty to advise students wasn’t working. The survey’s hard data were also compelling: only 46% of first-year students and 49% of seniors had talked with a faculty member about career plans. What’s more, on a scale of 1=poor to 4=excellent, students rated Eastern’s academic advising program only 2.9, significantly below ratings by their peers at comparable institutions.

While the problem itself was clear enough, how to engage faculty in owning and implementing an improved advising model was a challenge. Eastern’s President, Elsa Nunez, asked an award-winning professor—who was respected by his colleagues and loved by his students—to join her in promoting the new advising model across academic departments. The plan was for a professional advising office to take over some aspects of advising outside of the faculty’s subject matter expertise so that professors could focus on providing students with programand course-specific counseling and support. Faculty challenged the plan and questioned the findings, but the student voices were hard to ignore and the faculty champion’s endorsement was persuasive.

An academic advising committee led by faculty finalized the plan for a multitiered advising model. The new structure included a newly staffed office of professional advisors; clear roles for that office and for faculty; and programs to provide advising at four critical stages in a student’s time at Eastern: preenrollment, first-year experience, choosing a major, and career planning. Eastern even brought advising into the residence halls so that students are “at home” when talking about their academic and career futures.

Using Title III funds as well as other university resources, Eastern invested $4 million in the new program, and a year after it was implemented student satisfaction rose from 69% to 78%. NSSE data showed that from 2008 to 2012 student ratings increased by 31 percentage points for faculty accessibility, 11 points for Eastern as a supportive campus, and 12 points for prompt feedback from faculty. NSSE 2017 data showed Eastern outperforming its Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges peers with regard to faculty and students discussing careers and topics beyond the classroom. These successes may partly explain why Eastern’s retention rose almost 6 points over a decade.

Photo courtesy of Eastern Connecticut State University