Academic Advising Discussion Notes - North Regional Meeting

Academic advising was one of three shared areas of interest for participants at the North Georgia CCG Regional Meeting held at the University of North Georgia on March 26, 2016. Brief notes from the breakout conversation on this issue at the meeting follow:

Key Concerns:

• Evolving responsibilities of professional advisors
  
  • Role is transitioning from transactional to relationship based
  • Importance of building trust to develop relationships between advisors and students
  • Skill set of advisors is also changing – advisors need to be able to interpret and articulate data in addition advising
• Importance of defining career path for professional advisors
  
  • Need professional development opportunities
    • Intra-campus and inter-campus trainings
    • Advising Council to develop and advocate for advisors on campus
  • Advising leaders need to be intentional about making time for staff to learn from each other
  • Need for incentive system to encourage professional advisors that take initiative
    • Salary inequities and undefined advisor title/level (Advisor I-IV)
  • Facilitating stronger relationships between faculty and professional advisors

Key Observations:

• Value of advising on campus is best communicated by executive level administrators
  • Incorporation into campus strategic plans, SACS QEP is effective method for emphasizing importance of advising
• Transition to more relationship-driven role is time intensive

Solutions:

• System office to facilitate a conversation with RACAD to develop a repository of best practice resources that campuses can reference. Topics of interest include:
  
  • Guidance for training advisors (faculty and staff, but especially faculty)
  • Strategies for maintaining continuity of advising for models as students transition from professional advisor to faculty
  • Developing a professional development plan for advising staff (salary equity, differentiating advising level, defining career ladders, etc.)
  • Best practices for training advisors (faculty and staff) to use predictive analytics
  • Tools that advisors can use to effectively guide students (program maps, early alert systems, tracking student progress, reference lists for appropriate A2 math, etc.)

Discussion Notes:

• Some campuses transitioning from centralized to decentralized advising model, but incorporating executive oversight
• Advising is about developing relationships
• Advising ratios for faculty are very high, reason for moving to a model that utilizes professional advisors and faculty advisors
  
  • More intrusive, involved advising in first two years of enrollment done by professional advisors and then more consultative, as-needed advising by faculty in final two years of enrollment.
• Trust is an important factor for developing relationships
• Campuses experiencing difficulty retaining advisors, many being hired by other divisions on campus and moving to other campuses
• Professional advisors need a vertical career ladder, clear goals and incentives for promotion
  
  • Wanting to support and reward strong professional advisors
  • Some inconsistencies in hiring levels of advisors – salary inequities, poorly defined levels and steps to promotion
• Importance of providing training for diversity/multicultural issues
• Tremendous caseloads of advisors, overworked staff is common. Advisors also feel under-appreciated. Data is needed to demonstrate value of advising.
• Hiring more advisors would alleviate pressure on advisors but aside from restricted resources, available space on campus also limits the number of advisors that institutions can handle.
  
  • Offices are need to maintain privacy of students and conversations – speaks to the development of relationships and trust
• Importance of developing buy in across campus about the value of advising
  
  • Using QEP to elevate importance of academic advising
  • Developing community of advisors
    • Lunch and Learn sessions – speakers from financial aid, admissions, athletics, department chairs, etc.
    • Advisor awards, nominations from other faculty and staff
    • Monthly meetings for advisors
    • Advising Council that advocates for needs of advisors to campus administration
    • Challenges of multiple campuses in developing community atmosphere
• Connectivity and collaboration between professional advisors and faculty
  
  • Respect between two groups is sometimes a challenge
  • Training for faculty is needed to develop an effective advising system
    • Master Faculty Advisors to train other faculty
    • When effective, professional advisors are embraced by program departments – advisors attending department meeting, participating in department retreats
• Inconsistency in level of education and skill sets needed to advise students – previously advisors needed master’s degrees, now advisors have only bachelor’s degrees
  
  • Job descriptions at some campuses are under review
  • In addition to advising experience, some campuses looking for ability to interpret data, degrees may not be highest priority
• Emphasis on hand-off of students from one advising unit to another
  
  • First two years with professional advisor to faculty member in final two years
  • During academic program and major changes, from one departmental advisor to another
  • For transfer students, from one campus advising model to another
  • Highlights the value of advising records, similar to health records
• Need for program specific advisor training