LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled STUDENT AND FACULTY EXPECTATIONS OF THE FACULTY ADVISOR FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADVISOR—ADVISEE RELATIONSHIP presented by Isaura Alvarado has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education , , 0222: Majorprofes/saf / Date November 1986 unnumur .- A. r .,. . , . , 0-12771 _ a i__ J‘s—,‘w—T—m ._ __ __‘_.._\ __._ RETURNING MATERIALS: IV‘ESI.) Place in book drop to LlBRARlES remove this checkout from ‘ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. STUDENT AND FACULTY EXPECTATIONS OF THE FACULTY ADVISOR FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADVISOR—ADVISEE RELATIONSHIP By Isaura Alvarado A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling. Educational Psychology, and Special Education 1986 Copyright by ISAURA ALVARADO 1986 #— M‘\~‘ 1 ABSTRACT STUDENT AND FACULTY EXPECTATIONS or THE FACULTY ADVISOR FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADVISOR-ADVISEE RELATIONSHIP By Isaura Alvarado This study was conducted to determine and to compare the expectations that faculty and students have of the functions that should be performed by the faculty advisor and of the characteristics of the advisor-advisee relationship. Three hypotheses were tested: (a) differences among students of different academic fields, genders, ages. and academic advising experiences; (b) differences among faculty of different academic fields. ages. ranks. degrees. types of appoint- ments. and academic advising experiences; and (c) differences between faculty and students from the same field regarding their expectations of the functions of the faculty advisor and the characteristics of the advisor-advisee relationship. A proportional stratified random sample of 63 faculty members and 671 undergraduate students from the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico was selected. Four questionnaires were developed: (a) Bio-Social Data. (b) Academic Advisor Functions (AAFQ). (c) Academic Advising Relationship (AARQ). and (d) Academic Advising Experiences. The AAFQ and the AARQ were answered using a five-point Likert scale and were Isaura Alvarado validated with the study sample. Eight functions of the faculty advisor and four characteristics of the relationship were defined. The following conclusions were drawn. (a) Students' age and field of study were related to their expectations of the functions. (b) Faculty advising experiences, gender, field of study, and type of appointment were found to be related to different functions. (c) Faculty from different fields of study had different expectations of one of the characteristics of the relationship. Fewer differences were observed when faculty from different fields were compared than when students from different fields of study were compared regarding their expectations of the functions or rela- tionship activities. More differences between faculty and student expectations were observed for the functions than for the relationship activities, when the two groups were compared across fields and within the same field of study. Students agreed more than faculty with those functions on which differences in agreement were found. Faculty and students agreed on the ranking of three of the eight functions and on the four characteristics of the relationship. Dedicated to: Moises. Sary Ann. Mari Ann. and Carlos José ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As my involvement in this dissertation grew. it provided me the opportunity to meet and work with beautiful people who shared the best of their abilities and human qualities with me. Dr. Pilar Beléndez provided the understanding and support I needed to initiate and follow through with this project. She and Dr. Carmen Judith Nine-Curt were willing to read the very first draft when this was only an idea. Two professors gave their time to help in administering the instruments: Dr. Edna Gonzalez and Dalila Rodriguez. My special thanks are given to the professionals from the College of Education Computer Center of the University of Puerto Rico, particularly Dr. Israel Ramos Perea. Josian, and Aeleen, and those from the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, in particular Carlos at the University Library. I am also grateful for the help provided by Lizzie, who typed the first draft. and to Sue for her concern in working quickly with the final edition and for her help with the details required to submit the document to the Graduate Office. Thanks to the professors and students from the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico who participated in this study. To Dr. Gloria Smith. my committee chairperson. who always kept in :ouch with me. even during those periods when I was not ready to start 'his phase of my doctoral studies, and to the other committee vi members—-Drs. Andrew Porter. Esther Fergus, and Thomas S. Gunnings-- thank you for the time you devoted to reading and reacting to my work. Finally. I wish to express my gratitude to all those who shared their time with my children when I was unable to be with them. especially my parents. Martin and Marina. ‘61 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background and Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 1 Academic Advising at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Theoretical Framework of the Study . . . . . . . . . . l4 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Definitions of Key Terms . . . . . . Delimitations and Limitations of the Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . udy . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . 18 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Definitions of Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Academic Advising Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Faculty Roles and Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . 33 Research on Functions of the Academic Advisor . . . . 43 Research on the Advisor-Advisee Relationship . . . . . 52 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Development of the Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Validity and Reliability of th Instruments . . . . . 84 Validity and Reliability of the AAPQ . . . . . . . . SS Validity and Reliability of the AARQ . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 viii Page IV. RESULTS . . . o u o o I o o o o o o a o o C . . . . . . 108 Introduction . . . . . . . 108 Results of Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . 109 Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . I I 0 O O I O 151 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purposes and Procedures . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Analysis of Mean Scores . . . . . 159 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Discussion . . . . . . . . . 164 Recommendations . . . . 167 Recommendations Based on This Research . . . . . . . 168 Recommendations for the Development of the Academic Advising Program 3 I O O C O I O C 151 . 151 n o c o o c o n o o o o o o a o o a u o o o o o a c o o o o o o o o a c u o o o u o o o o . . 169 APPENDICES A. DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES OF THE FACULTY SAMPLE . . . . . . 171 w . DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES OF THE STUDENT SAMPLE . . . . . . 172 O . BIO-SOCIAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . O I I 174 D. ACADEMIC ADVISOR FUNCTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . 181 E. ACADEMIC ADVISING RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . 197 F. ACADEMIC ADVISING EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . 208 G. COVER LETTER AND INSTRUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 H. STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION . . . VRENCES . . ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Distribution of the Student Population by Field and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.2 Distribution of the Faculty Population by Field and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.3 Distribution of Faculty Population. Expected and Actual Sample. and Response Rate by Field and Gender . . . . 65 3.4 Distribution of Expected and Actual Numbers of Students Sampled by Field and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.5 Expected and Actual Proportions of Students to Faculty Sampled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.6 Distribution of Student Population and Sample by Field of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 n7 Eight Factors With Eigenvalues Equal to or Higher Than 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 .8 Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 1: Educational and Occupational Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 9 Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 2: Overall Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 [0 Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 3: Academic Offerings, Norms and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 1 Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 4‘ . Meaning of a College Education . . . . 96 n o I o o o n o o n o o c 6 Loading of Each Item Under AAJQ Function 5: University Student Services - . - . - - . . . . . 96 Loading of Each Item Under AAEQ Function 6: Class Schedule and Programs of Study . . 97 3.14 Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 7: Vocational Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.15 Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 8: Monitoring Academic Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.16 Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients for Total. Student. and Faculty Samples for the Eight Functions of the AAEQ . . 98 .17 Four Factors With Eigenvalues Equal to or Higher Than 1.0 . o a I o t o u n o c o o o o a o o o I . . 103 18 Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 1: Empathy of the Advisor . . . . . . . . 104 .19 Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 2: Communication Through Trusting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 .20 Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 3: Communication Between Advisor and Advisee . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 21 Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 4: Accessibility of the Advisor . . . . . . . 106 22 Kendall's fl Coefficients for the Overall Relationship Scale for the Total, Faculty. and Student Samples 0 o t o v o o C O C 107 23 Alpha Coefficients for the Overall Relationship Scale for the Total, Faculty, and Student Samples . . . . . . 107 Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Functions and Fields . a o n o v a y . . . . . 110 Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Field 0 O O C O I Q I O . 111 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Tests for the Student Sample by Functions and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o o o I I o o o o 112 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Functions and Age . . . . 113 xi Page 4.6 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors, Overall Scale. and Age . 115 4.7 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Tests for the Student Sample by Functions and Advising Experience . . . . . . 115 4.8 Results of the Mann~Whitney U Test for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale, and Advising Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.9 Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Tests for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4.10 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Tests for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors, Overall Scale. and Field . . . . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I .11 Results of the Mann—Whitney U Tests for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Advising Experience I I I I .12 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 by Field . 121 ~13 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 by Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 14 Results of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale, and Advising Experience I I I I I I I I I I I l I I O O O 122 .5 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Tests for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Gender . . . . . 123 5 Results of the Mann—Whitney U Tests for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors, Overall Scale. and Gender . . . - - . - . 124 I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Tests for the Faculty Sample by Type of Appointment and Functions . . . . . . 125 Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Tests for the Faculty Sample by Type of Appointment by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale . . . . . . . . . . 126 Results of the Mann—Whitney g Tests for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 I o I I I I I I I 4.20 Results of the Mann—Whitney U Tests for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 .21 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Rank. . . . . . . 127 .22 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale, and Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 .23 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Economics and Administrative Sciences) . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . . 131 .24 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Economics and Administrative Sciences) . . . . . . . . 131 25 Results of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Economics and Administrative Sciences) . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . 132 26 Results of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Economics and Administrative Sciences) . 133 7 Results of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Nursing) . Results of the Mann‘Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Nursing) 0 O O U I C 135 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Nursing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Nursing) . . . . . . . I I O I O I U C Q 137 Zesults of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Sciences and Technology) . . . . . . 138 xiii +.33 .34 37 r— > Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Sciences and Technology) . . . . Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Humanities) . Results of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Factors and Overall Scale (Humanities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Education) . . Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Education) . . . . . . . . . Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Education) . . . . . . . . . Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Education) . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Behavioral Sciences) Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Behavioral Sciences) . . . . Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Behavioral Sciences) . . . . Results of the Mann—Whitney U Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Behavioral Sciences) . . . . . . Mean Scores for the Eight Functions: Student Sample Mean Scores for the Relationship Scales: Student Sample Mean Scores for the Eight Functions: Faculty Sample Mean Scores for the Relationship Scales: Faculty Sample Page 139 140 141 142 143 143 144 145 146 147 148 159 160 160 161 fiv‘dw pr re pe: of ant prc 808 Var: the SUPI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background and Statement of the Problem Academic advising in colleges and universities is defined as the activities or procedures designed to help students derive the utmost benefit from their college education. This purpose is accomplished by helping students become aware of and pursue their educational and personal welfare while in college and even after graduation (Trombley. 1979). Advisement is usually provided as a means of increasing retention and promoting the student's development through his/her direct interaction with a person appointed by the institution to provide that service. Academic advising calls for a one-to-one relationship. in which the faculty member. counselor. or other trained person assumes the role of helper while the student assumes the role of helpee. The result of the contact and interaction between helper and helpee is expected to promote the student's academic. career. and >tofessional development and to help plan and implement the student's oals. There is an interest in understanding those college environmental ariables that may impede or facilitate both the personal growth and he academic performance of college students. Research evidence has Jpported the idea that college attrition is related to students' lack the be m met of attachment to the modern—day college environment. Throughout the literature. the faculty has been singled out as an important factor in establishing that attachment and as a source of much-needed help for students' intellectual. vocational. social. and emotional development (Astin, 1979; Centra & Rock, 1969; Chickering, 1972; Eddy. 1959; Erkurt & Mokros. 1984; Feldman. 1982; Feldman & Newcomb. 1969; King. 1984; Pascarella & Terenzini. 1978. 1979, 1980. 1981; Terenzini & Pascarella. 1980L The relationship between faculty members and students has been studied from manifold aspects: from the standpoint of the classroom. in terms of informal contacts outside of class. and from the position of the more structured interaction in academic advising. Seldin (1980) wrote that, whereas during the 19605 the important characteristics of faculty to be recruited were research. degrees, and national recognition. the tendency now is to emphasize the services that faculty can provide to students within the university boundaries ecause of the need to retain students. Dassance (1980) concurred ith Seldin. stating that retention should have priority over recruit- ent because "a satisfied customer (student) is the best salesman recruiter)" (p.2). The Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence n American Higher Education. appointed by the U.S. Department of ucation. made an explicit statement concerning this issue: All colleges and universities should offer a systematic program of guidance and advisement that involves students from matriculation through graduation. Student affairs personnel. peer counselors. faculty and administrators should all participate in this system on a continuing basis.(Nationa1 Institute of Education. 1984. p. 31) fa in Ne ac: as: ta: Vis rem Yea: The active participation of faculty members in their students' educational planning is considered to be the earliest form of coun— seling in American institutions of higher education (Packwood. 1977L With the development of diagnostic and testing techniques, and the specialization of the theoretical basis for the helping professions after World War I. psychologists and counselors replaced the profes- sors as academic advisors. As more and more professionals were trained to work in the area of student personnel services. the profes- sor became less and less responsible for students‘ psychological needs. For various reasons. faculty members are considered one of the best sources of student services. Students usually perceive the faculty as exerting more influence than their fellow students on their intellectual development and on career decision making (Feldman & Newcomb, 1969). The notion that professors are knowledgeable about academic programs and institutional operations makes it plausible to ssign them student-service functions. Moreover. faculty's daily con- acts with students in their classrooms and the fact that they are isible to and recognized by students makes it conceivable that they ould provide the above-cited services. The assumption that students ill benefit from contact with their professors is the basis for a acuity-advising program. The assignment of students to faculty advisors has brought about newed interest in studying academic advising during the past ten are. Feldman (1972) maintained that it is the institutional support char nece prop< couns make. couns state faile Pampel OHOHA Whethe to bee Princi] with t dramati Be adViSit role. to estat been in 1974; J8 channeled through such programs that facilitates and encourages the necessary interaction between students and faculty members. Paar's model of student services. developed during the 19703. proposed that faculty members should be trained to become proficient as counselors themselves (Daniels. 1977). However. professional training makes a clear distinction between faculty (teaching) roles and counseling or psychologist (helping) roles. Shertzer and Stone (1981) stated that teachers refer to the counselor as a professional who has failed to be a good teacher. as "a necessary evil" who coddles and pampers students (p. 149). They concluded: Counseling and teaching are fundamentally different activities. Little that is learned in teaching transfers meaningfully to the counseling relationship. Extended teaching experiences frequently result in undesirable authoritarian and patronizing attitudes that conflict with the basic attitude essential in counseling. (p. 158) lhether teaching experience should be a requirement for those who want 0 become counselors has been widely debated. Furthermore. an ethical rinciple prohibits counselors from establishing a helping relationship ith their students when performing as teachers (Corey. 1984). This ramatizes the distinction between the two roles. Because of these role distinctions. faculty may perceive the vising role as inconsistent with or even opposed to the teaching 1e. Likewise. the evidence regarding students'self-perceived need establish personal contact with faculty outside of the classroom has n inconsistent (Dressel. 1974; Feldman & Newcomb. 1969; Grites. 4; Jacob. 1957; Katz et a1.. 1969). There have also been contradic- y research findings concerning students' perceptions of the im M1 981 rev to; (ad adv. (l9: helpfulness of the professor as an advisor on academic (Derrico. 1979; Hoffman & Wartell, 1980; Rossman. 1968). career (Chorosky. 1983; Fashbender. 1970; Feldman, 1979; Feldman & Newcomb. 1969; Folsom & Jurich, 1979; Russel & Sullivan, 1979; Wesley, 1978). and/or personal matters (Biggs. Brodie, & Barnhart, 1975; Carney & Barak. 1976; Chris- tensen & Magoon, 1974; Donk & Oetting. 1968; Larsen & Brown. 1982). Some researchers have concluded that the outcomes of student-faculty contacts may depend on the personal and academic characteristics of both the students (Donk & Oetting. 1968; Feinberg. 1969; Hoffman, 1972; Larsen 8: Brown. 1982; Rossman. 1967; Ryan, 1980; Schwarts. 1972) and the faculty (Biggs, 1975; Ryan, 1980; Vreeland & Bidwell. 1966; Wesley. 1978). The literature on academic advising has suggested there is a need to define the role of the faculty member as a helper to an advisee (Guinn, 1985; Larsen & Brown. 1982; Witters & Miller, 1971). Also of interest is what activities faculty members are willing to perform as advisors and to define the nature of the relationship they would astablish with students in a helping situation. such as advising. A *eview of the literature demonstrated that previous research on this opic has failed to distinguish between the advisor's functions advising activities) and the nature or characteristics of the advisor— ivisee relationship. Centre and Rock (1969). Gamson (1972). and Vreeland and Bidwell 966) found that faculty members from different disciplines or fields study developed interactive processes with their students that were ) 811 19 be ad the W out and Stu Org The fully distinguishable by the degree of personal contact expected and/or accomplished. Also, student and faculty gender has been found to be related to the extent to which they engage in interactive relationships with each other (Erkurt & Mokros, 1984; Ryan. 1980). Furthermore, researchers have demonstrated that students' needs are related to developmental processes that change with age (Bess. 1973; Centra & Rock, 1969; Guinn. 1985) and academic status (Guinn. 1985; Hoffman. 1972; Larsen & Brown, 1983; Witters & Miller. 1971). Also. faculty members' type and degree of involvement with the univer- sity and other faculty members in general, and with students in par- ticular. change with their progress and attainment of academic ranks and degrees (Bess. 1973; Dennis & Kauffman, 1966; Feldman & Newcomb. 1969; Ryan, 1980). Although research has been conducted to measure the relationship etween student and faculty characteristics and the outcomes of the dvising process, very little research has been done on how those haracteristics are related to faculty and student expectations. what hey consider should be an advising situation. and the process and utcomes thereof. Research regarding the relationship between student nd faculty expectations of and experiences in advising is lacking. In an effort to provide a source of support and guidance to its udent population. the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico has ganized a program of academic advising at the academic divisions vel. whose implementation rests mainly on individual faculty members. 6 general goal of the program is to help students make educational plat Like stud majo the of H ing1 stude need advis Pregr step - advis defini h d0 fox discom he EXp advisel the be] QUHCert Nc additie inatrum plans and arrive at decisions throughout their undergraduate studies. Like most faculty advising programs. this one is based on the idea that students should be assigned to a faculty member from their academic major. No research has demonstrated the extent to which students have the same expectations of the advisor‘s role as do the faculty members of their selected major. Such research would be helpful in understand— ing the similarities and differences in expectations of faculty and students from the same and different fields of study. Most researchers in the United States have concluded there is a need to define advising activities and the characteristics of the adviser-advisee relationship that constitute an effective advisement program. Understanding advisors' and advisees' expectations is a first step toward that end. Larsen and Brown (1982) stated that training of advisers and evaluations should be grounded on the operational efinitions of what academic advising is. Moreover, because an agreement on what an academic advisor should 0 for the welfare of the student has not been stated. conflict and iscomfort may arise and noninvolvement of adviser and/or advisee may e expected. Thus. understanding the expectations of both adviser and visee is important because an academic advising system is based on e belief that each dyad member voluntarily meets and agrees on shared ncerns. No research on this topic has been conducted in Puerto Rico. In dition. the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico needed an strument to measure academic advising functions and characteristics ‘ZPL" ‘ in 19 an Con edu Priv 1961 ment °8Y. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII3_____________________________________________‘__" ““8”“ 3 of the advising relationship. The instrument developed for this study fulfilled that need and might be useful to other institutions of higher education. as well. Academic Advising at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico The Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. the first private institution of higher education founded in Puerto Rico. was initially named the Polytechnic Institute by its founder. Dr. John Will Harris. in 1912. The Institute was established as an elementary school. In 1919 the Institute received authorization to grant collegiate degrees. and in 1932 it received full accreditation for awarding bachelor's degrees. The Institute's name was changed to Interamerican University of Puerto Rico in 1956. That year it became the first institution of higher education to open small off-campus education centers. The University now has nine centers throughout the island. with a total nrollment of 37.981 undergraduate students and 2.067 graduate students uring the 1985-86 academic year (IAU. 1986a). This enrollment onstitutes 24% of the 155.726 students in institutions of higher ducation in Puerto Rico and 38% of the total number of students in rivate institutions of higher education on the island. The Metropolitan Campus. the site of this study. was founded in ?61 in Hato Rey and began offering four-year degrees in 1963. At this Impus, associate degrees are awarded in business administration, ele- :ntary education. computer sciences. accounting. educational technol- Y. chemical technology, biology, and mathematics. Bachelor% degrees are and Metr ment Pr°8 optou initi 1981. This profe April This resPo, servic to pro advisil onagl attemp through Shall ( 1.287 . aniner ““11 11. are offered in economics and business administration, nursing. science and technology. education, humanities. and behavioral sciences. At the Metropolitan Campus. professional certificates are offered in manage- ment and in medical emergencies. It also has master's and doctoral programs in education and business administration and a program in optometry. A new organizational model of academic advising is now in the initial implementation phase on the Metropolitan Campus. Until June 1981, academic advising was the responsibility of academic counselors. This function. to be provided on a group basis. was then assigned to professional counselors in coordination with faculty committees. In April 1982 the Programa de Orientacién Universitaria (POU) was created. This program was based on the concept that the student must be responsible for his/her own academic advising and should seek such services if he/she needed them. Professional counselors were appointed to provide academic. personal. and vocational counseling. Academic dvising was coordinated with the academic divisions and offered mainly n a group basis to freshmen and juniors with undeclared majors. Even though different strategies and techniques had been ttempted. the number of students who received academic advising hrough seminars in groups and through individual counseling was very mall (Gonzalez-Ferreira. 1985). Besides. the enrollment decreased by .287 students from 1981 to 1984; the dropout rate in 1984 was 34.9%, increase of 4.8% since 1981; and the number of graduates decreased cm 11.2% in 1981 to 9.9% in 1984 (Universidad Interamericana. 1985). adx res 3C8 Set Sen is a 68p. advi Unde 10 Crescioni (1983) conducted a study of counseling center services. among other topics. Twenty-five percent of the students said they had never visited the counseling center. In her study. Crescioni found that only 28% of the students rated the services of the POU as "very good"; 12% rated them as "poorfl' Asked how helpful the services were in solving academic problems. 43% of the students said they were "very good" or "fairly goodJ‘ These student opinions were very different from those given by the professional counselors in charge of providing the services. However. students and counselors agreed that academic advising was the most important service provided by the program. Also. students. more than counselors. said that counselors were not sincere and that services were not accessible. Crescioni asked counselors and students if they thought the faculty should be involved in academic advising. One hundred percent of the counselors and 90% of the stu- dents responded affirmatively. In January 1985. the university started a new program of academic dvising, in which full-time faculty members are assigned this esponsibility. Professional counselors have been assigned to the cademic divisions. but their new role is more that of a coordinator of ervices to be provided by faculty and also of a direct provider of ervices. The professional counselor assigned to the academic division 5 also responsible for the personal and professional (vocational) spects of students' development. The POU is now responsible for vising freshmen and students having more than 30 credit hours with an declared status. The POU is responsible for offering all services to fresh habiI progr basic hours expec1 comple the fa new. The PrQSente are ape 11 freshmen and undeclared students and for organizing seminars on study habits for the entire student population. It also administers a program for handicapped students and a program called PUEDO. which is basically a career resource center. In each academic division, students who have completed 30 credit hours are assigned to a full-time professor in their field. It is expected that students will receive advising from faculty until they complete the graduation requirements. However. specific areas in which the faculty advisor should help students are not delineated. The assignment of advisory duties to the faculty was not something new. The 1981 Faculty Handbook stated: Since helping students to realize their academic and profes- sional potential is implicit in Interamerican University‘s state- the institution emphasizes the role of faculty ment of goals. Faculty should be members in the academic advisement of students. available for consultation on these matters. Since Interamerican University provides other specialized guidance and counselling services to help students. the faculty should concentrate on fulfilling its unique role in academic advisement. which usually takes three forms as follows: advisement of students with regard to their work in classes taught by the faculty member. b. departmental advisement of students majoring in the faculty member‘s discipline to assist them in setting academic and professional goals and to insure that departmental and univer- sity requirements for graduation in the major are understood and met and that electives are planned to coincide with the student's personal and career objectives. recognition of students' needs for professional assistance with problems of a personal nature or resulting from academic skills deficiencies and referral to the appropriate office or person from whom the needed assistance may be obtained.(IAU. 1981. pp. 74-75) a. The task force appointed to coordinate a self—study to be nted to the Middle States Association in 1982 stated that "faculty ercted to devote a substantial part of their minimum five weekly offil that expe< was e tiallj with OmHmmg-__ Si tOdea facultl 0f the assign °Igani; dents t Nursinl Stience of requ: Th Seminar trativ6 seminar. office hours for advising students" (IAU. 1982. p.12). How and when that duty should be performed was not specified, although it was expected that the faculty "could provide a type of orientation which was supposed to go beyond course selection and program planning ini- tially performed by the eight academic advisers who dealt exclusively with that" (IAU. 1982. p. 2). Academic advising was defined in April 1982 as: [an] individual or group helping process which provides students with curricular and vocational information to prepare their short- and long—term academic program in accordance with their profes- sional goals. It also informs students about academic norms related with withdrawal, deferral. change of declared major. and about educational and job opportunities. (Universidad Interameri— cana. 1982) Since January 1985. each academic division has developed strategies to deal with the academic advising of its students. considering the faculty members the principal source of help. By fall term 1985, some of the academic areas had notified their students the faculty advisors assigned to them, some had initiated that process, and others were organizing their files and expected to make the distribution of stu- bnts by the end of the term. Before this administrative change, the ursing School, as well as the Social Work Program in the Behavioral :iences Division. had assigned students to a faculty advisor because requirements from professional associations. The Division of Education started the program with a three-day inar for their faculty in August 1985. The Economics and Adminis- tive Sciences Division offered a similar but shorter seminar. These .nars and one provided by the Central Administration Office dealt “We. 7, r *7 prim. Divie facul avie educa Affai: acade Statee was a. Intera underl; Interan undergz Interam undergr 0f field c appoint: related primarily with academic offerings and university rules. although the Division of Education's seminar included discussions of such topics as faculty—student interaction, communication. how to make a referral. and a view of the faculty—advising service in relation to the student’s education in general. Another seminar organized by the Vice—Presidency of Academic Affairs was offered fall term 1985. It was basically a presentation of academic advising programs that had been successful in the United States and discussion of how to organize such programs. That seminar was attended by selected administrators and faculty members from all Interamerican educational centers throughout Puerto Rico. Purpose of the Study Considering the change in advising services as the basic problem underlying this research effort, the purposes of the study were: 1. to determine the expectations that faculty and students of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Metropolitan Campus. had of an undergraduate academic advising program. 2. to compare the expectations that faculty and students of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Metropolitan Campus, had of an undergraduate academic advising program. Of interest in this study were students' gender. age. and academic field of study and faculty members' gender, rank. degree, type of ppointment. and academic field as these demographic variables might be elated to expectations. Two dependent variables were measured: ch an ta is 51: f m PIC 8X1: Otc beh film he j Posi (a) functions of the faculty advisor and (b) relationship between the faculty advisor and the student advisee. Theoretical Framework of the Study The primary focus of this research was to define the role of the adviser as expected by the faculty advisor and the student advisee. Also of interest were the advisors'and advisees‘ experiences in an academic advising program and the relationship between those experiences and expectations. As a professor. the faculty member organizes his/her behavior around several functions. which include teaching. keeping abreast of changes in one's field, conducting research. and performing community and institutional services such as committee work and administrative tasks. To the extent that these functions constitute the behavior that is characteristic of all faculty members within an institution. they also constitute the role of the faculty. The aforementioned distinct functions are called functional components of the role of the professor. as suggested by role theory (Biddle. 1979). Biddle (1979) stated that roles are induced through the sharing of expectations for role behavior. This proposition suggests that the occupant of a position is a rational human being whose perceptual (phenomenal) experiences guide his/her action. This means that one's behavior will be based on perceived expectations for a particular unction. In this sense. the faculty advisor's behavior is supposed to e based on his/her expectations of what is appropriate for the ositionr—the behavior the individual believes he/she should engage in r01 St a rel: flint fills! 15 to perform the role successfully. The advisor's behavior is induced by such expectations. Expectations have been defined as statements that express a reaction to a characteristic of one or more persons (Biddle. 1979L Nye (1976) stated that expectations refer to what is "typical." as prescribed by cultural standards of the social structure. In a sense. they represent what the occupant of a position understands to be the normative. prescriptive role for that position. Expectations might be expressed through descriptive statements of what the occupant is doing. will do. or might do. always using verbs to describe the actions of the object person. The person who enunciates what the object person's actions are expected to be is called the subject person. Expectations might refer to the persons who occupy positions or to the positions themselves. A faculty member who endorses a statement of what the advisor's behavior is expected to be assumes the position of subject person toward the position of adviser. A student's endorsement of a statement of what he/she expects the adviser to do assumes the position of subject person toward the position of advisor. The degree 0 which faculty and students share expectations about the advisor's ole can be ascertained by measuring the extent to which they endorse tatements regarding the advisor's activities and the nature of the elationship to be developed by the student and the faculty member. In developing the instrument to measure expectations regarding the unctiens of the faculty advisor, the researcher followed Biddle's uggestien to construct role-expectancy statements. using verbs to col describe the actions of the adviser that should meet decision-making needs of undergraduate students while in college. The same principle was used when constructing the instrument to measure the aspects that define the adviser-advisee relationship. The instruments are described in greater detail in Chapter III. A review of the literature provided the background and framework from which to construct the questionnaires used in this research. Four general areas of student needs that can be addressed in an advising (a) knowledge of university procedures and program were identified: (b) vocational, occupational. and educational planning; policies; (c) Personal concerns. other than university aspects; and (d) overall Three aspects of the interaction between adviser and development. advisee were also identified through a review of the literature: (a) communication. (b) empathy. and (c) accessibility of the adviser. Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were formulated to test the data ollected in the study: There are no statistically significant differences Hypothesis 1: among students of different academic fields. genders. ages. and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. There are no statistically significant differences Hypothesis 2: among faculty of different academic fields. ages. ranks. degreeS, types of appointments, and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. There are no statistically significant differences Hypothesis 3: betWeen faculty and students from the same field regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. fat to] Que the Definitions of Key Terms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used throughout this dissertation. Academic advising program: A student-services program at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. in which students are assigned to a faculty member of their major to help them make decisions throughout undergraduate studies after completing 30 credits or more. Characteristics of the adviser-advisee relationship: The activi- ties a faculty member appointed to the role of academic advisor can perform to establish contact and interact effectively with an assigned advisee. Expectations of the academic advising program: The degree to which the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico's students and faculty agree about what a professor should do when appointed to the role of academic advisor. as measured by the Academic Advising Function Zuestionnaire and the Academic Advising Relationship Questionnaire. Experience in academic advising: Number and quality of interviews he student or faculty member had had with his/her assigned advisor or Wisee, respectively. since January 1985. as measured by the Experi— ce in Academic Advising Questionnaire Field of study: Any one of the following six academic divisions: Sciences and Technol- nomics and Administrative Sciences, Nursing. Humanities, Education, and Behavioral Sciences. In th th Un: int rut P0P dat ace] the} disc UDiv oft reVie head 18 Functions of the adviser: The activities a faculty member appointed to the role of academic adviser can perform in order to help and meet the needs of an assigned advisee. Delimitations and Limitations of the Study 1. The study included only those students enrolled at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, Metropolitan Campus. during the 1985-86 academic year and full-time faculty members working during that same period. 2. Because the Metropolitan Campus of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico is a nonresidential campus. results should be interpreted as reflecting the characteristics of commuter students from rural and urban areas and cannot be generalized to other student populations. 3. As in all studies in which questionnaires are used to collect data. the results are subject to respondents'willingness to provide accurate information and to their knowledge and certainty of their own :haracteristics. feelings. and perceptions. Overview Chapter I contained the background and statement of the problem. a .scussion of the academic advising program at the Interamerican iversity of Puerto Rico, a statement of the purposes and hypotheses the study. and definitions of key terms. Chapter II includes a iew of literature on academic advising. faculty roles in relation to iemic advising, and the advisor‘s functions. The design and 19 methodology of the study are explained in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains the results of the data analysis. A summary of the study. conclusions. and recommendations for further research are included in Chapter V. til ti. St: gra 1ev div tic. per shoe Char and CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Institutions of higher education confront a more difficult situa— tion when providing adequate student services to their student popula- tions in the 1980s than they did 15 or 20 years ago. In the United States. as well as in Puerto Rico. increasing numbers of high school graduates from less-affluent backgrounds are entering college. Their level of motivation and their skills to pursue an academic goal are as diverse as their vocational interests and other personal characteris- tics (Wilson, Gaff. Dienst, Wood. & Barry. 1975). Questions regarding personnel to recruit, training to offer. and how student services should be organized must be answered. based on the institution's unique characteristics and experience. as well as on research results. Because of the many settings in which they can complete degrees end their access to scholarships and loans. students are in a position 0 choose where and when to register. As consumers they are more alert 0 the quality and quantity of the services received and feel freer to ove from one institution to another or to withdraw completely from igher education if they are not satisfied. In this sense. the ability 3 provide services that respond to students' needs is crucial. for it in determine whether a college or university survives the economic 20 3i! int Cer car Plat EVE Cree facu reac OfE high‘ t0 h peTQQ 21 crisis most institutions of higher education are now facing (Astin. 1979; Grites. 1979; Mayhew. 1980L Several factors have contributed to the complexity of the situa— tion colleges and universities face. As enrollment in higher education institutions grew during the 19603. their programs diversified. Recruitment of specialists in different disciplines increased. Not only did professors with a variety of degrees and experiences come to work in the old and new departments. but also counselors. psycholo- gists. social workers. and student services personnel were integrated into the university setting. Such recruitment of staff was done in an effort to meet needs related to students' welfare. In this sense. the university assumed the responsibility for attending to academic con— cerns as well as personal matters such as physical and mental health care. Help with the vocational decision process and occupational placement came to be relevant to a complete educational service. How- ever. this diversity and specialization of programs and services created communication barriers between members of the faculty, between faculty and other professionals, and between faculty and students that reached great proportions (Feldman & Newcomb. 1969; National Institute of Education. 1984; Wilson et al" 1975L As students from all social and economic groups gained access to higher education. it became necessary to increase programs and services 0 help those students interact with an environment they sometimes erceived as hostile (Wilson et a1” 1975). For students who commute 0 campus and for those working part or full time. involvement in in ac ti re 8t: gre tio ins Sch: than redu 22 campus life is far less possible than for those residing on campus and not working (Harrington. 1972; National Institute of Education. 1984L During the decade from 1970 through 1980, enrollment stopped growing at the rate it had reached during previous years. Furthermore. almost 50% of those who started college education did not complete their degree requirements. This attrition represented not only a personal setback and an expenditure of time and effort. but also a loss of resources (Astin. 1982). It therefore became necessary for college administrators to develop strategies to attract and to retain students. After an extensive review of the literature. Tinto (1975) proposed a model of retention at the university level. He suggested that stay- ing in college until graduation is largely determined by the level of academic and social integration a student experiences in the institu— tion. Tinto defined social integration as the combination of peer relations and faculty-student interaction. The higher the degree of student-perceived integration into the university environment. the higher the possibility that he/she will decide to remain in college. Pascarella and Terenzini (1978. 1980) demonstrated that the greater the amount of contact and the better the quality of the rela- tionship between faculty and students. the lower the attrition rate an institution will experience. These investigators were able to control for such pre-enrollment characteristics as socioeconomic class. high school grade point average. and ability-test results. They concluded hat increasing student-faculty interaction could be one means of educing the attrition problem. Barr (1983). Nisbet. Ruble. and Schurr th du na ef: in tic the was per Zin: tea. COm. rela the 23 (1981). and Wilson et a1. (1975) reached the same conclusion. based on the results of their studies. A number of other investigators have reported evidence to suggest that the frequency of informal contact with the faculty is positively related to students'achievement and intellectual gain(Astin. 1979; Centra & Rock. 1969; Feldman. 1972b; King. 1984; Pascarella. 1977L Astin (1968) maintained that the stimulus provided by contact with their professors is among the most important influences on students during the undergraduate years. He described involvement as a determi— nant of retention and defined it as "the degree of energy. time. and' effort the student devotes to the learning process" CAstin. 1979L Other investigators have found that faculty play an important part in influencing students' occupational decisions and educational aspira- tions (Chickering, 1972; Erkut & Mokros. 1984). Students have reported that the relationship with faculty members during undergraduate studies was one of the elements that contributed to their change in values and personal development (Eddy. 1959; Feldman. 1972b; Pascarella & Teren— zini. 1978; Sandford. 1969; Terenzini & Pascarella. 1980L Conversely. Jacob (1957) claimed that contact with faculty as teachers has little effect on students'development and college out- comes. Also. Heath (1968) found that students did not rate their relationship with the faculty as an important determinant in any but the intellectual area. Newcomb (in Tarris. 1974) said: to k desc that woul Katz' if fa edue Eider kinds intelj comb, Perso; for Vt to an Prom He/she follow of 388 shone 24 What does college do for a person? Frankly. very little. There isn't. I'm afraid. much evidence faculty d2 have any effect on students. The fact is that students neither expect much faculty contact, nor get it. In most colleges. the faculty goes one way and the students go another.(p.73) Katz (1969) said that students attach little importance to getting to know their professors or to obtaining recognition from them. He described professors as inaccessible to students. Foley (1969) argued that "if students had their choice on only one element in which they would improve college, it would be their teachers"(p. 78L Jacob's. Katz's. Newcomb's. and Foley's statements attest to the fact that even if faculty members are not fulfilling students' expectations. higher education administrators and personnel. and society in general. con- sider them a potential source of support and influence. Colleges and universities should be providing students with the kinds of experiences that will help them develop or improve their intellectual capacities. skills, attitudes. and values (Feldman & New- comb. 1969). This learning process requires continuous reassessment of personal and environmental characteristics. for these provide the basis for vocational and professional decisions. Once a student is admitted to an institution of higher education. he/she should decide which program to follow. usually selecting from a large number of majors. He/she must learn institutional procedures and processes that must be followed throughout the college years. go through a continuous process f assessing the meaning education has for his/her life. and plan for hort- and long-term goals. The interaction with professors and other ac c1 as La pr. in: of def giv Ult; ing end. tiee shi2 Com 25 professionals should be a learning experience in and of itself. which can prepare the student for an occupation and for life in general. One of the services traditionally provided to students in higher education institutions is academic advising. It is defined as a pro- gram or process through which a professional provides the necessary help so that a student can make decisions about his/her academic. vocational. and personal goals (Trombley, 1979a). Several models of academic advising have been identified. For example. (”Bannion (1972) claimed there are four models in which counselors or faculty members assume different degrees of responsibility in providing services. Larsen and Brown (1982) stressed the effectiveness of an advising program as depending on how well faculty and students meet their obli- gations and on the quality of the personal interaction between the two individuals. Faculty involvement in providing academic advice to students was of primary interest in the present investigation. In this chapter. definitions of academic advising as a program and as a process are given first. Various models of academic advising are examined. Fac— ulty roles in general are discussed to provide a basis for understand— ‘ng how the advising responsibility fits into their professional ndeavor. Finally. the writer explores research pertaining to activi- ies performed by the academic advisor and the nature of the relation- hip between the adviser and the student advisee. The chapter oncludes with a discussion of several measurement strategies the 1856 study eratu the 8' Bo 26 researcher reviewed before developing the instruments used in this study. Definitions of Academic Advising Several definitions of academic advising may be found in the lit- erature. George and Salevouris (1978) defined academic advising from the standpoint of what it should do: Academic advising should provide students with resources. and encouragement to be sure. to think over and ponder options and alternatives and ultimately to take the responsibility for choosing among them. Tamminen. Gum, Smaby, and Peterson's(l975) definition included the goals of academic advising: [It] should . . . assist students in developing healthy attitudes, values and goals, in gaining the most out of their curricular experience. in solving personal problems and in fostering effective interpersonal relationships. (p. 3) Trombley's (1979a) definition was more general than the preceding ones. He stated that academic advising involves: a set of processes which helps students derive the full benefits of their education that includes the development of a relationship between the adviser and the advisee that is sensitive to advisee needs and aspirations while enhancing opportunities for advisees to make their own academically related decisions. (p. 2) Trombley also stated that academic advising is: an activity where the focus is upon assisting students become aware of, to select, and to pursue educational courses and experiences that will promote their education and personal welfare while in college. (p. 2) Bostaph and Moore (1980) stated that. in an academic advising rogram. the function of the advisor is to "assist students in gaining alllulur=s-—“——’—” the Croo Grite He st and t advim stude throu caree (1979} 0f sue SeI'Vic 27 the maximum from the college experience" (p. 45). According to Crookston (1972). Academic advising assists students to realize the maximum educa— tional benefits available to themselves and to learn to use the resources of an educational institution to meet their special educational needs and aspirations. (p. 64) Grites (1979) offered a similar definition. stating that: Academic advising is a decision-making process during which the students clear up certain confusion and realize their maximum educational potential and benefits through communication and information exchanges with an adviser. (p. 61 He stated that academic advising is an ongoing. multifaceted process and that it is the responsibility of both student and adviser. Crocket (1978) stressed the interactive nature of the advisor- advisee relationship: "It is a decision—making process through which a student. aided by an adviser. maximizes the educational experience through interaction, specifically pertinent to both curricular and career planning" (p. 78). This definition was echoed by McClure (1979). Likewise.Dassance andBatdorf(1980)believed thatthe goal of such advising is to integrate the student into the curriculum. services. and organization of the institution. Raskin and Loeney (1982) defined aCademic advising in terms of the provision of information and the use the student makes of such knowledge. They wrote: [Academic advising] is the dissemination of information about requirements as well as the processing and internalizing of that information. requiring the cultivation of some type of personal relationship between adviser and advisee. (p. 6) Pointing to the comprehensiveness of the concept of academic dvising. Grites (1976b) preferred to state what it is not: ac id Mc be hi te‘ a l fa< the adv and ate pro 0'35 (wi ins1 Only a fringe benefit or minor support service; something that anyone or everyone should or can do; telling the advisee what to schedule. what to choose. what to do; focusing exclusively in the students' intra-institutional experience. (p. 4) The preceding definitions show a lack of consensus regarding what academic advising should be. The term "academic advising" is used to identify a program of services. as well as a process of interaction. Most authors have agreed about what should be the result of contacts between adviser and advisee. The benefit to the student throughout his/her college years and afterwards has been posited as the fundamen- tal goal. Thus the relationship between adviser and advisee is mainly a helping one in which the student assumes the role of helpee, and the faculty member or counselor performs the role of helper. The nature of the interaction between adviser and advisee is determined by the stu- dent's needs. The authors concurred that the interaction between adviser and advisee is a dynamic process defined by the student's needs and the helper's evaluation of and ability to meet those needs. Academic Advising Models The most common criterion used to distinguish different types of cademic advising programs or models is who is responsible for roviding direct service to the student. Using this criterion. 'Bannien (1972) identified four models: (a) instructor and counselor with instructor being primarily responsible). (b) counselor and nstructor (with counselor being primarily responsible). (c) counselor nly, and (d) instructor only. f0 we co fo co; mo Ma: on] Baa rec are 108i Uni\ StUI Veal fOr mode memt proCI the 29 In a survey of two-year colleges across the United States, (YBannion. Fordyce. and Godwin (1972) found that the most common of the four models of academic advising was the one in which the instructor was primarily responsible for the service, with the help of a counselor. The model in which the counselor was primarily responsible for the service, with the help of instructors. was the second most common, followed by the counselor-only model. The instructor-only model was used the least. O'Bannion et al. also conducted a study in Maryland community colleges in which these four models were being used. They found that counselor-as-advisor-only and instructor-as-advisor- only models were the most effective ones. as judged by the students. Based on O'Bannion et ale studies. Sheffield and Meskill (1972) recommended the counselor-only model as the best one. unless faculty are assigned the advising responsibility as part of their teaching load. Koloc, Burns. and Luede (1983). based on their experiences at the Jniversity of Pittsburgh. proposed an academic advising model in which :tudents are assigned to faculty advisors once they reach the junior 'ear. Freshmen and sophomores are advised by graduate students trained or that purpose. The authors based their recommendation for such a odel on the developmental differences that cause a gap between faculty embers' advice and younger students' interests and concerns. Grites's (1976a) proposed model of academic advising divides the ocess into three developmental stages. During the "primary level." a student receives information from a peer-counselor. In the second pr< su: den (19 Stu grae sou becc stud and fOr tech adv: whet (197g —7——“" 30 stage. the "professional level." a faculty member is assigned to assist the student in decision making related to career development. The "personal level" (third stage) is the responsibility of professional counselors. The training of graduate students. as proposed by Koloc et a1. (1983), was also advocated by Roberts (1976) and by Hutchins and Miller (1979). They suggested that upperclassmen (seniors) could be trained to perform academic—advising duties. Results of their research provided evidence that senior students were able to reduce referrals. suspensions, course changes. and attrition. A similar model of aca— demic advising was proposed and tested by Brown (1972) and by McCrary (1981L Results of their studies supported the desirability of using students as advisors. With the diversity of college programs and more flexible graduation requirements. some colleges are using computers as a viable source of information that, in some cases and for some students, becomes the only source of advisement. Catalogues and handbooks that students complete and follow through. with exercises in self-awareness and college knowledge. have been proposed as an inexpensive substitute for the professional counselor or faculty member. In most cases. such techniques are designed to complement rather than substitute for the dvisor (Kapraun & Coldren. 1981). Another criterion used to classify academic advising models is hether the advisor is appointed. selected, or a volunteer. Crocket 1979) asserted that advisors must be selected—-that not everyone can Illll'l' ' w de fa on ini int con She inf pro the avai adhe to t sibl mEm] (Con1 1979 adVi Cideg 31 be an adviser. He recommended that the selection process be carefully designed to appraise faculty members'ability to show empathy. warmth. and flexibility in establishing relationships with students. Holmes (1979) believed that the adviser should be a member of the faculty who volunteers for such service. This recommendation was based on his belief that a good adviser possesses subtle skills that are influenced by deep-seated attitudes and evidenced by a willingness to interact with students in a helping relationship. In contrast. Gordon (1982) stated that the advising function is so complex that the adviser needs graduate-level professional training. She developed a graduate course in which knowledge. skills. and information were provided or developed. The course was designed for professional counselors and for faculty members willing to engage in the advising activity. Nisbet (1981) underscored the importance of faculty members' availability for advising students. He maintained that only those who adhere to their office hours and have adequate time should be appointed to this task.He also recommended that the administration be respon- sible for selecting the advisors. Some academic advising programs match students' and faculty embers' interests. personal characteristics. and expectations Conroe, 1979). Others are based on students' declared major (Holmes. 979). Dassance and Batdorf (1980) stated that a good academic dvising program is organized around students'concerns(i.eu unde- ided. transfer. occupational. developmental) and not around academic 3N 8C3 108 Pm pro; 3cm Hoff 32 disciplines. although the authors neglected to explain their reasoning for such a suggestion. When faculty share with counselors the responsibility for providing academic advice. the student is usually assigned to an adviser based on the pressing problems he/she brings to the first interview. Metz (1979) suggested that this type of program should recruit and train those faculty members who volunteer. The academic advising model in which faculty assume most of the responsibility has been advocated most often in the literature (Allan. 1976; Astin, 1975; Benson, Williams. & Brundy. 1979; Coyle. 1971; Crookston. 1972; Ford. 1983; Grites, 1976a. 1979; Holmes. 1979; Jody & Ledford.1979;Koplin &Rice.1975;Kaufman.&Neterset.1975;Kramer, 1983; Nisbet. 1981; Raskin.& Looney. 1982; Trombley. 1979; Witters & Miller. 1971). These writers all agreed that faculty members must be trained to perform the advising functions. Another academic advising model is based on whether the services are centralized or not. Hoffman (1972) discussed two types of such academic advising programs. The centralized is usually identified with a guidance or counseling center. where professional counselors. psycho- egists. and other mental health. career. and vocational placement ersonnel are recruited. The decentralized model is more an outreach rogram, which can be found throughout the university-in dormitories. cademic departments. and/or admissions offices (Packwoed. 1977L offman compared centralized and decentralized advisement programs in term: NI ships 1 tEacheI method( have be and Stu the fac that of 33 terms of their effectiveness. In centralized as opposed to decentral- ized programs. 1. Efforts are more economically and efficiently coordinated. 2. There is less chance for unnecessary duplication of efforts. 3. Specialists who are more expensive are employed. 4. Advisers become more visible. 5. The importance of teachers and the classroom is de—emphasized. 6. There is less concern for the total learning context. 7. The adviser-advisee ratio is higher. 8. The recruitment of persons who are highly prepared education— ally and psychologically is stimulated. 9. Training is stimulated. 10. Educational/vocational guidance is emphasized. ll. Follow-up. less incidental episodes of advising are scheduled. 12. Individual rather than group advising is emphasized. Faculty Roles and Academic Advising Not surprisingly. researchers studying faculty—student relation- hips have paid much attention to the contact students have had with eachers whose courses they took. The social. psychological. and even ethodological variables that may impede or facilitate that interaction ave been the focus of numerous studies. Administrators. professors. 1d students seem to consider teaching the most important function of e faculty (Wilson et al.. 1975). Although other functions such as at of researcher. consultant. and community-service provider are CORGI tant inter that degre to it teach: being Wflsm well 4 Vocati identi: but w} Consult 0f stud Be from it °Pmentl 34 considered part of the faculty role. teaching is still the most impor- tant activity of all. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) stated that the three areas of major interest for the faculty are teaching. research. and administration. in that order. Furthermore. they did not agree with the notion that the degree of interaction between faculty and students is inversely related to institutional size. They stated that. beyond the function of teaching. faculty prefer to devote their time to research rather than being in contact with students. However. most of the faculty members Wilson et a1. (1975) surveyed considered teaching a central activity as well as a major source of personal satisfaction. Clark and Throw (in Feldmax1& Newcomln 1969) classified faculty members as follows: (a) teachers (those identified with the college and committed to students). (b) scholars-researchers (those not identified with the college but pursuing pure. disinterested study). (c) demonstrators (identified with the college and members of a vocational or technical discipline), and (d) consultants (those neither identified with the college nor committed to pure. disinterested study but who have national reputations and invest their resources as consultants to organizations). These two studies showed that advising of students may not be found to be a priority to most faculty members. Bess (1973) stated that the satisfaction faculty can experience from informal interaction with students has been neglected as a devel— pmental need of professors. Faculty members are under pressure ecause they must fulfill expectations of administrators and peers. tar poi fit att stu act att espé 35 teach and develop research projects. and follow unwritten norms or meet sanctions about participating in institutional administration. All of these responsibilities leave little time and opportunity for student contacts. according to Bess. He maintained that research. writing. and administrative work may not provide the most fundamental satisfaction to professors as human beings. In a way. by paying more attention to competition and cognition. professors are neglecting not only student needs. but also their own needs to belong and feel. Seldin (1984) conducted a national survey to ascertain institu— tional policies and practices for evaluating faculty performance. In 1977. 680 deans of private and public colleges and universities responded to a questionnaire in which they ranked the factors they considered part of the evaluation of their professors. Deans of both private and public institutions reported that classroom teaching was he most important factor in assessing performance. Second in imper- ance was academic advising and committee work. However. it should be ointed out that academic advising fell 30 points below teaching. the irst choice. Seldin concluded that advising "receives only passing ttention from many promotion committees"(p.15). Similarly. in a tudy Lewis (1972) conducted at Northeastern American State University 1964. the majority of students said teaching was the most important ctivity of the faculty. This factor may contribute to the low tention and interest that faculty may pay to the advising service. Pecially if it is not rewarded. ha ca: ca: si1 of fa< ace per 36 Teague and Grites (1980) surveyed collective-bargaining agreements and documents from institutions across the United States and found that academic advising is neglected as a faculty function. They stated that faculty often regard this activity as trivial and administrative. and as contributing nothing to their professional growth. In 1969. Katz suggested there was a need for faculty who could educate students in many areas and who could also attend to students' developmental needs. He admitted. however. that not all faculty needed to fulfill such functions. Mayhew (1969) called for faculty involve- ment in meeting students' needs by placing those needs in first place. rather than their "unsupervised own work" (p. 70% The advantages of designating the faculty as academic advisors have been discussed thoroughly in the literature. Academic advising can increase retention by providing a knowledgeable person the student can contact within the university (Grites. 1978). Faculty members are singled out as an important variable in retention. and their advantage f day-to-day contact with students is not possessed by other personnel uch as counselors or psychologists. Grites maintained that the aculty can contribute to student recruitment and retention and that cademic advising by faculty is the best way to use the economic and ersonal resources of higher education institutions. Grites (1976b) noted that the efforts higher education nstitutions are making to provide liberal arts courses to form ducated persons" can be maximized through an effective academic vising program. He viewed the adviser as a "coordinator" of the eff01 advoc facult intelj Newcou academ the li 37 effort to extend the student's education beyond his/her major. Grites advocated the following functions of the adviser: 1. Explain institutional requirements. processes. and procedures. 2. Help with course schedule and registration procedures. 3. Help insure completion of graduation requirements. 4. Help with study habits and skills. 5. Monitor academic progress. 6. Encourage participation in extracurricular activities. 7. Refer students to other service offices. 8. Help students understand the institutional framework. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) stated that students perceive the faculty to have more influence than peers on their career decisions and intellectual development. Grites (1981) agreed with Feldman and Newcomb, stating that the best way to promote that influence is through academic advising. 4 The assignment of students to faculty members has been debated in he literature. For example. Dressel (1974) asserted that faculty dvising systems are based on the following assumptions. which are not ecessarily true: 1. That faculty members are interested in one—to—ene situations ith students. 2. That professors are knowledgeable enough to guide students. 3. That students want advice from the faculty. argued that a good advising program should be based on the faculty's ility to: tion, COUI'S ments each C 1 to the Skills possib (1979), facult tratio: that t Studen advise: ity of Sc academ c"mitt deVQIOP 38 1. Read and interpret the graduation requirements of the institu- tion. the degree. the college. and the department. 2. Know what courses will meet requirements where no specific course is demanded. 3. Keep an accurate record of each advisee's academic accomplish— 4. Make judgments concerning the appropriate courses to fulfill each of their advisees' particular needs. 5. Relate effectively with advisees. 6. Have accurate information about a multitude of technicalities. Trombley (1979) stated that the primary tool the adviser can bring to the relationship is him/herself and that training in communication skills and awareness of one's personal relationship style is the best possible way to develop competence in advisors. Kapraun (1982). Conroe (1979L and Bachhuber (1971) maintained that in academic advising the aculty-student interaction must transcend the casual signing of regis- ration papers. Grites (1981) argued that mere contact is not enough-- hat the interaction must be meaningful and productive for both tudents and advisors. Moreover. according to Kramer (1983). the dvisor—advisee interaction offers an opportunity to improve the qual— ty of the human environments of colleges and universities Some writers have contended that the first step in organizing an ademic advising program by the faculty is to secure the faculty's mmitment to their training and finally to the service. The need to velop in advisors an understanding of their role and the implications it Lc th in 31. an: do 39 that role has in terms of the interpersonal dynamics of the advisor— advisee relationship is of utmost importance (Bonar. 1976). The advisor's availability. knowledgeability. and ability to form a personal relationship with advisees are the three most important characteristics of an adviser, according to Crocket (1979). The faculty member must recognize the importance of these attributes and undergo training if they are not part of his/her nature. Commitment is also expressed through the amount of time faculty are willing to devote to student advising. The low reward this func— tion receives has been cited as the reason faculty are not committed to it (Allan. 1976; Gordon. 1973; Kapraun. 1982; Marchese. 1983; Raskin & Looney. 1982; Trombley, 1979a). Sheffield and Meskill (1972) stated that faculty usually assigned to advising functions pursued other interests after the initial enthusiasm abated. Bachhuber (1971) con- sidered that the advising role is subordinated to teaching. research. and community-service functions. Marchese (1983) suggested that fac— ulty will get involved in academic advising if what they are asked to o is appropriate to their roles. To prepare facultyxnembers for their role as academic advisors, raining in the form of workshops and conferences has been suggested mong the topics included in such training are the following: a)interpersona1 communication skills. (b) institutional knowledge. c) student development and characteristics. 0D career development. ) special student groups and their needs, and (f) legal aspects of th edt pos Stu: the: enah advi for fiVe info Stud. 371d I 40 According to Trombley (1979a). these training sessions should help the faculty learn how to: 1. Establish a personal relationship with the student. 2. Help students develop self—confidence in relation to their educational and personal goals. 3. Help students understand and benefit from academic programs. policies. and procedures. 4. Help students articulate their needs and interests. 5. Help students conceptualize their present situation and future possibilities. 6. Prevent problems and stresses from becoming unmanageable. 7. Facilitate students' successful completion of their course of study. 8. Make written materials available to students that will aid them in decision making. 9. Provide information and data to administration officials to enable them better to fulfill the university's mission. McClure (1979) listed four general responsibilities of the adviser: (a) monitor progress of each advisee. (b) provide resources :or career planning. (c) write letters of recommendation. and (d) fol- ow students after graduation. Bostaph and Moore (1980) enumerated ive responsibilities of the faculty advisor: (a) provide adequate nformation. (b) assist in making sound decisions. (c) facilitate tudent development. (d) provide students with the overall objectives nd philosophy of education. and(e) provide students an opportunity an an it pr! ade an we] ave COU t0 cha adv wha 3C3 face dom nor the Stud 76% was Sign 41 and encouragement to develop program and professional strategies. The authors believed the last responsibility was the most important because it helps students gain a sense of direction for their entire academic program. In an effort to demonstrate the effectiveness of faculty as advisors. Derrico (1979) compared adviser-advised versus self—advised students from Miami Dade Community College. No significant differences were found with regard to any of the following variables: grade point average. withdrawal rate. retention rate. graduation rate. number of courses dropped. and frequency of schedule changes. The group advised by the faculty performed better with respect to all variables but not to a significant degree. Derrico concluded that faculty members' characteristics can make a difference in the effectiveness of an idvising program. However. no information was provided to indicate on hat be based that statement. At Slippery Rock State College in Pennsylvania during the 1978—79 cademic year. Hoffman and Wartell (1980) assigned 38 students to aculty advisers who, among other functions. provided advising in the rmitories during evening meetings. The idea was to make dormitories ore of an academic setting. The control group received advising in e counseling center. Hoffman and Wartell found that 84% of the udents in the experimental group remained in college. as compared to z of the control group. The experimental group's grade point average 8 higher than that of the control group. although not to a gnificant level. Also. 83% of the students in the experimental group p3||llllrm Na to in 19 fee to 110' max ple f on adv var Stuc‘ 75% beta grep 42 were admitted to the Natural Sciences Program. as compared to only 50% of those in the control group. The authors did not provide information on how many of them were interested in and actually applied to the Natural Sciences Program nor if the students were randomly distributed to control or experimental groups. This lack of information limits the interpretation of results. Some writers (Sheffield & Meskill. 1976; Witters & Miller. 1971) have asserted that assigning the advising function as part of faculty members' teaching load could make a difference in the types of concerns discussed. retention rate. and grade point average. This was not the case in Rossman's (1967) experimental study. Six faculty members were released from part of their teaching assignment and com— pleted their lead by advising freshman students. No differences were found between students advised by those six advisors and students advised by other faculty advisors with regard to any of the dependent variables. except for a higher retention rate among female students. Nisbet et a1. (1981) used data about learning styles and students' locus of control to "help advisers define their advising strategies" (p. l). The basis of this strategy was the notion that increasing the dvisor"s knowledge about the advisee would facilitate the relationship nd hence increase the quality of services. A six-year longitudinal tudy demonstrated that the effort helped to increase retention from 5% to 91% the first year. The findings were inconclusive. however. ecause the investigators failed to provide comparison with a control roup. Another question to be raised is whether the students were gr ma an f u C0: dee adw den ove its all is the lit she Bio rev is Neg Sta 43 grouped or received services on an individual basis since that could make a difference is advisors' capacity to attend their particularities and hence. in fact. use the information provided. Research on Functions of the Academic Advisor A review of the most relevant studies on the academic advising function showed that they can be classified as survey and causal- cemparative studies. Less common is research with an experimental design. Gordon (1973) stated that developing and organizing academic advising programs have been given priority over systematic research about advising. He argued that the difficulty with research on aca- demic advising is its complexity and the difficulty in gaining control over the processes and outcomes. In reference to the complexity involved in studying academic advising as a construct. Gordon termed it a “multidimensional phenomenon" (p. 4). In this section. research on the functions of the academic advisor is reviewed. Emphasis is placed on studies about professors performing the task of academic advisor. One difficulty found in reviewing the literature on this topic was that writers sometimes failed to indicate whether the subjects in their studies were faculty members or profes- sional counselors. Whenever the distinction was made in the document reviewed. it is duly noted in the discussion because that information is important in interpreting research results. The effectiveness of faculty as academic advisors has been heasured using several criteria. such as retention rate and students' grade point average and satisfaction with college. Results of resee Rossn fresh memb selo: more the r stude rate. tions admin and f Orego Subsc advis were Very 1 not p discr. I faoul activ; specie p8ycho 44 research in this area have been inconclusive. For example. in 1964—65. Rossman (1968) conducted a study in which an experimental group of 10 freshmen from Macalester College were randomly assigned to six faculty members appointed to this task. The control group was advised by coun- selors. Rossman found that students in the experimental group were more satisfied with the effectiveness of their advisors than those in the control group. However. he failed to find differences between students in the experimental and control groups regarding retention rate. satisfaction with college. grade point average. level of aspira- tions. and perceptions of the campus. To determine the differences among graduate advisers. administrators. and students regarding their perceptions of the roles and functions of advisors. Tapswan (1985) conducted a survey at Western Oregon State College. He developed a 30-item scale comprising three subscales: (a) characteristics of the adviser. (b) tasks of the adviser. and (c) competencies of the adviser. The three sample groups ere compared using one-way analysis of variance. The three groups had ery similar perceptions of 27 of the 30 competencies. The author did et provide information on the nature of those competencies on which iscrepancies were found. At the University of Minnesota. Biggs et a1. (1975) studied aculty-adviser role expectations. job satisfaction. and job ctivities. Four clusters of job activities were identified: (a) pecial academic. social. or financial problems; (b) emotional or sycholegical problems; (c) academic and career guidance problems; and to th th he de' th ler sor of Si} 881 adv ex; has Ch: of Sch the: 8hi: and Sai 45 (d) administrative activities. Multiple regression analysis was uSed to find the relationship between socio-demographic variables and the three dependent variables. The researchers found that advisors devoted the most time to providing academic and career information and to helping students choose their majors and courses. Less time was devoted to social and psychological concerns. although advisors saw themselves as appropriate helpers with interpersonal-relations prob- lems. Advisers identified lack of recognition of their work as a major source of dissatisfaction. Number of advisees and the advisor's level of educational preparation were the two variables that contributed significantly to explaining the difference between more— and less— satisfied advisors. The more advisees assigned and the higher the advisor's academic degree. the lower the level of satisfaction advisors experienced. Concerning the effect that previous counseling experiences may nave on students' expectations of the faculty advisor's functions. ristensen and Magoen (1974) found that students from the University f Maryland who had had contact with a counselor during their high chool years were more willing to discuss personal problems with a aculty adviser than were those who had not had such contact. A study of Southern Illinois University students' concerns and eir choice of sources of help showed that students named the faculty visor as their first choice in dealing with "planning of the future" d with Wnajor selection" (Snyder. Hill, & Derksen, 1972). Students id they would never go to an academic advisor with "personal." Y5 .h.‘ v , st Uh La pa pe pe wi ex; Fae hi] the res of (93 Sho 46 "family."or "interpersonal preblemsfl' Similarly. Polson andJurich (1979) found that students did not prefer to discuss or feel comfort- able in discussing personal problems and values with a faculty advisor. However. the authors concluded that students did not want to discuss personal concerns with their advisors because of stereotypes and resis- tance. which should be overcome. Students ranked advising on "profes- sional aspects" as a higher priority than advising on‘hureaucratic procedures." In a comparison of faculty advisors. faculty nonadvisors. and students from four universities (University of Wyoming. Mankato State University. Kansas State University. and the Universityof NebraskaL Larsen and Brown (1982) discovered.a lack of agreement among groups. particularly concerning advisors' responsibility in handling students' personal problems. Faculty advisors agreed to help with students' personal problems more than did other groups. However. variations within the student sample were observed. Juniors. less than freshmen. expected the faculty advisor to provide help with personal problems. Faculty members showed a high level of agreement about their responsi- bility to help students deal with the institutional bureaucracy. None- theless. students did not see this as an advisor's responsibility. The esearchers observed a high level of agreement among students in terms f the advisor's responsibility to be knowledgeable about job outlooks 93.5% of the student sample); just 71.6% of the faculty agreed this heuld be one of their responsibilities. Interestingly. students and aculty did not agree on faculty's being responsible for informing fa I‘E HIE th 88 GP; the are Stu Sta to - res 47 students about extracurricular activities. Ninety—one percent of the faculty agreed that obtaining such information should be the student's responsibility. whereas 41% of the students thought it should be the faculty‘s responsibility. In Larsen and Brown's (1982) study. more students (542) than faculty (32%) said that the adviser should visit the instructor to monitor students' progress in a course. Although the authors found that faculty and students agreed that students "should make their own decisions and be responsible for them" (p. 4). students expected a paternalistic involvement on the part of the adviser. However. the faculty themselves were less willing to become involved in that type of relationship. In a study at the University of Arizona. elementary education majors were asked to rate the extent to which advisors were meeting their advising needs (Chorosky. 1983). The need most frequently named as insufficiently addressed by faculty members was "professional devel- opment." Chorosky recommended that an effort should be made to ecognize the advising function as a faculty priority. Interestingly. he literature consistently mentioned professional development as one tea in which the faculty is fairly well prepared to help students. In a study of the academic advisor's role as perceived by faculty. tudents. and administrators from a midwestern four-year comprehensive tate—supported university. subjects were asked to indicate the extent 0 which they perceived 52 tasks as a "primary." "shared." or "not a esponsibility" of the academic advisor (Guinn. 1985L Guinn exper tratc advis expec exper: faculw cernir trains and a remai result Pr00f (1978) rating: adViSe when i 48 identified six categories of responsibilities: (a)course selection. (b) career planning. “9 information giving. (d) institutional knowl- edge. and (e) personal development. Based on the responses of 620 students. 171 faculty members. and 68 administrators. Guinn found significant differences among groups on 39 of the 91 comparisons made across student demographic and academic variables. as well as years of experience. discipline, and educational level of faculty and adminis— trators. She concluded that differences in perceptions of the academic advisor's role demonstrated a need to define their responsibilities. Russel and Sullivan (1979) concluded that faculty should not be expected to help students with their career development. Results of an experiment conducted at Memorial University of Newfoundland in which faculty advisors were trained to raise their level of awareness con- cerning career-planning issues showed that students who were advised by trained advisors became less certain of their own values. interests. nd abilities in relation to their career choices. The question emains whether self-questioning and a degree of uncertainty. which esults from self-appraisal. should be seen as a negative outcome and roof of faculty inefficiency as advisors Contrary to the above-cited study. in a survey conducted by Wesley 1978) at Oklahoma State University. advisers who received the highest atings of excellence were those who discussed career issues with their dvisees. However. it should be pointed out that in Wesley's study hen faculty advisors Were compared with nonfaculty advisors Flt—"'7' ' 7‘ (pro: highe tions regar advie junio acade evide relat idea ' model the Be 10 49 (professional counselors and other personnel). the latter received higher ratings. Hoffman (1972) found significant differences between the percep- tions of students and faculty members frmn Michigan State University regarding 18 out of 47 services they thought should be provided by the advising personnel. It is interesting that sophomores. more than juniors. identified career concerns as a need that should be met during academic advising sessions with the faculty advisor. These results add evidence to the notion that differences in student needs might be related to students' development throughout their college years. This idea was proposed by (YBannion et al. (1972) and Grites (1979) in their models of academic advising. Hoffman identified 12 functions of the faculty advisor. He said the adviser could provide help with: 1. curriculum planning and registration each term 2. drop and add procedures 3. section changes 4. making program adjustments 5. long-range academic program planning 6. referral services 7. helping superior students 8. helping students who are weak academically 9. fostering personal development of all students 10. motivating students advi facu 111081 thes thei' facu dent Effee Fami] repor the c 1964 With stude etude With 1964. with 1 50 11. developing career plans 12. identifying institutional resources Fashbender (1970) demonstrated that students preferred the faculty advisor as a person with whom to discuss concerns about majors. When faculty advisers were asked to indicate which students they had helped most. they consistently chose those who were free from unusual personal or academic problems. However. contrary to findings of other studies. these same faculty advisors received higher ratings of efficiency from their advisees than counselors did from their advisees. Apparently the faculty advisors'being able to volunteer and choose the type of stu— dent or kind of problem they are willing to deal with has a positive effect on the quality of the services they provide. Polson and Jurich (1979) found that students who had used the Family Child Development and Advising Center at Kansas State University reported "career." "graduation requirements." and "choice of major" as 1 the concerns they would bring to their adviser. Donk and Getting (1968) conducted a longitudinal study in which 1964 freshman students' perceptions of the adviser as a source of help with academic and personal problems were compared with those same students' perceptions as juniors in 1967. It was found that. in 1964. students would rather go to a faculty advisor with an academic than ith a personal problem. Three years later. fewer students than in 964 said they would go to a faculty advisor to discuss and be helped with a personal problem. 1 l r 1 st tt tt fa re be me ad th ad- 51 A comparison of faculty advisors' and students' rankings of functions demonstrated a lack of agreement between the two groups at the Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis. Minnesota (Ryan. 1980). Faculty advisors identified "to clarify university policies and procedures" as the most important function. Students rated this func- tion sixth in importance. The function students rated most important was that the adviser "be aware of my progress on my degree plan." Faculty advisors ranked this function seventh in importance. Ryan also observed a lack of agreement between groups on the second-most- important function. Faculty advisors ranked "advocacy" second in importance. whereas students ranked it seventh. Students ranked "make learning opportunities known to me" as the second-most— important func— tion of the adviser, whereas faculty ranked it fifth. Ryan noted that students tended to emphasize the personal aspect of the relationship: They wanted the adviser to be knowledgeable about how they could meet their career goals and to provide help by referring them to services that might enhance their learning experiences. 0n the other hand. faculty tended to underscore the administrative aspect of students' relationship with the university as the area in which they could be of help. In 1971 Witters and Miller surveyed 300 students and 14 faculty embers to ascertain their perceptions of what students expected of the dvisor. the characteristics of a good adviser. the students'role in he advising process. and the expected relationship between student and advisor. The researchers found differences in expectations and perc senic "frit facul were liste (1974 Child "warn ors. sonal perce and v “I‘ve; to pr: StUd91 on thl 0n thi and/o: PIESQ; their natUre 52 perceptions between freshmen and sophomores and between juniors and seniors. In general. students wanted their advisors to be "organized." "friendly." "competent." and "easy to get along withfl' Students and faculty agreed that the most salient characteristics of a good adviser were "friendship." "helpfulnessfl'"competencyfl"Willingness to listen," "pleasing personality." and "cheerfulnessfl' Similarly, Grites (1974) concluded that students from the Department of Elementary. Early Childhood. and Secondary Education at the College Park Campus desired a "warm." "friendly," "personal" relationship with their faculty advis— ors. For the most part. students indicated they did not want a per- sonal or close relationship with the faculty. Conversely. faculty perceived that students would like to be helped with personal. social, and vocational concerns. Witters and Miller concluded from their survey that advising should be part of faculty members' teaching load. to provide enough time to develop a significant relationship with their students. Research on the Advisor—Advisee Relationship Research related to advising functions is more prevalent than that n the nature of the adviser—advisee relationship. Also. more studies n the latter topic have dealt with outcomes than with expectations nd/or processes. In this section. a review of the following topics is resented: (a) student and faculty characteristics that influence heir relationship. (b) student and faculty perceptions regarding the ture of their relationship during advising. and (c) the relationship U is of th te pet or de: tai ac; ad\ adv wit 53 between the characteristics of the student—adviser contact and some outcome measures. Most faculty advising sessions are held in a private. face—to—face situation in which the faculty member assumes the position of helper and the student is the helpee. Because in most academic advising programs described in the literature students were assigned to one faculty member, Bennett (1979) became interested in identifying what made students from the University of Maryland School of Social Work choose particular advisors in a university where they were free to select the adviser. "Humaneness" and "competence in advising" were the traits students cited most frequently as the most important character— istics that had made them select their advisors. Bennett's findings were confirmed by Hornbuckle and Mahoney (1979) in a study Conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Arts and Sciences. Students' evaluations of their advisors and of the advising program were not based on perceptions of the faculty's technical competence or skill in dealing with students' academic or personal problems. Rather. students' ratings of advisors on the social or interpersonal dimensions accounted for the differences between stu— dents with high and low satisfaction. Hornbuckle and Mahoney main— tained that this was due to students' inability to compare advisors on cademic knowledge because each student was assigned to only one dvisor. 0n the contrary. students could react to and compare the dvisors' interpersonal skills with their own interpersonal skills or ith those of other professors. senic year Thir' inclt cern. tions goal. relat advit relat betwe at th diffs orien Persc each dents‘ fOund betwe satisj Etude 54 Carney and Barak (1976) conducted a telephone survey of 212 seniors registered at Ohio State University during the 1974—75 academic year concerning what they perceived to be their most pressing needs. Thirteen academic. interpersonal. and intrapersonal issues were included in the interview. Choice of major was the first-ranked con— cern. However. students did not feel pressed for "interpersonal rela- tionships" with their advisors. and "personal growth" was not a primary goal. Some researchers have been interested in determining the relationship between personality characteristics and certain academic advising outcomes. To gain insight into the nature of the advising relationship. Manuel (1972) conducted a study of the relationship between the satisfaction of students in the General Curriculum Center at the University of Illinois with the advisor and the similarities or differences between student and advisor on "autonomy." “religious orientationfl'and "practical outlook" dimensions. Using the Omnibus Personality Inventory. Manuel classified students as high or low on each of the dimensions. He used a Likert-type scale to measure stu- dents' degree of satisfaction with their advisors. No relationship was ound between students'characteristics or the degree of similarity etween students'and advisors'characteristics and their perceived atisfaction with the advisors. In a similar study that was not directly related to advising but 8 relevant to the purpose of this study. Feinberg (1969) assumed that tudents might be differentially equipped to establish relationships wit} siox Inve such warn atti prof advi foun redu< for ' t0 se SUppc and e 0f EC “int: fOlmd Gatis tiven and w tiOns] 55 with the faculty. A measure of the "introversion—extreversion" dimen- sion was obtained using the Minnesota. Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The researcher then correlated the students'answers to such questions as: How important is it that your professors maintain a warm and understanding attitude toward you personally? Feinberg found no relationship between students' level of introversion and their attitudes toward the value and importance of their contact with the professors. In a more recent case study of the implementation of a faculty advising program in 31 teaching—oriented institutions. Barr (1983) found that factors considered important to the program's success in reducing attrition from 35% to 25% were (a) faculty's responsibility for the well-being and advising of freshmen. (b) students' opportunity to see their advisors weekly, and (c) the faculty‘s ability to express support. Dautch (1972) examined the relationship between satisfaction with and effectiveness of academic advising services provided by the College of Education at Florida State University as perceived by advisees. In winter 1972. 184 students answered a 40-item questionnaire. Dautch found that an overall positive relationship existed between students' satisfaction with advising and their judgment of the advisors' effec- tiveness. Students made very positive comments about their advisors and were able to distinguish between their satisfaction with the rela— tionship and the advisors' degree of effectiveness. r 1 ti Se no Pe' at We 11161 th: Que in Aw Pos 56 In a study of expectations regarding interpersonal relationships during advising sessions and the quality of the actual contact. Schwarts (1972) defined that relationship as similar to the counselor- counselee one. He provided training to a group of faculty members from the University of Wisconsin based on Carl Rogers‘s theory of personal— ity change. which states that counselors' empathy. congruence. positive regard. and unconditionality are the only necessary conditions of a helping relationship. A group of 171 students and 50 faculty advisors participated in the study. Schwarts reported that students experienced with their advisors the kind of relationship they had expected to have. Advisers were described as empathic. congruent. and able to show posi— tive regard and unconditionality. At Oklahoma State University, the Director of the Office of Services conducted a study to compare professional counselors. nonfaculty advisers. and faculty advisors with regard to students' perceptions of their effectiveness (Wesley. 1978). Lower—rated faculty dvisers included those who had been advisors longer. were older. and ere devoting more time to administrative tasks. research. or committee embership. Again. students seemed able to distinguish and evaluate he faculty—advisor's competence in the advising functions and the uality of their interaction. Advisers were rated higher in competence n the advising functions than in the quality of advising interaction. vailability and access of the advisors accounted for studenty ositive judgment of their effectiveness. and Minn sexes advie "the expe. info: highe cant the m grout advie found advis NEW 5 Permi and "( UMNn istiCE Etude] major Values with 1 57 A study about similarities in expectations between adult students and faculty advisors of the Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis. Minnesota. revealed significant differences between the sexes (Ryan. 1980). More female than male students related with their advisors in a personal way; their "development of self-awareness" and "the advisor's availability" were the most important factors they expected from the advising service. Male students marked "career information" and "clarifying university policies and procedures" as higher priorities than did their female counterparts. Another signifi— cant difference between male and female students was observed: 80% of the male respondents rated "similarity of work or educational back- ground" as the reason they would like to be assigned to a certain adviser. whereas only 50% of the female students did so. Ryan also found significant differences between advisors with 0 to 2 years of advising experience and those with more than 2 years of experience. New advisors expected their relationship with advisees to be a permissive one. They mentioned "allowing students to make decisions" and "developing the student's self—awareness" as very important goals. Polson and Jurich (1979) reported that students from Kansas State niversity singled out "respect." "warmth." and "concern" as character— 'stics of effective advisors. It is important to point out that these tudents cited "career." "graduation requirements." and "choice of aj or" as the concerns they would bring to their advisor. "Personal alues and problems" were not considered appropriate topics to discuss ith their advisors. Students characterized a healthy and effective 38 ti- Stl be Si: ado Dre 58 relationship with advisors as one in which the advisor showed "respect. warmth and concern for the advisee" (p. 99% Similarly, in a study conducted by Donk and Getting (1968). the nature of the relationship students said they had with their selected (as opposed to assigned) advisors was mentioned as the reason they had chosen those advisors. In this case. students obviously knew the professors as teachers before selecting them as advisors. Juniors (94%) and sophomores (89%). more than freshmen (41%). had changed their assigned advisors for that very reason. Larsen and Brown (1983) were interested in studying student as opposed to faculty expectations regarding the accessibility of faculty advisors from four different universities: the University of Wyoming. Manhattan State University. Kansas State University. and the University of Nebraska. Two items were developed to measure that dimension: An academic advisor should be expected to: Take the initiative to inform students of office hours. Take the initiative to seek out students who fail to consult with the advisor. (p. 36) The authors found that 82% of the students and 69% of the faculty agreed that informing students of office hours should be an expecta— tion. Less disagreement was observed on the second item; 46% of the students and 36% of the faculty thought that academic advisors should be expected to seek out students. Although Larsen and Brown did not indicate whether the differences they found were statistically significant. it can be concluded that students expected faculty dvisors to provide information that would facilitate contact but referred to take the initiative in talking with their advisors. conc rele effe thei Resu "sof scie were ones f011< mode: adVie Self~ is fa prOfE 59 Although not directly related to academic advising. a study conducted by Vreeland and Bidwell (1966) at Eastern University is relevant to this investigation. In that research on the socializing effects of colleges. the researchers found that disciplines or fields of study were characterized by the extent to which faculty considered their personal contact and interaction with students important. Results demonstrated that faculty in the humanities tended to be "soft." "eccentric." and "heretical." whereas those in the social sciences were "severe" and "tense." Faculty in the natural sciences were the least interested in interactions with the students and the ones reporting the least actual interaction. Summary This chapter contained a review of related research in the following areas: definitions of academic advising. academic advising models. faculty roles and academic advising. functions of the academic advisor. and aspects of the advisor—advisee relationship. The review of literature demonstrated a lack of agreement about the specific functions on which the faculty advisor could be effective. Some areas in which the faculty advisor could be trained to help the student are: (a) vocational decision making throughout college. (b) understanding of administrative processes. (c) course planning and schedule. and (d) self—understanding and solution of personal problems. Although advising is far from being considered one of the most important tasks of the professor. it is not new as an expected service to be provided by the fac adv abll 88' tim ter desi 60 faculty. Research has shown that the personal interaction between advisor and advisee is important for advising to be considered valu- able. However. although several names have been used to identify what a student considers a "good" advisor. it is considered a helping rela- tionship. The student expects the advisor to exhibit certain charac- teristics during the advising contacts. In the next chapter. the design and methodology of the present investigation are discussed. The j students a Metropoli' and to co design we advisor's IEIationsi and facult This POPUlatiop and the da Two I Students RiCo, Met st“dents e that numbe academic StUdents. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purposes of this study were to assess the expectations that students and faculty of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Metropolitan Campus. had of an undergraduate academic advising program and to compare those expectations. A descriptive survey research design was used. The dependent variables were expectations of the advisor‘s functions and of the characteristics of the advisor-advisee relationship. The dependent variables were measured for both student and faculty samples. This chapter contains a description of the characteristics of the epulations and samples. the instruments used. the procedures followed. nd the data-analysis techniques. Two populations were of interest in this study: undergraduate tudents and the faculty of the Interamerican University of Puerto iCO. Metropolitan Campus. The total population of undergraduate udents enrolled during the 1985—86 academic year numbered 11.635. Of at number. 58% were females and 42% were males. The most populated ademic field was Economics and Administrative Sciences with 4.348 udents. 37.7% of the student population. The second in enrollment was Scie four acad 1.398 (12 0.1%) in student 1 field. T and gende Table 3.1 \- Fie1< \ Economics Sciences 6 Education BEhEVioral Nursing Humanities Undeclared Total \ The f sixtY‘One FiftY‘four Division. tive Scien and 26 (11' 0f the fam 62 was Sciences and Technology with 4,237 students (36.7%). The other four academic fields shared 25.6% of the student population as follows: 1.398 (12%) were in Education. 961 (8%) in Behavioral Sciences. 362 (3.1%) in Nursing, and 219 (1.9%) in Humanities. About 6% of the student population were undeclared or uncoded in terms of academic field. The distribution of the student population by field of study and gender is shown in Table 3.L Table 3.1: Distribution of the Student Population by Field and Gender Gender Total Field Female Male N % Economics & Admin. Sciences 2.831 1.517 4.348 37.37 Sciences & Technology 1.976 2.261 4.237 36.41 Education 1.042 356 1,398 12.01 Behavioral Sciences 628 333 961 8-25 Nursing 336 26 362 3.11 Humanities 139 80 219 1.88 Undeclared/uncoded 110 5.97 Total 6,952 4.573 11.635 100.00 The full—time faculty population was composed of 241 professors Sixty-one percent of the faculty were females. and 39% were males. Fifty—four (22%) of them were assigned to the Sciences and Technology ivision. 47 (19%) to Humanities. 42 (18%) to Economics and Administra- ive Sciences. 36 (16%) to Behavioral Sciences. 35 (15%) to Education. nd 26 (11%) to the Nursing School. Tab1e3.2 shows the distribution f the faculty population by field and gender. Table 3.1 Fielc Economics Sciences Education Behaviors Nursing Humanitie m Note: In The instructo; Ciate pro: ing profe: 73 (3oz) appointing Professor members w Offic members w: of Puerto this Study advising i 63 Table 3.2: Distribution of the Faculty Population by Field and Gender Gender Field Female Male Total N % N % N % Economics & Admin. Sciences 21 47 21 53 42 58 Sciences & Technology 25 46 29 54 54 22 Education 25 71 10 28 35 14 Behavioral Sciences 18 50 18 50 36 16 Nursing 26 100 .. .. 26 ll Humanities 33 70 14 30 47 19 Note: Includes adjunct and substituting professors. The distribution of faculty by rank was as follows: 95 (39%) were instructors. 68 (29%) were assistant professors. 50 (21%) were asso- ciate professors. 24 (10%) were full professors, and 3 (1%) were visit— ing professors. Ninety (37%) faculty members had temporary contracts. 73 (30%) were on a probationary status, and 52 (22%) had a tenure appointment with the university. Twenty-five (10%) were substituting professors who had been recruited because other full-time faculty nembers were on leave. Sample Officially registered undergraduate students and full-time faculty lembers working actively as professors at the Interamerican University f Puerto Rico. Metropolitan Campus. constituted the population for his study. Part—time faculty members were excluded because academic dvising is not their responsibility. A p1 populatio A propor1 allowing goal was participe 38 (60%) ranged fr females 2 faculty pc The 1 the sample Nursing, ] ties, 12 ( One person The a Years. Tw were from not gin 1 members We Were asso. Bubiects (5 64 A proportional sample of 79 faculty members. 33% of the total population. was set as the number to represent the faculty population. A proportional stratified random sampling procedure was followed. allowing for all six fields and the two genders to be represented. The goal was to have 48 (61%) female and 31 (39%) male faculty members participate in the study. A 79% response rate (N = 63) was obtained: 38 (60%) females and 25 (39.6%) males. The response rate by field ranged from 56% to 100%. The response rate by gender was 80% for females and 77% for males. Table 3.3 presents the distribution of faculty population. sample. and response rate by field and gender. The respondents represented all six academic fields: 14 (22% of the sample) from Economics and Administrative Sciences. 6 (10%) from Nursing. 10 (16%) from Sciences and Technology. 9 (14.2%) from Humani- ties. 12 (19%) from Education. and 11 (17.4%) from Behavioral Sciences. One person (1.5%) did not indicate the field in which he worked. The age range of the sample was 39 years. with a mean age of 41 ears. Twenty-six faculty members were from 27 to 36 years of age. 19 are from 37 to 46. and 18 were 47 to 66 years old. One respondent did ot give his/her age. Nineteen (31%) of the participating faculty embers were instructors, 28 (46%) were assistant professors. 10 (16%) are associate professors. and 4 (6.6%) were full professors. Two ubjects (3.17%) did not indicate their rank. Table 3.1 Field Economics & Adm. Sc Nursing Science 8 Tech. Humanitie Education BEhaviora Sciences Did not identify Total \ The 1 study, PTObatiot Participa Provide t degrees; not Provi profESSor 65 Table 3.3: Distribution of Faculty Population. Expected and Actual Sample. and Response Rate by Field and Gender Expected Actual Response Sample Sample Rate Total Response Field Gender Gender Gender Rate F M F M F M Economics & Adm. Sc. 7 7 7 7 100% 100% 100% Nursing 8 .. 6 .. 75 75 Science & Tech. 8 10 3 7 38 70 56 Humanities 11 5 7 2 64 4O 56 Education 9 3 9 3 100 100 100 Behavioral Sciences 6 6 6 5 100 83 92 Did not identify field 1 Total 49 31 38 25 80 77 79 The number and percentage of faculty members participating in the Study. by type of appointment. were as follows: temporary: 23 (36.5%), probationary: 26(41.26%).and tenure: 9(14.2%L Three(4~76%)of the participants were substituting professors. and two (4.0%) did not provide this information. A large majority (41 or 67%) had master's degrees; 20 (33%) had doctoral degrees. Two of the participants did not provide that information. The range of years of experience as professors at the Interamerican University was 28. with a mean of 7 years. Ar. faculty sax The at study was planned to compare at student san professor b; to be selec was represe t0 be sampl Three' dents parti def. This I diStributim mlIIlbers of 1 The dis from Econom; (33g) from (13.12) frou (.52) Stu den 66 years. Appendix A presents a summary of descriptive data of the faculty sample. The sample of 671 undergraduate students participating in this study was 97.9% of the total 685 students the researcher originally planned to include. Because one of the purposes of this study was to compare student and faculty expectations. the goal of 685 for the student sample was set by determining the mean number of students per professor by field and gender. Twenty percent of that mean number was to be selected by each professor to be sampled. The student population was represented by a proportional number of students to each professor to be sampled of the same field and gender. Three hundred eighty-three (57%) female and 283 (42%) male stu- dents participated in the study. Five students did not indicate gen- der. This distribution by gender compared favorably with the student distribution by gender in the population. The expected and the actual numbers of students sampled are shown in Table 3.4. The distribution of students by field was as follows: 228 (34%) from Economics and Administrative Sciences. 24 (3.6%) from Nursing. 254 (38%) from Sciences and Technology. 17 (2.5%) from Humanities. 88 (13.1%) from Education. and 56 (8%) from Behavioral Sciences. Four (.5%) students did not state their field of study. Tabll Humar Educa Behav To EXpec field Nursi: field facul. Table 3.4: Distribution of Expected and Actual Numbers of Students Sampled by Field and Gender Expected Sample Actual Sample Discrepancy Field Gender Gender Gender F M F M F M Economics & Admin. Sciences 132 96 132 96 O 0 Nursing 18 6 l8 5 0 -1 Sciences & Tech. 112 150 112 142 0 -8 Humanities 11 6 11 6 0 0 Education 70 18 70 18 0 0 Behavioral Sci. 42 24 40 16 -2 —8 Total 385 300 383 283 -2 —19a aFive students did not indicate either gender or field. The proportional stratified sampling technique did not yield the expected results of proportions of students to faculty across all fields because of the low participation of faculty from some fields. Nursing. Science and Technology. and Humanities were the three academic fields with disproportions from the expected numbers of students to faculty sampled. (See Table 3.5) Table Fie Econc Am 0 Nursi Scien Techn Human Educa Behav Scien Did n ident To diStr Etude: the p baChe: (3%) wheth. 68 Table 3.5: Expected and Actual Proportions of Students to Faculty Sampled Expected Actual Field # of # of Proportion # of # of Proportion Stud. Fac. Fac.:Stud. Stud. Fac. Fac.:Stud. Economics & Adm. Sciences 228 14 1 16 228 14 1:16 Nursing 24 8 1:3 24 6 1:4 Sciences & Technology 262 18 1:14 254 10 1:25 Humanities 17 16 1:1 17 9 1:2 Education 88 13 1:7 88 13 1:7 Behavioral Sciences 66 112 1:6 56 11 1:6 Did not identify field 4 Total 685 80 671 63 The number of participating students compared favorably with the distribution by field in the population. Table 3.6 shows the number of students from each field who participated in the study. compared with the population numbers. The majority of students (653 or 97%) were studying toward a bachelor's degree. 15 (2.2%) were completing an associate degree. and 2 63%) a certificate. One student did not answer this question. Asked Whether they had initiated their higher education at the Metropolitan Lula Camp tran: provi credi not 1 stud Apper sampl Table Econo Nursi Scien Hunan EduCa Behav Missi To Data l Acade; ExPer 69 Campus. 402 (60%) respondents said they had. whereas 266 (40%) had transferred from another university or campus. Three students did not provide these data. The majority of respondents (65%) had completed 60 credit hours or more; the others had less than that. Ten students did not respond to this question. Six hundred twelve (91%) were full—time students; the others usually took fewer than 12 credits per term. Appendix B presents a summary of descriptive variables of the student sample. Table 3.6: Distribution of Student Population and Sample by Field of Study Sample % in the Field Number % Population Economics & Adm. Sciences 228 34.0 37.7 Nursing 24 3.6 3.1 Sciences & Technology 254 37.9 36.7 Humanities 17 2.5 1.9 Education 88 13.1 12.0 Behavioral Sciences 56 8.3 8.0 Missing data 4 .6 .6 Total 671 100.0 100.0 Development of the Instruments Four questionnaires were developed for this study: the Bio-Social Data Questionnaire. the Academic Advisor Functions Questionnaire. the Academic Advising Relationship Questionnaire. and the Academic Advising Experiences Questionnaire. ‘Two versions of each questionnaire were develc by is simil studer T acaden of see member held b L depenc qualit Furthe reseaz Providi the ad could finding the ad. (expect Tc instru1 literat Invent‘ for for 70 developed: one to be answered by students and the other to be answered by faculty members. The two versions of the questionnaires were similar, but some questions were modified for either faculty or students. The literature review suggested a need to define the role of academic advisor. A further need was to explore students' expectations of academic advisors when the advisory role is performed by a faculty member and the level of agreement between their expectations and those held by the faculty. Larsen and Brown (1982) stated that an advisor's effectiveness depends on how well he/she performs his/her obligations and on the quality of the relationship he/she establishes with the student. Furthermore. Hornbuckle and Mahoney (1979) concluded from their research that students tended to confuse the quality of the services provided by the advisor with the relationship they had established with the advisor. Bennett (1979) found. on the contrary. that students could distinguish functions from the relationship itself. These findings suggested the desirability of measuring functions (activities he advisor is expected to perform) separately from relationships (expected characteristics of the advisor-advisee interaction). To develop the list of functions of the advisor. several nstruments were examined in addition to a thorough review of the iterature. One of the instruments reviewed was the Academic Advising nventory (AAI) developed by Winston and Sander (1984). a useful tool or formative and summative evaluation and for research on this topic. Sc. wi so be tie no fr< da1 me' itc poi int the Stl Nev the Aca his Inf the and 71 The inventory comprises four Parts: (a) the Developmental—Prescriptive Scale. 00 the Advisor-Advisee Activities Scale. (c) the Satisfaction with Advising Scale. and 0D Demographic Information. Each part has several subscales. The Advisor—Advisee Activities Scale was found to be relevant to this study. It contains 30 items that describe activi- ties that "often take place in academic advising" (p. 13). The AAI was not submitted to statistical analysis for validatiom Only'bxperts from the field" reviewed the original pool of items and made recommen— dations. The authors stated that the items do not constitute "psycho- metrically unitary scales or factors." although five informal groups of items were presented. These groups are:(a) exploring institutional policies. (b) providing information. (c) personal development and interpersonal relationships. (d) registration and class scheduling. and (e) teaching personal skills. The scale used to record responses in the AAI was not considered appropriate for the present research because students were to check the number of times they had been involved in each activity. whereas this investigation dealt with expectations. Nevertheless. it was useful to review the AAI to get a general sense of the way items could be phrased. Another instrument reviewed was the Student Perceptions Toward Academic Advising Inventory (SPTAA). which Frink (1983) developed for his doctoral research. The SPTAA comprises five subscales: (a) Informative Advising.(b) Short—Term Course Selection. (c) Discerning he Purpose of the Institution, (d) Facilitating Student Development. nd (e) Long-Range and Career Planning. The validity of the instrument was a No st rel ia' the i consi perso: five- disagi I Univer man 5 Eight allude that t can "c the ad Saw an advise; often The-p. The in. student the PU! fit his do 72 was assessed using a panel of judges and a trial run with 25 students. No statistical analysis of validity (construct or internal) and reliability was performed. A peculiarity of Frink's instrument is that the items are phrased in the second—person-present form. This was considered an asset because the student could answer the item from a personal perspective and thus was adopted for this study. Frink used a five-point Likert scale. ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." which was adopted for the present study. A third instrument reviewed was one developed by Michigan State University's Office for Undergraduate Education to measure 1983 fresh- man students' perceptions of their experiences at the university. Eight items were directly related to academic advising; none of them alluded directly to the advisor's functions. although it can be deduced that the advisor is expected to "provide information" and that students can"consu1t"the advisor before registration. Two items dealt with the advisor‘s accessibility. and two others asked whether the student saw an advisor in his/her academic major area or in an undergraduate advisement center. As an evaluative instrument. the scale asked how often the student had experienced what the statement concerned. A five-point Likert scale was used. ranging from 'Very often" to "neverJ' The instrument is very useful when evaluating a complete program of student services but not as effective in measuring advising. which was :he purpose of this study. Hoffman's (1972) Academic Advisement Questionnaire. developed for is doctoral research. was also reviewed. He measured students' perceptions population c gan State U university. "must be prc fluormation The Stu conclude the two dependen 0f the advi consider the and faculty, that general; Content was 1 Four qul Study. The} tive data f: Spanish and I Sought inf or selected. ac transferred financial 8i d Withdrawal e: more). “8de ber of Cour. 73 perceptions of the importance of 30 services. Because the research population comprised enrollees of the College of Engineering at Michi— gan State University. most items pertained to that college and/or university. A five—point Likert-type scale was used. ranging from Wnust be provided“ to "should not be providedfl' Hoffman did not supply information regarding validity and reliability of the instrument. The study of several instruments led the present researcher to conclude that there was a need to develop an instrument to measure the two dependent variables: functions of the advisor and characteristics of the advisor—advisee relationship. That instrument needed to consider the idiosyncrasy of the institution to be relevant to students and faculty. However. items were constructed taking into consideration that generalizability of findings would depend on how valid the test content was to other populations. Four questionnaires were developed to collect the data for this study. The Bio-Social Data Questionnaire was used to collect descrip- tive data from students and faculty members. (See Appendix C for Spanish and English versions of this instrument.) The student form sought information on the following variables: age. academic major selected. academic field selected. academic degree sought. gender. ransferred or not. type of program of study. job. academic status. inancial aid. full- or part-time student. living arrangements. full- ithdrawal experience (drop out from all courses for one semester or ore). academic grade point average. course-withdrawal experience (num- er of courses front which student had dropped out). suspension experience. Bio-Social I academic fi highest degr Bio-Social D. considered 1 relationship: Two ins variables. '1 the Academic Advising Rel submitted to Counselors, c their knowled were 88ked t areas in whic Program durin adequacy with 0f the helper ship' The juc‘ One of the jm If any fUDCtic included. Ch based on these the arEas of 74 experience. and use of the counseling center.The faculty form of the Bio-Social Data Questionnaire sought data on the following variables: academic field (division). rank. type of appointment. gender. age. highest degree. and teaching experience. The questions included in the Bio-Social Data Questionnaire were short open or closed items that were considered appropriate either to describe the sample or to uncover relationships. if any. with the dependent variables. Two instruments were developed to collect data on the dependent variables. The review of literature provided the basis for developing the Academic Advisor Functions Questionnaire (AAFQ) and the Academic Advising Relationship Questionnaire CAARQL Seventy-eight items were submitted to a panel of four judges: two faculty members who were also counselors. one counselor. and one guidance center director. Based on their knowledge of college students' characteristics and needs. they were asked to judge the extent to which the items assessed all the areas in which students could be helped through an academic advising program during their college years. They were also asked to judge the adequacy with which the relationship items described actions required of the helper in order to develop an effective and helping relation- ship. The judges agreed that most of the items were correctly worded. ne of the judges suggested that two open questions be added to assess 'f any function the advisor should or should not perform had not been ncluded. Changes in wording and in the order of items were made. ased on these four judges' suggestions. Two items intended to assess he areas of study habits and skills were eliminated from the list “"1 following ti tion was e1 version of t The AAF other by fa- this instrum words used ‘ the activit] student for: The faculty ' about job 0p was precede: advisor shou] preceded by . University StUdents. I Partici: item on this items on the . The AARQ advising 1‘81 a1 of this ih8tr 75 following the recommendation of three of the judges because that func— tion was explicitly assigned to the counseling center. The final version of the AAFQ comprised 44 items; the AARQ comprised 32 items. The AAFQ had two versions: one to be answered by students and the other by faculty. (See Appendix D for Spanish and English versions of this instrumentJ The difference between the two versions was in the words used to describe the activity of the advisor. For example. if the activity was "provide information about job opportunities."the student form read "provide me information about job opportunitiesfl' The faculty version of this item read "provide to him/her information about job opportunities." Each statement in the student questionnaire was preceded by the phrase: "The faculty counselor assigned as my advisor should. .. ." Each statement in the faculty questionnaire was preceded by the phrase: "As part of my duties as a professor of this university I should provide academic advising to undergraduate students. I understand that as an academic advisor I should.. .." Participants used a five—point Likert scale to respond to each item on this questionnaire. The scale respondents used in answering items on the AAFQ was as follows: = In complete disagreement In disagreement Unsure = In agreement = In complete agreement A B C D E The AARQ was developed to measure characteristics of the academic Idvising relationship. (See Appendix E for Spanish and English versions f this instrumentJ It contained 32 items that described what the faculty advi advisee. to accessible t in which the in understa thinking, b1 This defini1 necessary at 1967). Effe meanings bet‘ this aSpect Perform to f. (Combs. Avil eXtent to wh makes the ne. easier for t1 Larsen 5. Brow The AARQ and the other the aetivity was "Listenin faculty quest the student q counsel” ass facu1ty qUES‘ IIIIIIIZ::::_______________T____TT_————————f—---—-—%+——-s ,," :rxmaxa_xi__,i,fi 76 faculty advisor should do to develop an empathic relationship with the advisee. to establish effective communication with him/her. and to be accessible to the advisee. An empathic relationship was defined as one in which the helper shows and communicates understanding of or interest in understanding advisees‘ private personal decision-making process. thinking, behaving. and feeling processes. verbally or nonverbally. This definition followed Carl Rogers's theoretical principle of the necessary conditions of a helping relationship (Rogers & Stevens. 1967). Effective communication was defined as a function of common meanings between advisor and advisee. The items developed to measure this aspect defined the behavior and activities the helper should perform to foster an open interchange of information with the advisee (Combs, Avila, & Purkey. 1971). Accessibility was defined as the extent to which the advisor provides the necessary information and makes the necessary arrangements to contact the advisee or to make it easier for the student to establish contact with him/her (Barr. 1983; Larsen & Brown, 1983; Ryan. 1980; Wesley. 1978). The AARQ also had two versions: one to be answered by students and the other by faculty. The difference between them was in the way the activity of the advisor was worded. For example. if the activity was "Listening," the student questionnaire read: "Listen to me"; the aculty questionnaire read: "Listen to him/her." Each statement in he student questionnaire was preceded by the phrase: "The faculty N ounselor assigned as my advisor should. . . . Each statement in the aculty questionnaire was preceded by the phrase: "As part of my duties as a advising to advisor I s five-point I The Ace measure the academic adv (See Appendi The instrume tions asked advisor sho The Other q adViSEes, hO‘ assigned adv riate. freq1 CUSSed dUril Service Pr0\ ability to I initiating C4 77 duties as a professor of this university I should provide academic advising to undergraduate students. I understand that as an academic advisor I should.. .." Participants responded to each item using a five-point Likert scale. in which = In complete disagreement = In disagreement Unsure = In agreement = In complete agreement m U n w > u The Academic Advising Experiences Questionnaire was developed to measure the experiences faculty and students might have had in the academic advising program since January 1985. when the program started (See Appendix F for Spanish and English versions of this instrumentJ The instrument comprised ten open and two closed questions. Two ques— tions asked if any advising function or activity that the faculty advisor should or should not do was not listed in the AAFQ or AARQ. The other questions measured knowledge of the assigned advisor or advisees. how that knowledge had been gained. adequacy of the number of assigned advisees or the number of assigned advisees considered approp— riate. frequency of contact with advisees or advisor. topic(s) dis— cussed during such contacts. evaluation of the interaction with and service provided by the advisor. evaluation of the faculty advisor's ability to perform the advising task, and interest in continuing or initiating contact with advisor or advisee. We: The researcher obtained a list of professors actively working as teachers during the 1985-86 academic year from the Office of Academic Affairs. T‘t sample. A c panied the c importance 0 be presented An instructic completed qu. tionnaires w. A follow-up j duced 3O mor was partially 53 faculty m4 rate of 792. Student; rooms VGre 3. Using field a students regj classroom 81 dtents. TWentj not pOSsible t grOUP, A tabl be visited. time. ( A Writ: See Appendix SUbj eCt 0f th‘ 78 Affairs. The four questionnaires were mailed to each professor in the sample. A cover letter. personally addressed to the professor. accom- panied the questionnaire. The cover letter explained the purposes and importance of the study. how subjects had been selected. how data would be presented. and that anonymity would be protected. (See Appendix G.) An instructions sheet and an addressed envelope in which to return the completed questionnaire were also included. Thirty-six completed ques- tionnaires were returned after the first mailing. a 56% response rate. A follow-up letter was sent 3 weeks after the first mailing. It pro- duced 30 more questionnaires. Two questionnaires were discarded; one was partially answered and another was not answered at all. In total. 63 faculty members returned usable questionnaires. a total response rate of 79%. Students were approached in the classrooms. Twenty-five class— rooms were selected through a stratified random sampling procedure using field and level of course as control variables. The number of students registered in each course guided the decision of how many classrooms should be selected to sample the expected number of stu- dents. Twenty—five alternate classrooms were selected in case it was not possible to administer the questionnaires to the initially selected group. A table of random numbers was used to select the classrooms to be visited. A 2-week period was set as the maximum administration ime. Awritten standard procedure was followed in each classroom. See Appendix H.) A letter was handed to each student as a potential ubject of the study. (See Appendix G.) Students could review the questionna ensure an i voluntary. was receive- random numb Questic into an IBb sample. (b) Package fox Program was The fa. academic £1; and teaching were Compu1 Variables; degree. gend financial ai eXPErience, 1 suspension 0 FrequenCies ‘ Emma. For ana groups. he s e 79 questionnaires after the letter was read aloud. This was done to ensure an informed consent and that response to the questionnaires was voluntary. Whenever more than the proposed number of questionnaires was received. participants were randomly eliminated. using the table of random numbers. Questionnaires were manually coded. and the responses were entered into an IBM 4381 computer. Three files were created: (a) student sample. (b) faculty sample. and (c) total sample. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et al.. 1983) computer program was used in analyzing the data. Analysis of the Data The faculty sample was described by means of seven variables: academic field. gender. age. rank. highest degree. type of appointment. and teaching experience. For that purpose. frequencies and percentages were computed. The student sample was described by means of 17 variables: age, academic major. selected academic field. academic degree. gender. transfer or not. type of program, job. academic status. financial aid. type of student. living arrangements. full—withdrawal experience. academic grade point average. course-withdrawal experience. suspension or probation experience. and use of the counseling center. requencies and percentages were also computed to describe the student ample. For analysis purposes. students were categorized into three age roups. based on the standard deviation and mean distribution of age. F-F'F" The three 31 was follows were 27-36, Nonpar The Mann-Wh: variables. variable had selected be advisor and using a fi‘ Whenever a ¢ nominal (in recommended establish t Statistical (1975). and : The Mar nonparametri. the tWO mess of the Signif groups. As a Etest When t met’ parti an the ones in 80 The three groups were l7-20. 21—25, and 26 or more. The same procedure was followed with the faculty group. The age groups for the faculty were 27—36, 37—46, and 47—66. Nonparametric statistics were selected to test the hypotheses. The Mann-Whitney U test was used with two-level nominal independent variables. The Kruskal—Wallis a test was used when the independent variable had more than two levels. These statistical procedures were selected because the dependent variables. i.eu functions of the advisor and relationship between advisor and advisee. were measured using a five-point Likert scale constituting an ordinal scale Whenever a distinction is made between an ordinal (dependent) and a nominal (independent) variable. nonparametric rank techniques are recommended to find differences between or among groups and hence to establish the relationship between the two variables. These two statistical tests were highly recommended by Miller (1964). Roscoe (1975). and Siegel (1972). The Mann-Whitney U test is considered one of the most powerful nonparametric statistics. It can be used to answer the question: Are the two measures taken from the same population? Hence. it is a test of the significance of differences in responses between two independent groups. As a nonparametric test it is an excellent alternative to the t test when the assumptions required by parametric statistics cannot be 9t. particularly the homogeneity of two independent samples. such as he ones in this study. The nm the probabi equal to 1/ . population To compute ranked. If flwould be t The distril table in whi large as. th lowing formu‘ [N H Si'eael (1972) the unit her This test ha: It EL1'60 allow tanks, Whene correCtion is The KruE to anew er tr P°Pu1at10n? 81 The nondirectional. two-tailed hypothesis is stated as: Ho A = B. the probability that the A measure (a) is greater than the B (b) is equal to l/2: P (a = b) = 1/2. If A and B were drawn from two different population in the dependent variable, the value of Q will approach 0. To compute the value of E. the scores for each of the samples are ranked. If 21 = smaller sample and 32 = greatest sample. the value of g would be the number of times a B rank is preceded by an A rank. + nb (n +l) b —ZR U ‘a 2 The distribution of U for small samples is known and presented in a table in which the probabilities for given sample sizes are given. For large 25- the value of E is transformed into a _Z_ value with the fol- lowing formula: 2 ‘ U H ' n n u /(n1) (n2) (nl)+n2+l ’ 12 Siegel (1972) stated that when E > 20 the distribution of H resembles the unit normal curve distribution. with mean = 0 and variance = l. is test has a correction for unequal 35 by weighting the rank scores t also allows for ties by assigning the mean rank to each of the tied anks. Whenever a tie occurs between the ranks of the two samples. a orrection is made in the standard deviation. The Kruskal-Wallis test is one type of analysis of variance used 0 answer the question: Are these E samples taken from the same opulation? It is highly recommended when more than two independent samples are test, the St a rank scorn of each sam to test whe that they h Wallis formt H: whereg =r Hm ERI=r m=s 2:3 Thegy large 28 am unequal 38 a each tied m ReSpons and the AARQ RESPODN coded Us ing 1 82 samples are compared in ordinal scale measures. As in the Mann-Whitney test. the scores of each sample are ordered from lower to higher. Then a rank score is assigned to each score starting with 1 up to E (E = sum of each sample's as). The ranks of each sample are added and compared to test whether their differences are sufficiently high to conclude that they have been taken from different populations. The Kruskal- Wallis formula is: J 2 = —-—l2——— Z (RJ) 1 — 3(N + l) where df = K—l n(n + l) K -————— _. J n where E = number of samples EJ = number of cases in g samples ZEJ = number of cases when samples are combined BJ = sum of ranks Z = add the 5 samples The p values are distributed like the chi—square distribution for large gs and k-l degrees of freedom. This test has a correction for unequal ES and for ties among the ranks by assigning the mean rank to each tied rank. Responses on the two dependent variables measured through the AAFQ and the AARQ were coded using the following five—point scale: Strongly agree = 5 Agree = 4 Unsure = 3 Disagree = 2 = l Strongly disagree Responses to the Academic Advising Experiences Questionnaire were oded using the following scales: Hypothesis The to Hypoth among academ underg To tes Variable w dEpendent v; level for 1 hYPOtheses t Ho: T Student functi¢ tional time among ; tYPES ( thEir e The fi. F8Culty EXpe to c°mP8re KI‘USkal_w a1] ei8hr flmc1 83 1. Knows who is his/her advisor/advisee Yes = 1 N0 = 2 2. An interview has taken place since January 1985 Yes 1 No 2 N ll Hypothesis Testing The following null hypotheses were tested. Hypothesis 1: There are no statistically significant differences among students of different academic fields. genders. ages. and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. To test this hypothesis. the field constituted the independent variable with six levels. Student expectations constituted the dependent variable. This required a Kruskal—Wallis test. Significance level for the tests was set at the.05 probability level. The sub- hypotheses were stated in the following form: Ho: There are no statistically significant differences among students of different fields regarding their expectations of the function of the advisor as a helper with educational and occupa- tional plans. Hypothesis 2: There are no statistically significant differences among faculty of different academic fields. ages. ranks. degrees. types of appointments. and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. The field constituted the independent variable with six levels. Faculty expectations constituted the dependent variable. The analysis to compare the expectations of faculty from the six fields required a ruskal—Wallis test Again. the dependent variable was divided into ight functions subscales. an overall relationship scale. and an independent was set at tested. Hypoth betwee expect For an of the ind: academic a expectatio relationsh Factor 2. ' The tests w for two-tai The AA analyses w: PIOposed co 1. Th analYses to Called feet to or Srea TESult 0f V. or greater 84 Lndependent relationship measure called Factor 2. Significance level was set at the .05 probability level. and ten subhypotheses were tested. Hypothesis 3: There are no statistically significant differences between faculty and students from the same field regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. For analysis purposes. faculty and students constituted two levels of the independent variable controlling for field. Expectations of an academic advising program constituted the dependent variable. The expectations were divided into eight functions subscales. an overall relationship scale. and an independent relationship measure called Factor 2. Ten subhypotheses were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test. The tests were repeated for each of the six fields. Significant level for two-tailed tests was set at the .05 probability level. Validity and Reliability of the Instruments The AAFQ and the AARQ were submitted to validity and reliability analyses with.the study sample to test their adequacy to measure the proposed constructs. The procedure was as follows. 1. The items were submittedtx>a principal component of factor analyses to reduce the number of items to a smaller number of variables called factors (Ferguson, 1981). Those factors with eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.0 were submitted to a varimax rotation. As a result of varimax rotation analysis. those items with loadings equal to or greater than.30 were selected. 2. ( reliabilit; taken as e Coefficiet based on it mended as basic rese 3. T. to the meat overall sc higher the: overall sc These student an< assess the samples' 3 heterogene 3r°UPs. t betWeen 31 891ected f< b°th sampl. The Va discussed c 85 2. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to measure the reliability of each factor. Alpha coefficients greater than .70 were taken as evidence that the items were reliable measures of the factor. Coefficient alpha is the basic formula for determining reliability. based on internal consistency and on the number of items;.70 is recom— mended as the cutoff point to judge the reliability of a measure in basic research (Nunnally. 1978L 3. To assess the extent to which the subscales were contributing to the measuring of the same dimension and hence could be treated as an overall scale. alpha coefficients were computed and expected to be higher than .70 to indicate the factors were reliable measures of the overall scale. These three steps were followed for the total sample and for the student and faculty samples separately. This allowed the researcher to assess the agreement between the structure of the student and faculty samples' scores. Nunnally (1978) stated that factors sustained by heterogeneous groups frequently tend to disappear with homogeneous groups. Thus. he recommended studying the effect of differences between subjects in the definition of factors. Items and scales selected for further analysis should meet the specified standards with both samples. to be considered reliable. The validation process followed and the results for each scale are discussed on the following pages. Validity ar Forty- to measure to the ques Four C Theitemst pages. These the 44 item analysis sh higher the factor anal eisht fact 86 'alidity and Reliability of the AAFQ Forty-four items constituted the AAEQ scale. which was developed to measure the dependent variable: functions of the advisor. Answers to the questionnaire were recorded using a five-point scale. in which A. In complete agreement = 5 points B. In agreement = 4 points C. Unsure = 3 points D. In disagreement = 2 points E. In complete disagreement = 1 point Four dimensions were identified through the review of literature. The items constructed for each dimension are shown in the following pages. These four dimensions were factor analyzed to determine whether the 44 items could. in fact. be treated as four factors. The initial analysis showed that only eight factors reached eigenvalues equal to or higher than 1.0. as shown in Table 3.7. Consequent rotated varimax factor analysis distributed the 44 items that constituted the AAFQ into eight factors. Dimen Item No. 10 20 21 22 27 87 Dimension 1: Knowledge of university procedures and policies Item No. Item Content 1 Inform about scholarships. loans and employment oppor— tunities 2 Help the student to understand enrollment. withdrawal and payment procedures 3 Inform about student services such as cafeteria. library. bookstore 7 Inform about the requirements to take a course or major 8 Inform about the norms. related to the transfer from the university 9 Inform about the regulations concerning the validation. substitution and exemption of courses 10 Inform about the regulations concerning probation and suspension from the university 20 Help the student to solve problems related to university procedures 21 Explain the purposes of general education courses 22 Explain the relationship between general education courses and academic major courses 27 Inform student of the requirements of his/her major Item No. ll 14 28 29 30 31 35 37 38 88 Dimension 2: Set vocational. occupational. and/or educational goals Item No. Item Content 11 Suggest courses according to the student's interests and needs 14 Suggest courses which can help the student choose a career 23 Explain the different ways to take courses. such as: independent study. seminars. and internships 28 Assist in judging the different job alternatives the stu- dent may have if he/she takes given courses 29 Help the student to identify different vocational goals before making a decision 30 Inform about educational opportunities available after the completion of the bachelor. associate. or professional certificate degree 31 Explain the relationship between courses in progress and the ones the student will take in the future 35 Explain job opportunities available after graduation 37 Encourage the student to evaluate his/her goals according to academic progress 38 Encourage the student to establish vocational and occupa— tional goals Item No. 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 33 32 34 36 89 Dimension 3: Course schedule and program planning Item No. Item Content 5 Inform about the content of courses offered by the uni— versity 6 Inform about the different majors offered by the univer- sity 12 Assist the student in preparing a class schedule taking course difficulty into consideration 13 Assist the student in preparing a class schedule accord- ing to his/her needs 15 Discuss the reasons the student may have to add or with- draw from a course and help him/her to make a decision 16 Sign add and drop forms 17 Advise about difficulties the student may encounter if he/she registers for too many courses or several courses with a high level of rigor 18 Suggest challenging courses 19 Know the student's academic progress through each semester 33 Explain the different majors within the student's selected field of study 32 Guide the student toward the completion of the major requirements 34 Guide the student toward the completion of graduation requirements 36 Follow the student's academic progress through the college years Item No. 24 25 26 39 40 41 42 43 44 90 Dimension 4: Overall development Item No. Item Content 24 Help the student understand the value that the university may have for his/her life 25 Assist the student to understand how he/she interacts with university life 26 Help the student understand the importance and value that college education may have 39 Inform about extracurricular activities 40 Discuss social issues if presented by the student 41 Discuss political issues if presented by the student 42 Discuss with the student aspects concerning his/her moral development 43 Help the student deal with personal and/or family problems 44 Help the student choose activities which may contribute to his/her total development Table 3.7: # Factor J> Lo ho #4 Dimen found to c Q was me: general st 7. 8. 9. i measuring Of an acad sion 2, Se' down into initially initially demic majc with long- that dealt 6' and one advice rel. A new aspe initially 91 Table 3.7: Eight Factors With Eigenvalues Equal to or Higher Than 1.0 Factor Eigenvalue Factor Eigenvalue l 16.04 5 1.34 2 3.08 6 1.22 3 2.34 7 1.17 4 8 1.06 1.58 Dimension 1, Knowledge of university procedures and policies, was found to comprise two groups of items. One group (Items 1, 2, 3, and 4) was measuring the provision of information about bureaucratic and general student services. becoming Function 5. The other group (Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 21, and 22) and two items from Dimension 3 were measuring advice related to university procedures and policies but more of an academic nature; hence they were grouped into Function 3. Dimen- sion 2. Set vocational, occupational. and educational goals. was broken down into several functions. proving that it was too comprehensive as initially proposed. Functions 1.14.6, and 7 were formed with items initially grouped under Dimension 2. Items that dealt with the aca- demic major and occupational plans formed Function 1. those that dealt with long—term vocational decision making formed Function 7. the items that dealt with course scheduling and planning became part of Function 6. and one item became part of Function 4. The dimension measuring advice related to overall development remained as proposed--Function 2. A new aspect, discovered through factor analysis. comprised four items initially proposed under Dimension 3. This new aspect was named Monitoring the adviso estingly. was more c progress t? Finali as follows F' F. F The n areas of h exPlain t1 tive anal} interrel at labeling. tions 1, 3 tions. th function, 3'8 throng 92 Monitoring academic involvement because all of the items were measuring the advisor's direct intervention into the student's progress. Inter- estingly. these items were measuring activities in which the advisor was more of an authority figure. ensuring that student actually makes progress through the college years. Finally. the items that constituted the functions were distributed as follows: Function l-—Items 27, 28, 30, 31, 32. 33, 34. 35 Function 2—-Itens 39, 40. 41, 42, 43. 44 Function 3--Items 5, 8. 9. 10 Function 4--Items 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 Function 5--Items 1. 2. 3, 4 Function 6--Items ll. 12. 13, 14, 15 Function 7——Items 29. 36, 37, 38 Function 8--Ite:ms 17, 18, 19 The new structure uncovered through varimax rotation specified the areas of help and ordered the functions according to their ability to explain the variance of the total score (Ferguson, 1981). A substan- tive analysis of the items' content showed that the nature of their interrelationship was amenable to psychological interpretation and to labeling. The eight functions explained 63.3% of the variance; Func— tions 1, 2. and 3 explained 48.8% of the variance. The eight func- tions, the title assigned to each. the items included under each function, and each rotated factor item loadings are presented in Table 3.8 through 3.15. Table 3.8: Item No. 33 35 30 34 28 32 31 27 93 Table 3.8: Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 1: Educational and Occupational Plans Item No. Item Content Loading 33 Explain the different majors within the .78313 selected field of study 35 Explain job opportunities available after .73942 graduation 30 Inform about educational opportunities .71007 available after the completion of the bachelor. associate or professional certificate degree 34 Guide the student toward the completion .67084 of graduation requirements 28 Assist in judging different job alternatives .65427 the student may have if he/she takes given courses 32 Guide the student toward the completion of .65318 the major requirements 31 Explain the relationship between courses .63853 in progress and the ones the student will take in the future 27 Inform student of the requirements of .50319 his/her major Table 3.9: Item No. 43 42 41 40 44 39 94 Table 3.9: Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 2: Overall Development Item No. Item Content Loading 43 Help the student deal with personal and/or .79317 family problems or concerns (not neces— sarily related to the university) 42 Discuss aspects concerning the student's .78261 moral development 41 Discuss political issues if presented by .77966 the student 40 Discuss social issues if presented by the .72746 student 44 Help the student choose activities which may .63881 contribute to his/her total development 39 Inform about extracurricular activities .55998 Table 3.10 Item No. 20 10 95 Table 3.10: Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 3: Academic Offerings. Norms and Procedures Item No. Item Content Loading 9 Inform about the regulations concerning the .72830 validation. substitution and exemption of courses 5 Inform about the content of courses offered .66762 by the university 7 Inform about the requirements to take a .61921 course or to select a given major 8 Inform about the norms related to the .59377 transfer from the university 6 Inform about the different majors offered .53509 by the university 20 Help the student solve problems related .50808 to university procedures 10 Inform about the regulations concerning .44793 probation and suspension from the university Table 3.11 Item No. 24 26 25 21 22 23 Table 3.12 Itm N0. Table 3.11: 96 Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 4: Meaning of a College Education Item No. Item Content Loading 24 Help the student understand the value the .72813 university may have for his/her life 26 Help the student understand the importance .68490 and value that college education may have 25 Assist the student to understand how he/she .63062 interacts with university life 21 Explain the purposes of general education .53684 courses 22 Explain the relationship between general .48026 education courses and academic major courses 23 Explain the different ways to take courses. .38955 such as independent study. internships and seminars Table 3.12: Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 5: University Student Services Item No. Item Content Loading 2 Help the student understand enrollment. .73057 withdrawal. and payment procedures 3 Inform about student services such as .71109 cafeteria. library. and bookstore 1 Inform about scholarships. loans. and .62395 employment opportunities 4 Refer the student to university services .61451 when necessary Table 3.12 Item No. 13 12 11 14 15 Tab1e 3.14 Item No. 38 37 36 29 97 Table 3.13: Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 6: Class Schedule and Programs of Study Item No. Item Content Loading 13 Assist the student in preparing a class .73128 schedule according to his/her needs 12 Assist the student in preparing a class .68639 schedule taking course difficulty into consideration 11 Suggest courses according to the student's .62894 interests and needs 14 Suggest courses which can help the student .57871 choose a career 15 Discuss the reasons the student may have to .36900 add or withdraw from a course and help him/her make a decision Table 3.14: Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Function 7: Vocational Decision Making Item No. Item Content Loading 38 Encourage the student to establish voca- .64857 tional and occupational goals 37 Encourage the student to evaluate his/her .62430 goals according to academic progress 36 Follow the student's academic progress .59676 through college years 29 Help the student identify different voca— .50803 tional goals before making a decision Table 3.13 Item No. 18 19 17 16 Reli: student a showed th raHEEd fr Table 3.11 \ Sample Total Student Faculty 98 Table 3.15: Loading of Each Item Under AAFQ Function 8: Monitoring Academic Involvement Item No. Item Content Loading 18 Suggest challenging courses .63468 19 Know the student's academic progress .58619 through each semester 17 Advise about difficulties the student may .57127 encounter if he/she registers for too many courses or several courses with a high level of rigor 16 Sign add and drop forms .42847 Reliability coefficients computed for the total sample and for the student and faculty samples separately. with the remaining items, showed that all eight functions could be retained. Alpha coefficients ranged from {74 to.9l. (See Table 3.16J Table 3.16: Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients for Total, Student. and Faculty Samples for the Eight Functions of the AAFQ Function Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total .90 .87 .87 .80 .80 .82 .82 .82 Student .91 .87 .81 .81 .79 .81 .81 .82 Faculty .85 .81 .79 .77 .79 .80 .86 .78 Anal an overal scale wa total. st 3.17. Ke from.50 However, observed demonstra measures. was not c we Thir the depe1 Students‘ recorded Thre turQ‘ en 99 Analyses were conducted to determine the desirability of creating an overall scale by combining the scores of all eight functions. This scale was submitted to validity and reliability analyses with the total. student, and faculty samples. Results are presented in Table 3.17. Kendall correlation coefficients with the total sample ranged from..50 to.65; with the student sample. they ranged from .48 to.66. However. with the faculty sample. coefficients as low as .42 were observed. and only Function 7 reached a coefficient of .60. This demonstrated that the functions could better be treated as independent measures. Thus. an overall scale to measure functions of the advisor was not created. Validity and Reliability of the AARQ Thirty-two items constituted the AARQ. which was used to measure the dependent variable: relationship between advisor and advisee. Students' and faculty members' responses to questionnaire items were recorded using a five-point scale. on which A. In complete agreement = 5 points B. In agreement = 4 points C. Unsure = 3 points D. In disagreement = 2 points E. In complete disagreement = 1 point Three dimensions were identified through a review of the litera- ture: empathy. communication, and accessibility of the advisor. In the proposed model. items were grouped under the three dimensions as follows: Item No. Dimension 1: Communication between advisor and advisee Item No. Item Content 1 Know and call the student by his/her first name 2 Interested in the student's personal and/or family concerns (beyond those related to the university) 3 Listen to the student 4 Communicate frankly and openly with the student 5 Foster open. frank communication from the student 6 Suggest. not impose. the courses the student can take 7 Be interested in knowing how the student feels in the university 8 Consider that the information provided by the student is confidential 9 Treat the student as a friend Item No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 101 Dimension 2: Empathy of the advisor Item No. Item Content 10 Help the student find a personal meaning to courses 11 Help the student be alert to his/her behavior 12 Know the student's limitations 13 Respect the student's decisions 14 Know the student's personal characteristics 15 Understand how the student feels 16 Encourage the student to use his/her abilities l7 Perceive his/her values 18 Ask the student how he/she feels l9 Respond to the student's feelings in a warm. sensitive. respectful way 20 Invite the student to share his/her personal as well as family problems Item No. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Thea the 32 it ana1Ysis higher th; 102 Dimension 3: Accessibility of the advisor Item No. Item Content 21 Give the private telephone number to the student 22 Inform student of the days and time when he/she can meet with the advisor 23 Meet with the student several times during each term 24 Meet with the student for at least 15 minutes each time 25 Inform the student where the advisor's office is 26 Meet with the student without an appointment 27 Meet with the student in the advisor's office 28 Carry a light caseload of students for academic advising 29 Have time to provide academic advising 30 Consider academic advising as important 31 Invite the student to the interviews 32 Call or write to the student if he/she fails to register in a given term These three dimensions were factor analyzed to determine whether the 32 items could. in fact. be treated as three factors. The initial analysis Showed that four factors reached eigenvalues equal to or higher than 1.0. as shown in Table 3.17. Table 3.1 Factor Vari Empathy 6 Items 2, Communica named Com sis of tb cOmprise prised It tified al and 30. 3.18 film each fact 103 Table 3.17: Four Factors With Eigenvalues Equal to or Higher Than 1.0 Factor Eigenvalue Factor Eigenvalue 1 8.13 3 3.26 2 4.05 4 2.34 Varimax rotated factor analysis identified four factors. The Empathy dimension was identified as the central strongest factor with Items 2. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 17. 18. 21. 26. 31. and 32. The Communication dimension appeared divided into two factors. which were named Communication Through Trusting and Communication after an analy— sis of the items' content. The Communication Through Trusting factor comprised Items 3. 4. 5.13. and 16. The Communications factor com— prised Items 6. 8. 19. 25. and 27. The Accessibility factor was iden— tified almost as proposed. It cemprised Items 22. 23. 24. 26, 28, 29, and 30. These four factors explained 48.3% of the variance. Tables 3.18 through 3.21 present the four factors identified. the items under each factor. and their loadings. Table 3.1 Item No. 14 10 18 ll 20 31 21 15 32 12 17 Table 3.18: 104 Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 1: Empathy of the Advisor Item No. Item Content Loading 14 Know the student's personal characteristics .77954 2 Be interested in the student's personal and/or .66816 family concerns (beyond those related to the university) 10 Help the student find a personal meaning to .66776 the course 18 Ask the student how he/she feels .65396 7 Be interested in knowing how the student feels .65060 in the university 11 Help the student be alert to his/her behavior .64798 20 Invite the student to share his/her personal and/or family problems 31 Invite the student to the interviews .60037 21 Give the private telephone number to the student .58941 15 Understand how the student feels .55609 32 Call or write to the student if he/she fails to .55470 register in a given term 12 Know the student's limitations .52964 17 Perceive his/her values .52279 .50369 Treat the student as a friend ‘7‘: \ Table 3.1 Item No. 16 13 Table 3.2 Item No. 27 19 25 105 Table 3.19: Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 2: Communication Through Trusting Item No. Item Content Loading 4 Communicate frankly and openly with the student .78277 3 Listen to the student .70780 5 Foster open. frank communication from the .64672 student 16 Encourage the student to use his/her abilities .52664 13 Respect the student's decisions .42616 Table 3.20: Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 3: Communication Between Advisor and Advisee Item No. Item Content Loading 8 Consider that the information provided by .67459 the student is confidential 27 Meet with the student in the advisor's office .61182 19 Respond to the student's feelings in a warm. .59664 respectful way 25 Inform the student where the advisor's office is .47443 6 Suggest. not impose. the courses the student can .41783 take Table 3.1 Item No. 24 22 30 29 28 23 26 Tab] relations on the re bility e; scale are Table 3.21: 106 Loading of Each Item Under AARQ Factor 4: Accessibility of the Advisor Item No. Item Content Loading 24 Meet with the student for at least 15 minutes .82197 each time 22 Inform student of the days and time he/she .77592 can meet with the advisor 30 Consider academic advising an important task .76439 29 Have time to provide academic advising .72646 28 Carry a light caseload of students for .67366 academic advising 23 Meet with the student several times each term .65379 1 Know and call the student by his/her first name .63376 26 Meet with the student without an appointment .59933 Table 3.22 presents the correlation coefficients for the relationship scale for the total. faculty. and student samples. overall Based on the results. an overall relationship scale was created and its relia— bility established. scale are presented in Table 3.23. Alpha coefficients of the overall relationship Table 3.2 Sample Total Faculty Student Table 3.2 This StUdYa Sa inatrumm instrume1 hYPOthesig narratiVe Table 3.22: 107 Kendall's fl Coefficients for the Overall Relationship Scale for the Total. Faculty. and Student Samples Sample Factor 1 Factor 3 Factor 4 Total .68 .53 .59 Faculty .67 .50 .54 Students .79 .52 .56 Table 3.23: Alpha Coefficients for the Overall Relationship Scale for the Total, Faculty, and Student Samples Sample Alpha Total .7656 Faculty .7664 Student .8680 Summary This chapter contained a discussion of the populations used in the study, sample-selection techniques. and development of the research instruments. Results of validity and reliability testing of the instruments were examined. In Chapter IV. the results of the hypothesis tests carried out in the investigation are presented in both narrative and tabular form. This expectati of Puert‘ Program. variable. (1)) actiw advisee. Participa Four test for Variance 3893 were The level of whitney i Probabilj which the normal di. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Introduction This study was guided by two major purposes: (a) to describe the expectations that students and faculty of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Metropolitan Campus. have of an academic advising program. and (b) to compare those expectations. Two dependent variables were examined: (a) functions of the faculty advisor and (b) activities to develop a helping relationship between advisor and advisee. Six hundred seventy-one students and 63 faculty members participated in this study by completing four questionnaires. Four main hypotheses were analyzed by means of the Mann-Whitney U test for two-level variables and the Kruskal—Wallis analysis of variance for variables with more than two levels. Means and percent- ages were also computed. The significance level for chi—square analyses was set at the .05 level of probability. The significance level for two—tailed Mann— Whitney U tests was set at the.05 level of probability. The exact— probability U table was used whenever g < 20. The table of g. for which the standard error of U is corrected whenever a tie occurs. with normal distribution of probabilities was used for g > 20. The signifi- cance level for the chi-square (exact or corrected for ties) of the 108 Kruskal—l table use dividing Hypothesi The: of d expe demi Ten for each ship scal 4 Analy relations Stat: three of ' for Funct 4» Meanin 8: Monito The Nursing. agreement 10Wegt me; Monitoring "°1°8y- T 109 Kruskal-Wallis test was also set at .05 and the chi-square distribution table used. The significance level for multiple comparisons was set by dividing .05 by the number of comparisons made. Results of Hypothesis Testing There are no statistically significant differences among students of different academic fields. genders. ages. and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate aca- demic advising program. Ten subhypotheses were tested for each independent variable--one for each of the eight functions scales. one for the overall relation- ship scale. and one for the independent relationship scale named Factor 2. Analyses were also performed with the subscales of the overall relationship scale to interpret the results Statistically significant differences among fields were found on three of the eight functions scales. The null hypotheses were rejected for Function 2. Overall development (X2 = 26-62..2==~0001). Function 4. Meaning of a college education (X2 = 14.24. p = .0141). and Function 8. Monitoring academic involvement (X2 = 13.05. p = .0229L The highest mean ranks on the three scales were obtained for Nursing. This means that students from that field showed the highest agreement that the faculty advisor should perform those functions. The lowest mean ranks for Function 2. Overall development. and Function 8. Monitoring academic involvement. were obtained for Sciences and Tech- nology. The lowest mean rank for Function 4. Meaning of a college educatior in Table Table 4.1 Fielda wav—I Ln ON *Sigr Nonsj Stale (X2 education. was obtained for Behavioral Sciences. in Table 4.1. 110 Results are presented Table 4.1: Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Functions and Fields Mean Rank Fielda Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 l 357 362 332 358 342 342 361 361 2 337 403 322 378 375 327 349 383 3 325 288 329 307 324 321 314 306 4 374 325 413 376 411 333 340 357 5 323 347 355 354 331 356 330 344 6 283 382 312 295 313 331 313 310 X2 8.52 26.62* 5.15 14.25* 5.74 2.91 8.19 13.06* p .1296 .0001 .3982 .0141 .3319 .7144 .1463 .0229 aFields: l = Economics and Administrative Sciences. 2 = 228 2 = Nursing. 2 = 24 3 = Sciences and Technology. 3 = 254 4 = Humanities. n = 17 5 = Education. 2 = 88 6 = Behavioral Sciences. 3 = 56 *Significant at the .05 level. Nonsignificant differences were found on the overall relationship scale or2 = 10.61. 2 = .0597L Therefore. the null hypothesis was retained Factor: the sub obtaine Results Table 4. Fielda O‘U'waNH *Sf lll retained. However. significant differences were found for the subscale Factor 1, Empathy (x2 = 12.73. 2 =.0261). The highest mean rank for the subscale Factor 3. Communication (X2 = 16.50. p = .0056) was obtained for Humanities and the lowest for Behavioral Sciences. Results are presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.2: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Field Mean Rank Fielda Factor Overall Factor 2 l 3 4 Scale 1 345 360 354 325 347 2 398 370 334 378 369 3 304 304 316 306 317 4 314 390 336 320 364 5 368 355 344 362 332 6 351 297 315 325 335 x2 12.73* 16.51* 5.58 10.61 4.69 p .0261 .0056 .3497 .0597 .4550 aFields: Economics and Administrative Sciences. 2 = 228 Nursing. 2 = 24 Sciences and Technology. 2 = 254 Humanities. n = 17 Education. n = 88 Behavioral Sciences. 2 = 56 H II II II II II 1 2 3 4 5 6 *Significant at the .05 level. No and fema 4.3). th Table 4. Gender Femal e Male / rd lNlc: Note: I Table 4. Gender Female c: / MINI E (D Note: 1 112 No statistically significant difference was found between males and females concerning agreement with any of the eight functions (Table 43). the overall relationship scale. or Factor 2 (Table 4J0. Table 4.3: Results of the Mann—Whitney U Tests for the Student Sample by Functions and Gender Mean Rank Gender Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Female 333 338 344 332 330 340 345 341 Male 339 333 324 341 342 330 324 328 U 54046 54053 51762 53381 52947 53296 51709 52734 g -.3562 -.3475 ~1.3018 —.6210 —.7999 -.6627 -l.3036 —.8917 p .7217 .7282 .1930 .5346 .4238 .5047 .1924 .3726 Note: Female 2 = 384; male 3 = 286 Table 4.4: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Gender Mean Rank Gender Factor Overall Factor 2 l 3 4 Scale Female 340 344 332 338 344 Male 330 324 340 332 325 E 51396 51753 53638 54042 51997 g —.6933 -1.33 -.5180 -.3510 -1.25 2 .4881 .1850 .6045 .7256 .2128 Note: Female 3 = 384; male 2 = 286 Sta the thre Overall Function group at highest with Ove Table 4. 8A8 *Si To the Stud ance W8; fOUnd a: 113 Statistically significant differences were found among students in the three age groups regarding level of agreement with Function 2, Overall development (x2 = 11.68. 2 = .0029). The highest mean rank for Function 2 was given by the 17—20 age group. followed by the 21—25 age group and then the 26-54 age group. The youngest students gave the highest endorsement to the faculty advisor activity of providing help with Overall development. Results are presented in Table 45. Table 4.5: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Functions and Age Mean Rank Agea Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 326 362 328 321 334 338 335 338 2 349 336 346 351 341 342 341 341 3 307 279 316 307 322 308 317 311 x2 4.38 11.68* 2.39 5.63 .7249 2.47 1.20 1.85 2 .1118 .0029 .3031 .0599 .6960 .2903 .5490 .3961 8Age groups: 1 = 17-20. 3 = 205 2 = 21-25, g = 374 3 = 26—54. a = 92 *Significant at the .05 level. To check whether the effect of age was an artifact of status of the student (year of study), multiple Kruskal—Wallis analysis of vari- ance was performed. No statistically significant differences were found among students in different years of study for any of the functio: of resp< ent yea: nificant reaponse the sta1 St: age gr01 =.0068) tors sul = 8.65, overall oldest which 5: ences w Factor 1 Be: same pha SiSnifi< Contact aBIEeme Tables. the two or Subs< 114 functions. the overall relationship scale. or Factor 2. The analysis of responses for Function 2 for the four groups of students in differ- ent years of study. statistically controlling for age. showed no sig— nificant differences among groups. This means that the differences in responses among the three age groups for Function 2 were independent of the status of the student. Statistically significant differences were found among the three age groups of students on the overall relationship scale (X2 = 9.98. p = .0068). An analysis of the three age groups' responses to the fac- tors subscales showed significant differences for Factor 1. Empathy (X2 = 8.65. p = .0132). The highest mean ranks on Factor 1 and on the overall relationship scale were given by the 21—25 age group. The oldest students gave the lowest endorsement to the three scales on which significant differences were observed. No significant differ— ences were observed among the age groups in terms of agreement with Factor 2. Results are shown in Table 46. Because the implementation of the advising program was not in the same phase across the six fields. analyses were conducted to assess if significant differences were observed between students who had been in contact with their faculty advisor and those who had not. regarding agreement with the functions and relationship scales. As shown in Tableslh7 and 4JL no significant differences were observed between the two groups for any of the functions. the overall relationship scale or subscales. or Factor 2. Table 4 Age8 8A: *8: Table 4. AdVisim EXp.a Yes No / rd INIc: aAc 115 Table 4.6: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors, Overall Scale. and Age Mean Rank Agea Factor Overall Factor 2 1 4 Scale 1 340 325 336 335 320 2 347 346 340 350 351 3 281 318 293 279 312 x2 8.65* 2.76 5.72 9.98* 5.52 p .0132 .2522 .0572 .0068 .0632 8Age groups: 1 = 17-20, B = 205 2 = 21-25. 2 = 374 3 = 26—54, 2 = 92 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.7: Results of the Mann-Whitney g Tests by Function and Advising Experience for the Student Sample Mean Rank Advising Exp.a Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Yes 137 149 140 146 142 142 141 135 No 141 134 139 136 138 138 139 142 E 8738 8033 8097 8337 8746 8753 8870 8525 E .4338 -1.55 -.0395 -l.05 .4154 .4124 .2193 .7645 2 .6644 .1295 .9685 .2939 .6779 .6801 .8264 .4446 aAdvising experience = had contacted a faculty advisor. Yes ‘ Had met the faculty advisor. n = 103 N0 = Had not met the faculty advisor. n = 175 Table 4 Advisin; Expoa Yes No haltqlc: aAc Signifi ages; g1 0f facu indicatt 0f a co] Science functior 116 Table 4.8: Results of the Mann-Whitney H Test for the Student Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale, and Advising Experience Mean Rank Advising Exp.a Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale Yes 148 147 150 150 144 No 134 135 134 139 136 g 8105 8233 7967 7891 8458 g —1.40 -1.27 -1.63 -l.73 -9114 p .1601 .2074 .1030 .0829 .3621 aAdvising experience = had contacted a faculty advisor. Yes — Had met the faculty advisor. n = 103 N0 = Had not met the faculty advisor. g = 175 Summary of results for Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 1 tested the significance of the differences among students of different fields. ages, genders, and advising experiences in terms of their expectations of faculty advisor functions and relationship activities. The results indicated that: 1. Students from the six fields had different expectations concerning three of the eight functions (Overall development, Meaning of a college education. and Monitoring academic involvement% 2. Nursing students had the highest expectations; those in Sciences and Technology had the lowest expectations on two of the functions: Function 2, Overall development. and Function 8. Monitoring academi expecta1 3. ent vari 4. FunctiOI tionshi] est to I mean ra by the J 5. the (191» W Th: of ap- ex] No members Therefc 11.9483 hElper rank f 117 academic involvement). Students in Behavioral Sciences had the lowest expectations for Function 4. Meaning of a college education. 3. Gender was not related to level of agreement with the depend- ent variables. 4. Age group was found to be related to responses concerning Function 2. Overall development. and to responses on the overall rela- tionship scale. The order of agreement with Function 2 was. from high- est to lowest: 17—20 years. 21—25 years, and 26-54 years. The highest mean ranks for Empathy and on the overall development scale were given by the 21-25 age group, followed by the youngest age group. 5. Advising experience was not related to level of agreement with the dependent variables. Hypothesis 2 There are no statistically significant differences among faculty of different academic fields. genders. ranks. degrees. types of appointments, and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. No statistically significant differences were found among faculty members from different fields regarding seven of the eight functions. Therefore. Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected only for Function 6(X2 = 11.9483. 2 = .0355). which measured agreement with the advisor as a helper with Class schedule and programs of study. The highest mean rank for Function 6 was given by faculty in Economics and Adminis ulty. Table 4 Field8 O‘LflwaD-J *S No members Faetor from di The hig 118 Administrative Sciences. and the lowest was given by Humanities fac- ulty. Results are presented in Table 4.9. Table 4.9: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Field Mean Rank Fielda Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 l 38 36 30 29 28 41 33 33 2 17 19 31 26 30 24 24 24 3 38 22 29 25 29 31 26 35 4 25 38 33 34 28 16 25 28 5 33 34 3O 43 36 32 39 34 6 3O 34 36 29 37 35 34 30 X2 8.45 8.42 1.37 7.12 2.76 11.95* 5.85 2.16 p .1330 .1347 .9280 .2122 .7365 .0355 .3213 .8263 Economics and Administrative Sciences, 2 = 14 Nursing, n = 6 Sciences and Technology, 3 = 10 Humanities, n = 9 Education. 2 = 12 Behavioral Sciences. 2 = 11 aFields: II I! l 2 3 4 5 6 II H H II *Significant at the .05 level. No statistically significant differences were found among faculty members from different fields on the overall relationship scale or on Factor 2. Significant differences were found among faculty members from different fields on Factor 1. Empathy (X2 = 12-63. 2 = .0271L The highest mean rank on this factor was given by Education faculty and the 10‘ sented Table 4 Fielda H N (A) Mb 0‘ Be same p extent ferent Signifi edUCat 119 the lowest by faculty in Sciences and Technology. Results are pre- sented in Table 4.10. Table 4.10: Results of the Mann-Whitney 0 Test for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale, and Field Mean Rank Fielda Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale 1 32.46 31.79 28.71 31.43 31.93 2 26.25 34.00 30.42 27.17 30.92 3 22.95 36.90 37.05 28.45 30.30 4 23.78 23.22 29.83 27.11 24.17 5 46.33 38.54 37.17 43.63 37.42 6 31.05 23.95 25.77 27.09 31.91 x2 12.63* 6.84 3.71 7.25 3.03 p .0271 .2326 .5916 .2023 .6964 aFields: Economics and Administrative Sciences, 3 = 14 Nursing, 3 = 6 Sciences and Technology, 2 = 10 Humanities. E = 9 Education. 2 = 12 Behavioral Sciences. 3 = 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 II II II *Significant at the .05 level. Because the implementation of the advising program was not in the same phase in all six fields. analyses were conducted to assess the extent to which faculty members who had met their advisee(s) had dif- ferent expectations from those who had not done so. Statistically significant differences were found for Function 4. Meaning of a college education (E = 303, E = -2.02. p = .0434). A higher mean rank on Functio by thoe Table 4 MIN“: 3; Functi facult found 1.05, J Biderm not me .2361). 120 Function 4 was given by faculty who had not met their advisee(s) than by those who had done so. Results are presented in Table 4.11. Table 4.11: Results of the Mann-Whitney H Tests for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Advising Experience Mean Rank Advising Exp.a Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Yes 32 28 30 28 31 34 29 31 No 30 38 34 38 32 28 36 32 416.5 308.0 376.5 303.5* 424.0 352.5 346.5 435.0 U E -.3468 —l.95 -.9397 -2.02* -.2366 -1.30 -l.39 -.0755 2 .7288 .0516 .3474 .0434 .8130 .1945 .1648 .9398 aAdvising experience: Yes = Had met with advisee(s). n = 40 N0 = Had not met advisee(s). n = 22 *Significant at the .05 level. Comparisons were made among faculty in different fields concerning Function 4, Meaning of a college education. controlling for whether faculty had met their advisee(s% No significant differences were found among faculty in different fields concerning Function 4 (X2 = 1.05. p = .9028) when only those with advising experience were con- sidered. The same pattern of results was observed when faculty who had not met their advisee(s) were considered (Function 4: X2 = 5.54, 2 : .2361). This means that the differences observed between faculty who had ha concern: ulty we analyse Table 4 Pi No faCUIty any of m-m,gd 121 had had advising experience and those without such experience concerning Function 4 were independent of the field in which the fac— ulty were employed. Tables 4J2 and 413 present the results of these analyses. Table 4.12: Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Test for the Faculty With Advising Experience by Function 4 by Field Mean Rank Fielda Factor 4 23.00 19.40 18.30 20.75 19.75 @LnLAJNH x2 1.05 .9028 Economics and Administrative Sciences. 2 = 13 Nursing. 2 = 5 Humanities. n = 10 Education, n = 4 — Behavioral Sciences, 2 = 3 aField: O‘U'IUDNH II II I! II No statistically significant differences were found between faculty who had met their advisee(s) and those who had not, regarding any of the relationship scales. These results are shown in Table 4.14. Table 4 Pi Table l 122 Table 4.13: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Test for the Faculty Without Advising Experience by Function 4 by Field Mean Rank Fielda Factor 4 2.00 5.00 10.13 14.19 9.83 O\U1¢~k>k‘ x2 5.54 2 .2361 aField: Economics and Administrative Sciences. 2 = 1 Nursing. 3 = 1 Humanities. n = 8 Education. 3 = 8 Behavioral Sciences. 2 = 3 c~U1¢.k;»4 u u u u u Table 4.14: Results of the Mann-Whitney 0 Test for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Advising Experience Mean Rank Advising Exp.a Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale Yes 29.60 32.79 33.72 31.24 31.41 No 34.95 29.16 28.36 31.98 31.66 2 364.0 388.5 371.0 429.0 436.5 g -1.12 -.7689 —1.02 -.1546 —,0532 p .2622 .4420 .3073 .8771 .9575 aAdvising experience: Yes = Had met with advisee(s). 2 = 40 N0 = Had not met advisee(s). n = 22 Am betweet of the their a member: vide he Table 4 Table 4 Gender Fmfle POINIG E D—' / . Note: Tb all rel enCes. fOr F81 123 Analyses were conducted to determine differences in agreement between male and female faculty members in different fields. Results of the Mann—Whitney E test showed that males and females differed in their agreement with Function 7 (H = 326, p = .0432). Male faculty members agreed more than females that the faculty advisor should pro- vide help with Vocational decision making. These results are shown in Table 4.15. Table 4.15: Results of the Mann-Whitney 2 Test for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Gender Mean Rank Gender Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Female 32 30 33 32 32 32 28 32 Male 31 35 3O 32 31 32 38 33 453 403 415.5 459 462.5 456 326.5* 455.5 -.2129 -.9221 -.7472 -.1281 -.O782 -.l711 -2.02* -.1814 .8314 13565 .4549 .8981 .9376 .8641 .0432 .8561 rolNld Note: Female 2 = 39; male 3 = 24 *Significant at the .05 level. The analyses of differences between the sexes regarding the over— all relationship scale and Factor 2 resulted in no significant differ- ences. However. statistically significant differences were observed for Factor 3, Communication (E = 323. Z — '2-07. 2 = .0381). Higher 124 mean ranks for Factor 3 were given by females than by males. (See Table 4.16.) Table 4.16: Results of the Mann-Whitney H Test for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale, and Gender Mean Rank Gender Factor Overall Factor 2 l 3 4 Scale Female 33.55 35.71 34.77 34.75 34.17 Male 29.48 25.98 27.50 27.21 28.48 E 407.5 323.5* 360.0 353.0 383.5 2 —.8586 —2.07* —l.54 -1.63 -1.24 p .3905 .0381 .1243 .1033 .2158 Note: Female 2 = 39; male 2 = 24 *Significant at the .05 level. A statistically significant difference was found among faculty members with different types of appointments regarding Function 8. Monitoring academic development (X2 = 14.05. p =.0028). The highest mean rank was given by tenured faculty members. the second highest by those with temporary appointments. followed by faculty with probation— ary status. Interestingly, the faculty members giving the lowest mean rank were the substituting group. Function 8 concerned the help the faculty advisor can provide by monitoring the student's academic involvement. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 4.17. Table 4.17: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests for the Faculty Sample by Type of Appointment and Functions Mean Rank Type of Appt~a Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 31 35 34 33 34 35 31 37 2 3o 28 28 27 27 26 28 25 3 36 31 36 40 37 39 41 4o 4 22 28 21 20 22 19 23 9 x2 1.84 2.14 3.05 5.32 3.64 6.83 4.55 14.05* 2 .6071 .5442 .3843 .1496 .3030 .0775 .2080 .0028 aType of appointment: Temporary. n = 23 Probationary. n = 26 Tenure. n = 9 Substitute. n = 3 1 2 3 4 *Significant at the .05 level. No statistically significant differences were found on the overall relationship scale or Factor 2 when faculty with different types of appointments were compared. Table 4.18 presents these results No statistically significant differences were found among faculty With different academic degrees concerning their expectations regarding functions, the overall relationship scale. or Factor 2. Tables 4.19 and lh20 show these results. The same results were obtained when the expectations of faculty members with different ranks were compared. (See Tables 4.21 and 4.22J 126 Table 4.18: Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Test for the Faculty Sample by Type of Appointment by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale Mean Rank Type of Appt.a Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale 1 33.52 30.93 35.98 34.17 33.41 2 26.10 32.31 27.42 27.67 27.56 3 42.28 33.83 34.33 38.89 35.33 4 20.33 11.67 18.83 11.83 29.33 x2 7.20 3.97 6.16 6.94 2.11 p .0657 .2648 .1042 .0739 .5506 8Type of appointment: 1 = Temporary. 2 = 23 2 = Probationary. g = 26 3 = Tenure. n = 9 4 = Substitute. fl = 3 Table 4.19: Results of the Mann-Whitney H Test for the Faculty Sample By Functions and Degree Mean Rank Degreea Function 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 1 32 30 32 30 29 32 31 31 2 28 33 29 33 35 28 32 32 E 354 375 363 376 338 349 392 393 Z -.8629 -.5390 -.7186 -.5264 —1.11 -.9369 -.2792 —.2762 2 .3882 .5899 .4724 .5993 .2664 .3488 .7801 .7424 aDegree: 1 = Master's degree. 3 = 41 = Doctoral degree. 3 = 20 127 Table 4.20: Results of the Mann—Whitney E Test for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Degree Mean Rank Degreea Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale 1 30.21 31.20 28.84 29.71 32.46 2 32.63 30.60 35.42 33.65 28.00 g 3778 402 322 357 350 2 —.5007 —.1246 -1.37 -.8151 -.9544 p .6166 .9008 .1717 .4150 .3399 8Degree: 1 = Master's degree, 2 = 41 2 = Doctoral degree, n = 20 Table 4.21: Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Test for the Faculty Sample by Functions and Rank Mean Rank Ranka Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 27 35 31 29 30 33 27 31 2 36 28 34 29 31 31 32 31 3 25 31 22 4O 32 30 35 29 4 28 34 33 30 35 26 29 34 Xz 4.72 1.72 3.40 3.28 .3681 .5865 1.54 .2504 2 .1934 .6320 .3334 .3504 .9468 .8995 .6730 .9691 aRank: 1 = Instructor. 2 = 19 2 = Assistant professor, 2 = 28 3 = Associate professor. n = 10 4 = Full professor. n = Table 4.22: Results of the Kruskal—Wallis Test for the Faculty Sample by Relationship Factors. Overall Scale. and Rank Mean Rank Ranka Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale 1 26 29 26 26 31 2 34 34 33 33 32 3 34 27 34 36 32 4 28 28 33 27 22 x2 2.28 1.63 2.41 2.82 1.09 p .5163 .6529 .4926 .4208 .7795 aRank: 1 = Instructor. 2 = 19 2 = Assistant professor, g = 28 3 = Associate professor. n = 10 4 = Full professor. n = 4 No statistically significant relationships were found for rank (X2 = 14.40, g: = 15. p = V4954), type of appointment (X2 = 13.53. df = 15. 2 = .5612). or degree (x2 = 9.19. g = 5. 2 = .1016) with field. §2mmary of results for Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 tested the significance of differences in expectations among faculty members of different fields, ranks. genders. degrees. types of appointments. and advising experience. Based on the results. it can be summarized that: 1. The null hypothesis of differences in expectations among faculty members from the six fields was rejected for Function 6 (Class schedule and programs of study) only- 2. Advising experience was related to expectations concerning one of the eight functions: Function 4, Meaning of a college education. Faculty members without advising experience agreed more with Function 4 than did those with such experience. 3. The differences in expectations concerning functions between facultylmembers with and those without advising experience were not related to field. 4. Gender of the faculty member was related to expectations concerning Function 7, Vocational decision making. and Factor 3. Commu- nication. 5. The null hypothesis of differences among faculty members with different types of appointments was rejected for Function 8, Monitoring the student's academic involvement. The highest agreement with that function was expressed by faculty members with tenure status and the lowest by those with substitute status. 6. The null hypotheses of differences in expectations of functions and relationships among faculty members with different degrees and ranks were retained. Hypothesis 3 There are no statistically significant differences between faculty and students from the same field regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. Analyses were conducted for the subscales. Results for each field comparison are presented separately. 130 Economics and Administrative Sciences. Statistically significant differences were found between students and faculty in Economics and Administrative Sciences regarding six of the eight functions. The null hypotheses for Function 1. Educational and occupational plans (2 = 1039, Z = —2.25. p = .0245); Function 2. Overall development (2 = 1059. g = -2.12, p = .0342); Function 3. Academic offerings. norms and proce- dures (H = 326, 2 = 5.11. p = .0000); Function 4, Meaning of a college education (g = 922. 2 = —2.67, p = .0076); Function 5. University student services (H = 682, g = 3.63, p = .0003); and Function 7, Vocational decision making (H = 1032, 2 = —2.24, p = .0249) were rejected. On those functions. students had higher levels of agreement than did faculty. Faculty and students had similar levels of agreement with respect to Function 6. Class schedule and programs of study. and Function 8. the advisor's Monitoring academic involvement. Table 4.23 presents the results of these analyses. Mann-Whitney multiple g tests were carried out to assess whether students' level of agreement was significantly different from that of the faculty for Function 4, Meaning of a college education. when the variable. advising experience. was controlled. This was done because advising experience was found to be related to faculty expectation of Function 4, Meaning of a college education. No significant differences were found on Function 4 between students and those faculty members who had not met their advisee(s). (See Table 4.24.) 131 Table 4.23: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Economics and Administrative Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Student 124 124 127 124 126 122 124 122 Faculty 82 83 30 73 56 114 81 108 E 1039* 1059* 327* 923* 683* 1489 1032* 1404 E —2.25* -2.12* —5.11* —2.67* -3.63* —.4325 —2.24* -.7696 p .0245 .0342 .0000 .0076 .0003 .6654 .0249 .4415 Note: Student 3 = 228; faculty 2 = 14 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.24: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Economics and Administrative Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Student 116.03 Faculty 55.00 H ' 107 E -1.3025 R .1917 Note: Student 2 = 228; faculty 2 = 2 132 Significant differences were found on Function 4 (E = 815.5. E = 2.38..p==.0175L Faculty members from Economics and Administrative Sciences who had met their advisee(s) indicated lower agreement than did students with the help they should provide in understanding the Meaning of a college education (E = 816. E = —2.37. p = .0175). (See Table 4.25J Table 4.25: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Economics and Administrative Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Students 122.92 Faculty 74. 46 g 816* g —2 . 37* 2 .0175 Note: Student 2 = 228; faculty 3 = 12 *Significant at the .02 level. No statistically significant differences were found between students and faculty in this field in terms of their level of agreement on the overall relationship scale. Thus the null hypothesis was retained. However. analyses of the subscales showed that significant 133 differences were observed on Factor 3. Communication (E = 605. E = 4.12, p = .0000) and on Factor 4. Accessibility (E = 1100.5, E = —l.97. p = .0489). The higher mean rank on Factor 3 was obtained for the faculty sample, whereas the higher mean rank on Factor 4 was obtained for the student sample. The direction of these differences most prob- ably accounted for the nonsignificant results on the overall relation- ship scale. Faculty agreed more with the advisor's establishing Communication with the advisee than did students. Students agreed more with the Accessibility statements than did faculty. Table 4426 shows the results of these analyses. Table 4.26: Results of the Mann—Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Economics and Administrative Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Factor Overall Factor 2 l 3 4 Scale Student 123 117 124 122 123 Faculty 104 192 86 119 98 U 1344 605* 1105.5* 1564.5 1262 E -.9926 4.12.. -1.97* —.1240 —1.40 E .3209 .0000 .0489 .9013 .1623 Note: Student 2 = 228; faculty 3 = 14 *Significant at the .05 level. 134 Nursing. Statistically significant differences were found on four of the eight functions when Nursing students and faculty were compared The null hypotheses were rejected for Function 1. Educational and occupational goals (E = 22.5, exact p =.0075. p =.0094); Function 2. Overall development (E = 18.5. exact p = .0034, p = .0054); Function 3. Academic offerings. norms and procedures (E = 22.5. exact p==.0075); and Function 7. Vocational decision making Q1: 30. exact p =.0286). The higher mean ranks on those four functions were obtained for the student sample. The results are presented in Table 4.27. Table 4.27: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Nursing) Mean Rank Sample Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Student 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 Faculty 7 7 7 10 10 10 9 11 U 22.5* 18.5* 22.5* 40.5 40.25 39.0 30.0* 47.0 E .0094 .0054 .0092 .1011 .0996 .0824 .0279 .1864 Note: Student 2 = 24; faculty 2 = 6 *Significant at the .05 level. To assess the influence of the advising experience on the faculty expectations regarding Function 4. when compared with the student expectations, Mann—Whitney multiple E tests were performed. No 135 statistically significant differences were found between students and faculty who had met their advisees concerning Function 4. Meaning of a college education (E = 37. p = .2007). (See Table 4.28.) Table 4.28: Results of the Mann—Whitney E Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Nursing) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Student 15.96 Faculty 18.40 U 37.0 E .2007 Note: Student 2 = 24; faculty 3 = 5 No statistically significant differences were found between students and faculty members without advising experience on Function 4. Meaning of a college education (E = 3.5, E = —1.86. p = .2357). These results are shown in Table 4.29. 136 Table 4.29: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Nursing) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Student 13.35 Faculty 4.50 E 3.5 g —l.86 2 .2357 Note: Student 2 = 24; faculty 2 = 1 No statistically significant differences were observed between students and faculty on the overall relationship scale. However. statistically significant differences were noted between students and faculty on the Empathy subscale Q1: 3445. exact p =.0501) and on the Communication subscale (E = OIL exact p = .OOOOL The students agreed more than faculty with the Empathy statements but agreed less than faculty with the Communication statements. The discrepancy in the direction of the differences probably accounted for the nonsignificant results on the overall relationship scale. These results are shown in Table 4.30. 137 Table 4.30: Results of the Mann—Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Nursing) Mean Rank Sample Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale Student 17.06 12.50 16.25 16.38 16.25 Faculty 9.25 27.50 12.50 12.00 12.50 E 34.5* 0.0* 54.0 51 54 p .0501 .0000 .3739 .2962 .3236 Note: Student 2 = 24; faculty 2 = 6 *Significant at the .05 level. Sciences and Technology. Statistically significant differences between student and faculty expectations were found on four of the eight functions. The null hypotheses were rejected for Function 2. Overall development (E = 650. E = -2-62. 2 = .0087); Function 3. Academic offerings, norms and procedures (E = 352.5. E = —3.95. p = .0001); Function 5. University student services (E = 582.5, E = -2.98. p = .0034); and Function 7. Vocational decision making (E = 719. E = -2.35. p =.0190). The higher mean ranks on all four functions were given by students. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 4.31. The comparison between student and faculty expectations on Function 4. controlling for advising experience. was not performed because all the faculty members in this field said they had met their advisee(s). 138 Table 4.31: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Sciences and Technology) Mean Rank Sample Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Student 133 135 136 134 135 134 135 131 Faculty 111 71 41 91 64 101 77 153 1051 650* 353* 851 583* 957 719* 1068 —.9389 -2.62* -3.95* -1.78 —2.92* -l.34 -2.35* -.8638 .3478 .0087 .0001 .0754 .0034 .1796 .0190 .3882 It: INIC.‘ Note: Student 2 = 254; faculty 2 = 10 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.32 shows that no statistically significant differences were found between the expectations of students and faculty on the overall relationship scale. Therefore. the null hypothesis was retained. However, an analysis of students'and faculty's level of agreement with Factor 3, Communication. showed statistically signifi- cant differences (E = 246, E = —4.4369, 2 = .0000). The higher mean rank was given by the faculty sample.) It seems that the differences between students' and faculty's level of agreement with Factor 1. Empathy (E = 876, E = -1.67, p = .0958). although not significant. accounted for the nonsignificant results on the overall relationship scale. For Factor 1. Empathy, the higher rank was given by the student sample. No significant differences were found between student and 139 faculty expectations on Factor 2. Communication through trusting (E 1119, g = —.6654. 2 = .5058). Table 4.32: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Sciences and Technology) Mean Rank Sample Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale Student 134 128 132 132 133 Faculty 93 235 136 135 117 E 876 246* 1236 1242 1119 E —1.67 —4.44* -.l422 -.1162 —.6654 p .0958 .0000 .8869 .9075 .5058 Note: Student 1_1 = 254; faculty 2 = 10 *Significant at the .05 level. flmanities. Statistically significant differences were found between student and faculty expectations on four of the eight func- tions. The null hypothesis was rejected for Function 1. Educational and occupational goals (E = 32. E = -2.44, p = .0148); Function 3. Academic offerings. norms and procedures (E = 37. E = —2.l9. p = .0282); Function 5. University student services (E = 17. E = -3.23, p = .0012); and Function 6, Class schedule and programs of study (E = 36, E = 2.22, p = .0265). For each of the functions in which the null hypothesis was rejected, the higher rank was given by students. Table 4.33 presents the results of these analyses. Table 4.33: Results of the Mann—Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Humanities) Mean Rank Sample Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Student 16 l4 l6 l4 17 16 15 14 Faculty 9 12 9 12 7 9 10 13 32.0* 64.5 37.0* 63.5 17.0* 36.0* 47.0 69.5 -2.44* -.6510 -2.19* .7159 -3.23* -2.22* -1.61 -.3829 .0148 .5150 .0282 .4741 .0012 .0265 .1080 .7018 FOINIC: Note: Student 2 = 17; faculty 2 = 9 *Significant at the .05 level. When student and faculty expectations on the overall relationship scale were compared. no statistically significant differences were observed (E = 74. E = —.l349. p = .8927). Hence the null hypotheSis was retained. However. a comparison of the two groups' expectations on Factor 3. Communication, showed that significantly higher mean ranks were given by the faculty sample (E = 25.5. E = -2.94. p = .0033L These results are obscured by the opposite direction of the differ- ences. although not significant. on the two other subscales. Results are depicted in Table 4.34. Statistically significant differences were found between the expectations of students and faculty for Factor 2. Communication through trusting (E = 37.5. E = 2.18. p = .0291). Hence the null 141 hypothesis was rejected. The higher mean rank was given by the student sample. This means that students' level of agreement with the advisor's developing Communication through trusting the students' abilities and capacities was higher than that of the faculty in this field. Results are presented in Table 4.34. Table 4.34: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Factors and Overall Scale (Humanities) Mean Rank Sample Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale Student 14.59 10.50 13.94 13.35 15.79 Faculty 11.44 19.17 12.67 13.78 9.17 U 58 25.5* 69 74 37.5* E -1.00 -2.94* —4o79 -.1349 —2.18* E .3171 .0033 .6833 .8927 .0291 Note: Student 2 = 17; faculty 2 = 9 *Significant at the .05 level. Comparison of student and faculty expectations for Function 4. Meaning of a college education. while controlling for advising experi- ence. was not possible because no faculty members from Humanities said they had met their advisee(sh Education. Statistically significant differences were found between Education students and faculty on three of the eight functions. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected for Function 3. Academic 142 offerings. norms and procedures (y = 104.5. Z = -4.58. p = .0000); and Function 5. University student services (E = 292, g = -2.52. p - .0117). In the two cases. the higher mean rank was given by the student sample. Table lu35 presents these results. Statistically significant differences were observed for Function 4 (H = 103. E = -2.02. p =.034). Students had expectations similar to those of faculty members without advising experience on Function 4, Meaning of a college education (g = 269. Z = 1.59, p = .1123). (See Tables 4.36 and 4.37J Table 4.35: Results of the Mann—Whitney H Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Education) Mean Rank Sample Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Student 53 52 55 50 53 52 51 50 Faculty 36 36 15 52 31 40 48 52 349* 356 104* 512 292* 394 494 508 —1.92* —1.83 —4.59* -.1658 —2.52* —1.47 -.3583 -.2167 .0552 .0671 .0000 .8683 .0117 .1423 .7201 .8285 halNlCJ Note: Student 3 = 88; faculty 2 = 12 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.36: 143 Results of the Mann-Whitney Q Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Education) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Student 48.34 Faculty 23.50 E 103* g —2.02* 2 .0347 Note: Student 3 = 88; faculty 2 = 4 *Significant at the .02 level. Table 4.37: Results of the Mann-Whitney g Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Education) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Student 47~56 Faculty 63.06 U 269.5 E -l.59 2 .1123 Note: Student 2 = 88; faculty 2 — 8 144 Statistically significant differences were found between groups on the overall relationship scale (H = 336. g = -2.04, p = .0415). Thus the null hypothesis was rejected. Faculty members' level of agreement with the relationship statements was higher than that of the students. As shown in Table 438. Factor 3. Communication. seemed to account for the differences (0 = 65, E = -5.05. p = .0000). No statistically significant difference was observed for Factor 2. Communication through trusting; hence the null subhypothesis was retained Table 4.38: Results of the Mann-Whitney 0 Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Education) Mean Rank Sample Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale Student 49.41 45.24 50.95 48.34 50.39 Faculty 58.50 89.08 47.17 66.50 51.29 U 432 65* 438 336* 518 E —1.02 —5.05* —.4273 —2.o4* -.1o7o E .3074 .0000 .6691 .0415 .9148 Note: Student 3 = 88; faculty 2 — 12 *Significant at the .05 level. Behavioral Sciences. Statistically significant differences were found on three of the eight functions when Behavioral Sciences student and faculty expectations were compared. The null hypothesis was 145 rejected for Function 1, Educational and occupational goals (H = 185, 2 = —2.0975. 2 = .0360); Function 3, Academic offerings. norms and proce- dures (y = 131.5. E = —3.0301. 2 = .0024); and Function 5. University student services (3 = 186. g = -2.08. p = .0379). In each case. the higher mean ranks were given by the student sample. Results are pre- sented in Table 4.39. Table 4.39: Results of the Mann—Whitney H Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Functions (Behavioral Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Student 36 36 37 35 36 34 35 34 Faculty 23 24 18 27 23 30 29 34 185* 205 131* 233 186* 263 248 305 —2.09* -l.79 -3.03* -1.28 —2.07* -.7688 -1.02 -.0515 .0360 .0725 .0024 .2010 .0379 .4420 .3067 .9589 PO INIC‘. Note: Student 3 = 56; faculty 3 = 11 *Significant at the .05 level. A comparison of the mean ranks of the Behavioral Sciences groups with those in other fields showed that Behavioral Sciences students agreed less with the functions. This finding might account for the fewer differences between Behavioral Sciences students and faculty when compared with other fields. 146 No statistically significant differences were found for Function 4. Meaning of a college education (y = 148. g = -1.55. p = .1202L (See Table ln40J Students had similar expectations for Function 4 (g = 83, E = .0348, p = .9722) as did faculty members without advising experience. (See Table AAlJ Table 4.40: Results of the Mann-Whitney E Test for the Student Sample and Faculty With Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Behavioral Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Student 33.86 Faculty 23.00 H 148 Z -l.5539 B .1202 Note: Student 2 = 56; faculty 2 = 8 *Significant at the .02 level. 147 Table 4.41: Results of the Mann4Whitney H Test for the Student Sample and Faculty Without Advising Experience by Functions 2 and 4 (Behavioral Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Function 4 Student 29.98 Faculty 30.33 H 83 Z - . 0348 2 .9722 Note: Student _r_1_ = 56; faculty 2 = 3 No statistically significant differences between students and faculty were obtained for the overall relationship scale (H = 285.5. _2_ = -.3811. p = .7031); thus the null hypothesis was retained. However. faculty and students differed in their expectations of Factor 3. Commu- nication (Q = 97, _Z_ = -3.66, p = .0003). The higher mean rank was given by the faculty sample. No statistically significant differences were obtained for Factor 2. Communication through trusting (1.1 = 249.5. E = -l.04, p = .2986); thus the null subhypothesis was retained. Results are presented in Table 4.42. 148 Table 4.42: Results of the Mann—Whitney g Test for the Student and Faculty Samples by Relationship Factors and Overall Scale (Behavioral Sciences) Mean Rank Sample Factor Overall Factor 2 1 3 4 Scale Student 35.38 30.74 35.58 34.40 35.04 Faculty 26.95 53.14 25.95 31.95 28.68 g 230 97* 219 285 249 g -1.31 —3.66* —1.51 -.3811 —1.04 p .1899 .0003 .1320 .7031 .2986 Note: Student 2 = 56; faculty 2 = 11 *Significant at the .05 level. Summary of results for Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 tested the significance of differences in expectations between students and fac— ulty from the same field. The results can be summarized as follows: 1. Economics and Administrative Sciences a. The null hypothesis was rejected for six of the eight functions. Higher mean ranks were given by the student sample than by the faculty sample. b. Faculty members with advising experience showed lower agreement with Function 4 than did students from that field. Faculty members agreed more than students with statements in the Communication subscale. Students agreed more than faculty with statements in the Accessibility subscale. 149 Nursing a. The null hypothesis was rejected for four of the eight functions. Higher mean ranks were given by the student sample than by the faculty sample. b. Having advising experience was not related to the fac— ulty's lower agreement with Function 4. c. Students agreed more than faculty with statements in the Empathy subscale. Faculty agreed more than students with statements in the Communication subscale Sciences and Technology a. The null hypothesis was rejected for four of the eight functions. Higher mean ranks were given by the student sample than by the faculty sample. b. Faculty agreed more than students with statements in the Communication subscale Humanities a. The null hypothesis was rejected for four of the eight functions and for Factor 2. Higher mean ranks were given by the student sample than by the faculty sample. b. Faculty agreed more than students with statements in the Communication subscale. Education a. The null hypothesis was rejected for three of the eight functions and for the overall relationship scale. Higher 150 mean ranks were given by the student sample than by the faculty sample. b. Having advising eXperience was related to the faculty's lower agreement with Function 4. 6. Behavioral Sciences a. The null hypothesis was rejected for three of the eight functions. Higher mean ranks were given by the student sample than by the faculty sample. b. Faculty agreed more than students with statements in the Communication subs cal e. Summary Chapter IV presented the results of analyses performed to test the four major hypotheses formulated for this study. The following chapter contains a summary of the study. conclusions based on the major findings. and recommendations for practice and for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS This final chapter contains a summary of the study. conclusions based on the findings. discussion. and recommendations for practice and for further research. Summary Purposes and Procedures This study was conducted (a) to assess the expectations that students and faculty of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Metropolitan Campus. had of an undergraduate academic advising program and (b) to compare the expectations of the two groups. An undergraduate academic advising program whose responsibility rests on the faculty was initiated.at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico in January 1985. In this program undergraduate students are assigned to a faculty advisor who is responsible for helping the student realize his/her academic and professional potential. derive the utmost benefit from a college education. and plan and implement his/her goals. It is generally agreed that the faculty can be an excellent source of help to college students. However. there is a need to define the activities faculty can perform when they are assigned the advisor role. 151 152 If advising is defined as a helping relationship. a further need is to define the activities the faculty advisor can perform to develop such a relationship. The expectations that students and faculty have of the functions of the faculty advisor and the characteristics of the advis— ing relationship were the focus of this research. An understanding of such expectations could help to define the advisor's role and hence to organize the advising program based on students‘ needs and on the faculty's willingness to meet those needs. Activities to be performed by the advisor to help the student and activities the advisor can perform to develop a helping relationship were listed. Study participants were asked to indicate whether they completely agreed. agreed. were unsure about, disagreed. or completely disagreed with each statement as an activity the faculty advisor should perform to help the student. Students' and faculty members' responses to the statements constituted their expectations of the undergraduate advising program and hence their response on the dependent variable. Student and faculty expectations were assessed by comparing their responses to the statements as two sample groups and also by describing the responses of each group using several independent variables. The following independent variables were used to analyze differences in expectations: students' field of study. gender. and age; and faculty's field, gender. rank, degree. and type of appointment. The six academic fields in which comparisons were made were Economics and Administrative Sciences. Nursing. Sciences and Technology. Humanities. Education. and Behavioral Sciences. Whether or not faculty and students had met their 153 assigned advisee(s) or advisor. respectively. was also included as an independent variable for comparisons. The study was conducted with a sample of 671 students and 63 faculty members of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Metropolitan Campus. who were actively studying or teaching during the 1985—86 academic year. Their participation consisted in answering four questionnaires. The response rate from students was 97%. and from faculty it was 79%. I Four instruments were developed for this research: (a) the Bio- Social Data Questionnaire. (b) the Academic Advisor Functions Questionnaire (AAFQ). (c) the Academic Advising Relationship Questionnaire (AARQ). and (d) the Academic Advising Experiences Questionnaire. Each instrument had two versions: one to be answered by faculty members and the other to be answered by students. The AAFQ comprised 39 items covering eight functions: Function 1. Educational and occupational goals; Function 2. Overall development; Function 3. Academic offerings. norms and procedures; Function 4. Meaning of a college education; Function 5. University student serv- ices; Function 6, Class schedule and programs of study; Function 7, Vocational decision making; and Function 8. Monitoring academic involvement. The AARQ comprised 26 items constituting an overall relationship scale. composed of three subscales. and an independent rEIationship measure named Factor 2. The relationship characteristics measured with the AARQ were: Factor 1. Empathy; Factor 3. Communica- tion; Factor 4. Accessibility; Overall Scale = Factor 1 + Factor 3 + 154 Factor 4; and Factor 2 (independent measure). Communication through trusting. The AAFQ and the AARQ were validated with the study sample. The data were analyzed using chi-square statistics. the Mann- Whitney _I_J_ test. and the Kruskal~Wallis analysis of variance. Means and percentages were also computed. The significance level for simple comparisons for the hypothesis tests was set at .05. The significance level for multiple comparisons was set by dividing .05 by the number of comparisons to be made. to control for Type I error. All of the analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie et al.. 1983) on an IBM Mainframe 4381. Results Four main hypotheses were tested in this study. Ten subhypotheses were tested for each hypothesis: one for each of the eight functions. one for the overall. relationship scale. and one for the independent measure named Factor 2. Hypothesis 1: There are no statistically significant differences among students of different academic fields. genders. ages. and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. Results of the analyses for Hypothesis 1 indicated that: 1. When the expectations of students from the six fields of study were compared. the null hypothesis was rejected for three of the eight functions. Students did not agree in their expectations of the help the faculty advisor should provide with the following: Function 2. Overall development; Function 4. Meaning of a college education; and Function 8. Monitoring academic involvement. Nursing students had the 155 highest expectations for those three functions.Behavioral Sciences enrollees had the lowest expectations for Function 4. Sciences and Technology students had the lowest expectations for Function 8. 2. Students' gender was not found to be related to their expectations of the faculty advisor functions or relationship activi- ties. The null hypotheses were retained. 3. Students' age was found to be related to their expectations for Function 2. Overall development. and the overall relationship scale. Students in the 17-20 age group showed the highest agreement with Function 2. Overall development. Students in the 21-25 age group showed less agreement about being helped in that area. followed by the 25-54 age group. The same pattern of agreement was observed for the Empathy scale and the overall relationship scale. 4. Having met or not met the faculty advisor or their evaluation of that contact was not related to students'empectations regarding the faculty advisor functions or relationship activities. Hypothesis 2: There are no statistically significant differences among faculty of different academic fields. ages. ranks. degrees. types of appointments. and academic advising experiences regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. Results of the analyses for Hypothesis 2 indicated that: l. Statistically significant differences for Function 4. Meaning of a college education. were found between faculty.members*who'had contacted their advisee(s) and those who had not. The null hypothesis was rejected for that fUnction. Faculty who had not met their advisee(s) agreed more that they should help the student in 156 understanding the Meaning of a college education than those who had met their advisee(s). 2. No statistically significant differences were observed for Function 4. Meaning of a college education. when faculty from different fields of study were compared while controlling for advising experi- ence. 3. The null hypothesis was retained for seven of the eight functions when expectations of faculty from the six fields of study were compared. Faculty from the various fields differed in their expectations for Function 6. Class schedule and programs of study. Faculty from Economics and Administrative Sciences agreed that they should help students prepare the class schedule and programs of study. Humanities faculty showed the lowest agreement with that function. 4. Faculty gender was found to be related to expectations for Function 7. Vocational decision making. Male faculty members agreed more than females that they should help with that aspect; thus the null hypothesis was rejected for that function. 5. No statistically significant differences were found among faculty members of different ranks. degrees. and ages concerning their expectations of the faculty advisor functions or the relationship activities. Hence the null hypotheses were retained. 6. Statistically significant differences in agreement with Function 8. Monitoring academic involvement. were found among faculty members with different types of appointments. Faculty members with 157 substitute status had the lowest agreement with that function. whereas tenured faculty members had the highest agreement. HyLothesis 3: There are no statistically significant differences between faculty and students from the same field regarding their expectations of an undergraduate academic advising program. Results of the analyses for Hypothesis 3 indicated that: 1. In two of the six fields (Education and Behavioral Sciences). statistically significant differences were found between student and faculty expectations for three of the eight functions. Faculty from Education and Behavioral Sciences differed from students of those fields regarding their expectations for Function 1. Educational and occupational goals; Function 3. Academic offerings. norms and proce- dures; and Function 5. University student services. 2. In three of the six fields (Nursing. Sciences and Technology. and Humanities). differences were found between students and faculty concerning expectations for four of the eight functions. In Nursing. Sciences and Technology. and Humanities. faculty expectations for Func— tion 3. Academic offerings. norms and procedures. differed from those of students. In Sciences and Technology and in Nursing. differences in expectations existed for Function 2. Overall development. and Function 7. Vocational decision making. Students and faculty from Nursing and Humanities differed in their expectations for Function 1. Educational and occupational goals. Humanities faculty and students differed also in their expectations for Function 6. Class schedule and programs of study . ‘- —-a- >— 158 3. In one of the six fields (Economics and Administrative Sciences). differences were found between student and faculty expecta- tions for six of the eight functions. 4. On all the functions for which differences were found between student and faculty expectations. when students and faculty from the same field of study were compared. higher agreement was expressed by the student sample. 5. Faculty members' advising experience was found to be related to the differences between student and faculty expectations for Function 2. Overall development. in four of the five fields in which faculty members had met their advisee(s). Faculty from Economics and Administrative Sciences who had had advising experience agreed less with Function 4, Meaning of a college education. than did students from their field. 6. Student and faculty agreement with the overall relationship scale was similar in five of the six fields. Education was the only field in which differences between student and faculty expectations were observed. Education students agreed more than faculty with the overall relationship scale. 7. In terms of components of the overall relationship scale. differences between student and faculty expectations were found for the Communication subscale in five of the six fields. Faculty agreed more than students with that factor. Education was the only field in which no differences were observed for the Communication factor. Differences between student and faculty expectations for the Accessibility of the 159 advisor factor were observed for one of the six fields. Students from Economics and Administrative Sciences showed higher agreement with that factor than did faculty. Analysis of Mean Scores An examination of the student sample's mean scores for the eight functions and their rank order showed that on a scale of 1 (Complete Disagreement). 2 (Disagreement). 3 (Unsure). 4 (Agreement). and 5 (Complete Agreement). only Function 2. Overall development. had a score that fell in the Unsure category. Scores for the other seven functions fell in the Agreement or Complete Agreement categories. Function 1. Educational and occupational goals. had the highest mean score (mean = 4.5). The student sample's mean scores .for the eight functions. listed in rank order. are shown in Table 5¢L The student samtflefls mean scores for the relationship scales fell in the Agreement category. Students showed the highest level of agreement with Factor 2. Communication through trusting. Mean scores for the relationship scales. in rank order. are shown in Table SJL Table 5.1: Mean Scores for the Eight Functions: Student Sample Function Score Rank 1 Educational and occupational goals 4.5 l 3 Academic offerings. norms & procedures 4.4 2 6 Class schedule & programs of study 4.3 3 5 University student services 4.1 4 7 Vocational decision making 4.0 5.5 8 MOnitoring academic involvement 4.0 5.5 4 Meaning of a college education 3.9 6 2 Overall development 3 .3 7 160 Table 5.2: Mean Scores for the Relationship Scales: Student Sample Factor Score Rank 2 Communication through trusting 4.57 l 4 Accessibility 4.31 2 Overall scale 3.96 - l Empathy 3.86 3 4 3 Communication 3.67 An examination of the faculty sample's mean scores for the eight functions showed that three of the functions fell in the Unsure category. They were: Function 2. Overall development; Function 3. Academic offerings. norms and procedures; and Function 5. meaning of a college education. Function 4. Meaning of a college education. had the highest mean score (mean = 4.5). All of the other functions fell in the Agreement category. The mean scores for the eight functions are listed in rank order in Table 54& Table 5.3: Mean Scores for the Eight Functions: Faculty Sample Function Score Rank 4 Meaning of a college education 4.5 1 8 Monitoring academic involvement 4.1 2 6 Class schedule & programs of study 4.0 3 1 Educational & occupational goals 4.0 4 7 'Vocational decision making 3.6 5 3 Academic offerings. norms & procedures 3.2 6.5 5 University student services 3.2 6.5 2 Overall devel opment 2 . 9 8 161 Students and faculty agreed in ranking;the:0verall development function lowest and in its assignment to the Unsure category. However. it should be pointed out that Function 4. Meaning of a college education. was ranked first by faculty and seventh by students. This represents an important discrepancy. The function ranked first by students-—Function 1. Educational and occupational goals--was ranked fourth by faculty. The faculty sample's mean scores for the relationship scales showed that all scales fell in the Agreement category. Higher mean scores were given by faculty than students to all relationship subscales or factors except Factor 2. Students' mean score for that factor was 4.5. as compared to 4.4 for the faculty sample. The faculty sample's mean scores for the relationship scales are presented in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Mean Scores for the Relationship Scales: Faculty Sample Factor Score Rank 1 Empathy 4.6 l 3 Communication 4.4 2 2 Communication through trusting 4.4 3 4 Accessibility 4.2 4 Overall dev e1 opment 4. O — The faculty and student samples' mean scores were more similar for the relationship scales than they were for the functions. The faculty sample gave slightly higher mean scores to the relationship subscales 162 than did the student sample. Faculty agreed more with Factors 1 and 3 than did students. In summary. students agreed that faculty should provide help with Educational and occupational goals; Academic offerings. norms and procedures; Class schedule and programs of study; University student services; Vocational decision making; Monitoring academic involvement; and understanding the Meaning of a college education. in that order. Students were unsure whether the faculty should provide help with the student's Overall development. Faculty agreed they should provide help with understanding the Meaning of a college education. Monitoring academic involvement. Class schedule and programs of study. Educational and occupational goals. and Vocational decision making. in that order. Faculty were unsure whether they should provide help with Academic offerings. norms and procedures; University student services; and the st udent 's Overal l devel opm ent. Conclusions Based on the results of the data analyses. the following conclu- sions are warranted: 1. Students' age and field of study were related to their expec- tations. Nursing students agreed more than those from other fields with the functions on which differences were observed. Students from Sciences and Technology and those from Behavioral Sciences showed the lowest agreement with the functions. The youngest students (17—20) agreed more to being helped with their Overall development. 163 2. Faculty advising experience was associated with faculty's lower agreement with Meaning of a college education function. 3. Faculty gender was associated with expectations regarding the help the advisor should provide with Vocational decision making. Male faculty members agreed more with that function than did female faculty members. 4. Rank and degree were not related to expectations of the fac- ulty advisor functions or relationship activities. Type of appointment was related to faculty's agreement with monitoring academic involve- ment. 5. Fewer differences were observed when faculty from different fields were compared than when students from different fields of study were compared regarding their expectations of the faculty advisor functions or relationship activities. 6. More differences between faculty and student expectations were observed for the functions than for the relationship activities. when the two groups were compared across fields and‘within the same field of study. 7. Students agreed more than faculty with those functions on which differences in agreement were found. 8. Faculty and students agreed on the ranking of three of the functions (Class schedule and programs of study. Vocational decision making. and Overall development). The two groups were unsure whether the faculty advisor should provide help with the student's<0verall develOpment. The first-ranked function for the faculty was Meaning of —__.__._ I, - _ ._. ...—., . ~ — — 3V. - _ ,. ~_. . ‘- . m g . ,_....- _. 1*} .__ _ _..§_._ - ., .h—lhd' \--'-‘. ' 164 a college education. whereas the first—ranked function for students was Educational and occupational goals. That function was rated fourth by the faculty. Although Monitoring academic involvement was the second— ranked function for the faculty. differences were found among faculty members with different types of appointments concerning their expecta- tions of that function. Discussion Eight functions of the advisor were identified and studied in this research. Four aspects of the advisor-advisee relationship were also submitted.to analyses. Statistically significant differences were found between student and faculty expectations concerning seven of the eight functions and three of the four relationship subscales. Students expected the faculty advisor to perform seven.main:functions..about which the faculty showed less agreement or were unsure. Discrepancies in level of agreement were also observed when students were compared with faculty of their selected.field. These findings confirmed.the results of previous research. which indicated discrepancies between the two groups in the areas in which faculty can be of help to students. Contrary to previous research. professional characteristics of the faculty such as rank and degree were not associated with their expecta- tions of the faculty advisor functions or relationship activities. Gender was found to be related to faculty expectations concerning only one of the eight functions studied. Furthermore. faculty with tenure were more willing than their less-experienced counterparts to follow students' progress actively through their college years. This finding 165 was in contrast to the literature. in which more-experienced professors were described as being less willing to be involved in such an activity. The results of this study supported the notion that students' needs and expectations regarding academic advising may be related to developmental processes. Students' age was associated with their agreement with the faculty advisor as a helper with whom to discuss their overall development. The youngest students agreed more than the others that one function of the faculty advisor could be to help students handle personal problems. discuss social and political issues. and select extracurricular activities. The youngest students also agreed more than the oldest on the characteristics of the advising helping relationship. Previous research results showed that the choice of a major and occupational concerns were students' highest priorities to discuss during the advising sessions. Similar expectations were found in this study. Students agreed on educational and occupational planning as the first faculty advisor function. The faculty showed a tendency to look at the role from a more philosophical. long-term perspective than did students. The faculty endorsed more those activities related to the value of a college education. the purposes of general education courses. and the general interaction between the student and the uni- versity. Students tended to agree more with those activities that dealt specifically with the immediate problem of selecting a major. job outlooks. and completing a major and graduation requirements. They seemed to be more concerned with their present reality. However. through the advising experience. faculty perhaps had discovered that discussing philosophical concerns is not precisely what students expect from advising. Faculty members who had had advising experience agreed less with the function of providing help with the meaning of a college education than did those without such experience. Although this research was not intended to establish a causal relationship between the faculty's advising experience and expectations of their function as helper with the meaning of a college education. a possible interaction between the two was found. The lack of agreement in students' and faculty members' ranking of the faculty advisor functions also confirmed previous research find- ings. However. students and faculty were similar in their low level of agreement with the advisor as a provider of help with personal and family problems. moral issues. political and social concerns. and the selection of extracurricular activities. Previous researchers have found that students do not agree to contact the faculty advisor to discuss these issues. Faculty and students agreed that communicating an empathic under- standing describes an effective helping advisor-advisee relationship. Both groups agreed that the advisor should be accessible and capable of establishing a trusting relationship with the student. These findings confirmed previous research results in which these aspects were studied. Faculty and students were more in agreement about what an —.____ — - - -r - ~ .- - “M— -L_L'_.j;~-,___‘.-_n_.,—_' if. ‘_M‘ 4 M .:w;_.‘.\.._’"..o..:-. -' »: -7» ' '- 167 effective helping relationship should be than about the specific activities the advisor should perform to help the student. Validation of the instrument demonstrated that the role of advisor is a multidimensional phenomenon. as was described in the literature. This was true particularly for the faculty. The impossibility of creating an overall functions scale indicates the advisor role is a complex construct. at least as perceived by two important definers of that role: the students as recipients of the advising service and the faculty as providers. The distinction that both students and faculty made of Factor 2. Communication through trusting. which was not found to be part of the overall relationship scale. was unexpected. More specific study of the interrelationship of these factors is needed. Through this research it was demonstrated that differences in expectations of the advisor's role among students and faculty in dif- ferent fields or disciplines were identifiable. More differences regarding expectations of the advisor's role were detected within the student group than within the faculty group. From a sociological perspective. this degree of difference might denote a stronger and better-defined subculture for the faculty than the students. In general terms. students saw the faculty as a source of help in most of the areas studied. Likewise. faculty considered themselves a source of help in a majority of the areas investigated. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study. the following recommendations are made: —— - ~ v 4 n_—_-—._-~- _ W p‘.“ bb‘m'C’L—“‘— , . 4 168 Recommendations Based on This Research 1. Administrators should consider the results of this study in developing the advising program at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. 2. The multidimensionality of the advisor's role should be studied further. Higher-order constructs can be proposed and studied to reduce the number of functions. The study. evaluation. and discussion of the topic would be easier and less prone to misunderstanding if all the activities could be accounted for in terms of simple. parsimonious. unidimensional concepts. If this is not possible. understanding the distinction faculty and students made when responding to the items developed to measure the advisor's activities is important to defining the role of the faculty advisor. 3. The instruments developed for this research (the AAFQ and the AARQ) should be validated with other populations. The usefulness of the instruments in evaluating advising programs can also be measured by changing the response scale. 4. This study showed that having advising experience may be related to less agreement on the faculty's part with helping students understand the meaning of a college education. Because that was the function with which faculty agreed more than did students. the effect of advising experience on faculty satisfaction with the advisory role and their performance thereof should be studied further. 169 5. The comparison of expectations could be extended to counselors and administrators who are involved in providing advisory services. 6. Further research should be undertaken to examine the relation- ship between students' developmental changes and expectations about advising services. 7. This study could be replicated with faculty and students from other higher education institutions or from other educational centers of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. General Recommendations for the Development of the Academic Advising Program 1. An account of the activities the faculty advisor can perform should be developed. This action would be of utmost benefit to faculty lnembers and students at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico and possibly to faculty and students at other colleges and universities in Puerto Rico. 2. If the advisor-advisee relationship is defined as a helping one in which empathy. effective communication. trust. and accessibility of the advisor must be present. faculty training should be developed around that definition. Faculty should be taught to exhibit trusting behavior through verbal and nonverbal means because students value that characteristic much more than any other. according to the results of this study. 3. The desirability of assigning all faculty members as advisors of students in their major field should be investigated. Provisions 170 should be made for meeting,the needs of students in fields in‘which faculty are unwilling to perfonm given aspects of the advising role. 4. Teaching faculty how to help students select a major. fulfill major and graduation requirements. and become acquainted with job outlooks should be a priority. 5. Because students differ in their needs and expectations. faculty should be taught to understand students' priorities and needs as they may be reflected in the advising session andtx>develop the interaction based on those priorities. 6. Before or during the first advising session. students should be oriented regarding the areas inwwhich faculty advisors can be of help. to prevent misconceptions that might hinder the advisor-advisee relationship. ——— - -— , __ .~ ‘W U_?..- MHZ—"v-b .u‘fi‘ ._ rpiA -_ , APPENDICES APPENDIX A DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES OF THE FACULTY SAMPLE 0‘ o 171 SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA Gender (sex) Feminine Masculine Field Eco. and Adm. Sc. Nursing Sc. and Techn. Humanities Education Behavioral Sc. Missing data Age groups 27 - 36 37 - 46 47 — 66 Rank Instructor Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor Missing data Type of appointment Temporary Probationary Tenure Substituting Missing data Highest degree Master Doctoral Missing data . Years of experience Lo - 6 - 12 13 - Hi FACULTY SAMPLE Number 38 25 Percent 60.31 39.68 41.3 30.2 28.5 31.0 46.0 16.0 6.6 3.1 36.50 41.26 14.20 4.76 4.00 47.6 39.7 12.7 APPENDIX B DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES OF THE STUDENT SAMPLE 172 SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA: Field of study Eco. and Adm. Sc. Nursing Sc. and Tech. Humanities Education Behavioral Sc. Missing data Gender (sex) Feminine Masculine Missing data Age groups 17—20 21—25 26—54 Missing data Expected degree Certificate Associate Bachelor's Missing data Transfer Yes No Missing data Program of study Day Night Nights and Saturdays Saturdays only Combines schedules Missing data Status Less than 30 credit hours 31—60 61-90 More than 90 Missing data STUDENTS' Number 228 24 254 17 88 56 4 383 283 198 73 151 187 250 10 SAMPLE Percent 00 w o a o 0 anl—Immmo H commuted:- 1.4 2’." —\ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Economic aid Yes NO Missing data Type of student Full—time Part-time Grade point average 4.00-3.0 2.99-2.0 Less than 2.0 Missing data Full withdrawal Never Once for one semester Once for a year More than once Missing data Course withdrawal Never 1-7 courses More than 7 courses Missing data Had been on probation Yes NO Have visited the Counseling Center Yes NO Missing data Number 592 76 612 59 239 194 289 239 87 575 361 307 Percent 28.9 43.0 35.6 .7 12.9 85.69 APPENDIX C BIO-SOCIAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE 9. 174 BIO-SOCIAL DATA I am years old. I am studying toward a major in . That major is offered at the Division of: Economics and Business Administration Nursing Science and Technology Education Behavioral Sciences In that major I am looking forward to complete a: professional certificate associate degree bachelor degree Sex Feminine Masculine I started my studies in another university or campus and transferred to this Metropolitan campus Yes No My studies are mostly during day program evening program evenings and Saturdays Saturdays I usually combine different time schedules HH While studying I work: part-time full-time _ (if you don't work, leave it unanswered) I have completed (do not count your current credits) less than 30 credits from 30 to 59 credits from 60 to 89 credits from 90 to 124 credits 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 175 I get economic aid (check all those that apply) federal (Pell or BEOG) Legislative From Interamerican University loan Other. Specify I usually enroll in 12 or more credits less than 12 credits While studying I live with my parents live with my relatives live in a private boarding house live by myself live with my own family (husband or wife and/or my child/ren) HHHH My academic point average is between: 0.00 and 1.49 1.50 and 2.49 2.50 and 3.49 3.50 and 4.00 Since I started at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico I have dropped from: (If you have not dropped any course, leave it unanswered) _____l to 3 courses 4 to 7 courses 8 to ll courses more than 11 courses Since I started at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico: I have never totally dropped I have totally dropped: (check one of the following) for a semester for two consecutive semesters for more than two consecutive semesters for more than two, although not consecutive semesters 176 16. I have been on academic probation: Yes No 17. I have used the Counseling Center Service: Yes No “)‘u' i‘w_V§:wV_-¢—. -'_ " 1. BIO-SOCIAL DATA I perform my teaching duties in the: Economics and Administrative Sciences Division Humanistic Studies Division Nursing School Education Division Sciences and Technology Division Behavioral Sciences Division My rank is: Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Other Specify My contract is: Temporary On probationary period Permanent Other Specify My sex is : . Female Masculine My age is: The highest degree I have completed is: Bachelor Master Doctoral Other Specify My experience as a college professor could be broken down in the following manner: (Specify the number of years) Years with the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico _ Years in other institutions before working at Interamerican University of Puerto Rico ' Years in other institutions while working at Interamerican University of Puerto RlCO m 0 oo o 178 DATOS BIO-SOCIALES Mi edad es: . Estoy estudiando una concentracién en . Esa concentracién se ofrece en la: Division de Ciencias Econémicas y Administrativas Escuela de Enfermeria Ciencias y Tecnologia Estudios Humanisticos Educacion Ciencias y Profesiones de la Conducta lllll En esa concentracion me propongo obtener: un Certificado Profesional (menos de 2 afios de estudios) un Grado Asociado (2 afios de estudios) un Bachillerato (4 afios de estudios) Soy del sexo: Femenino Masculino Inicié estudios en otra universidad o recinto y me transferia este Recinto Metropolitano. Si No Estudio mayormente: de dia de noche de noche y sébados sabados usualmente combino los cursos a diferentes horarios llH Mientras estudio, trabajo: a tarea parcial a tarea completa He aprobado (no cuente los créditos que lleva ahora): menos de 30 créditos entre 30 y 59 créditos entre 60 y 89 créditos entre 90 y 124 créditos 10. Recibo ayuda econémica (marca todas las que apliquen en tu caso): federal (Pell 0 BEOG) legislativa . de la Universidad Interamericana préstamo otros £Cual? ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16 17. 179 Generalmente me matriculo en: 12 créditos o mas menos de 12 créditos Mientras estudio: vivo con mis padres vivo con mis familiares a modo de hospedaje vivo en hospedaje privado vivo solo(a) otro Especifique: Ej. esposo, esposa. hijos/as Durante mis afios de estudios: nunca me he dado de baja total me he dado de baja total (marque una de las siguientes): por un semestre por dos semestres consecutivos por mas de dos semestres consecutivos por mas de dos semestres pero no consecutivos Mi promedio académico esta entre: 0.00 y 1.49 1.50 y 2.49 2.50 y 3.49 3.50 y 4.00 Desde que me inicié en la Universidad Interamericana me he dado de baja de: (Si no se ha dado de baja de ningun curso deje la pregunta en blanco) 1 a 3 cursos 4 a 7 cursos 8 a ll cursos mas de 11 cursos He estado en probatoria académica: Si No He utilizado los servicios del Centro de Orientacion: 5i ____ No o 180 DATOS BIO-SOCIALES Desempefio mis funciones docentes en la: Divisién de Ciencias Economicas y Administrativas Escuela de Enfermeria Division de Ciencias y Tecnologia Divisién de Estudios Humanisticos Division de Educacion Division de Ciencias y Profesiones de la Conducta Ostento e1 rango de: Instructor Catedratico Auxiliar Catedrético Asociado Catedratico Otro Especifique: Mi contrato es: Temporero Probatorio Permanente Otro Especifique: Soy del sexo: Femenino Masculino Mi edad es: El grado mas alto que he alcanzado es: Bachillerato Maestria Doctorado Otro Especifique: Mi experiencia como profesor(a) universitario se desglosa de la siguiente manera: (indique el numero de anos) afios en la Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico afios en otras intituciones antes trabajar en la Universiadad Interamericana de Puerto Rico afios en otras intituciones concurrente con mi labor en la Universidad Interamericana APPENDIX D ACADEMIC ADVISOR FUNCTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE 181 FUNCTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISOR For the following statements place an (X) in the box which best describes your opinion as to what the professor should do when providing academic advising. There are are five alterna- tive responses: (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement . Each statement is preceded by the following phrase: As an academic advisor the professor assigned to me should: [*1 -fl———-———*--—_-——u—————————‘—n—-‘—_—I_—‘—_‘-——:-__———_--—_——-———-——-_-— L— U ”'-"-—_"'_'-'——_"'—"'—'_-_-—"-‘——_—'"-"""—'—_"-’—-’-""—""7F' ' A B L l. inform me about scholarships, loans and ) employment opportunities. 2. help me understand enrollment, with- drawal, and payment procedures. 3. inform me about student services such as cafeteria, library, bookstore, etc. ) 4. refer me to services provided by the University, when necessary. 5. inform me about the content of the courses offered by the University. 6. inform me about the different majors offered by the Unviversity. 7. inform me about the requirements to take a course or major. 8. inform me about the norms related to the transfer from this University to another. 9. inform me the regulations concerning the transfer, substitution and exemption of courses. 10. inform me the regulations concerning probation and suspension from the University. 11. suggest courses according to my interests and needs. -——_-_———_-_————-_———_—_-—_—_—-—————_———————r———-———————_———‘—-———-- _— D.-—_—---—-——---’-_--—-fl_—*——_nm -- -—————-———-——_———————-————-——-——--—_—-———-—-—-—_————~—“—-—~— 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 182 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement assist me in preparing a class schedule taking course difficulty into considera- tion. assist me in preparing a class schedule taking into consideration my personal needs. suggest courses which could help me choose a career. discuss with me the reasons I may have to add or drop a course and help me make a decision. sign the forms authorizing adding or dropping a course. advise me about difficulties I might encounter if registering for too many courses or several courses of high level of rigor. suggest me challenging courses. know my academic progress through each semester. help me to solve problems related with University procedures. explain me the purposes of General Studies courses. explain the relationship between General Studies courses and courses of my major. explain me the different ways to take courses such as: independent study, seminars, and internships ___L.._ .-————-_—_~_—_————-——-———-—-4———_——————_——————————-——-—————_————-————-——_—_——-——_———— — -— u-—- — — —-—_ ——— — — — _ - -—- - -. — — “—3 ——._-_——_—-—-———u n—n—a-n-— — _. ~ - — -. — — ——— u— — — —————-—_—-——————-——— b — —_— _ __-__________-__-________-____-_--__-__-____________-________________-_________-__-_L 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 183 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement help me understand the value Univer- sity may have for my life. assist me in understanding how my life is affected and how I may affect the University environment. help me understand the importance and value that college education may have. provide me information regarding the requirements of my major. assist me in judging the different job alternatives I may have by taking given courses. help me to identify different vocational goals before making a decision. inform me about different educational opportunities available after the com— pletion of my bachelor degree, associate degree or professional certificate. explain the relationship between courses in progress and the ones I will take in the future. guide me toward the completion of my major requirements. explain the different majors within my field of study. guide me toward the completion of graduation requirements. explain job opportunities for those graduating from my major. O U _-————-—_—-—_-_-——_-——_—I———-—_*a_—u_—n-——‘~—-——_--——-_——-—-—. -— _—_-——-———————-——-—————————————--_—_-_—-———_—-—_—_—-a——-——-—a—s-~c——*—-———-—-————_-_ be. -——-—————-———————————————-—-—-——-———————-——-————————————————“~—_-——~fl_w——_—_——’_——_L— 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 184 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement follow my academic progress through my college years. encourage me to establish vocational and occupational goals. encourage me to evaluate my vocational and/or educational goals according to my academic progress. inform me about university activities (extracurricular activities). discuss with me social issues if I present them during the academic advising sessions. discuss with me political issues if I present them during the academic advising session. discuss with me aspects concerning my moral development. a help me deal with personal and/or family problems or concerns (not necessarily related with the Universtiy). help me choose activities that can contribute to my total development. -l_________-____-__________--_____________-_-___--____________F- —-—-—--———-——-—-—-———-———-—————-—-———-—--—----———-—-L- _—————-—_-——————_—- nuL——c———-———-—-——————-a—n—-——————-n_—-—a-—~.-c——-— — (.- ——_-————-—-——-—-———’——_———_——————————-—-—~———_———_—_-—-_—-—-—— _- ——_—_—_——— r..— t1] 185 FUNCTIONS OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISOR For the following statements place an (X) in the box which best describes your opinion as to what you as a faculty adVisor should do when providing academic advising. There are five alternative responses: (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement Each statement is preceded by the following phrase: One of my duties as a professor is to provide academic advising to undergra- duate students. I understand that as an academic advisor I should: ' A 1. Inform about scholarships, loans and employment opportunities. 2. help the student to understand enrollment, withdrawal, and payment procedures. 3. inform about student services such as cafeteria, library, bookstore, etc. 4. refer the student to university services when necessary. 5. inform about the content of the courses offered by the University. 6. inform about the different majors offered by the Unviversity. 7. inform about the requirements to take a course or major. 8. inform about the norms related to the transfer from this University to another. 9. inform the regulations concerning the transfer, substitution and exemption of courses. 10. inform me the regulations concerning probation and suspension from the University. 11. suggest courses according to my interests J_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and needs. I 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 186 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement assist the student in preparing a class schedule taking course diffi- culty into consideration. assist the student in preparing a class schedule taking into consideration his/her personal needs. suggest courses which could help the stu- dent choose a career. discuss the reasons the student may have to add or drop a course and help - him/her.make a decision. sign Add and DrOp forms advise about difficulties the. student may encounter if he/she registers for too many courses or several courses of high level of rigor. suggest challenging courses. know the student's academic progress through each semester. help the student to solve problems related with University procedures. explain the purposes of General Studies courses. _—————————_—_——-————————————————_—-—————-————-——~-——-———-———————-——— ~- -—--—-—-————-——-—_—_——-——-————-———-——-—-—————-——————-————————————— —— tn I; I'- ——-————-—————-—-———-———————-—-——-——————————————————————————————————L— 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 187 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement explain the relationship between General Studies courses and academic major courses. explain the different ways to take courses such as: independent study, seminars, and internships. help the student to understand the value that the University may have for his/her life. assist the student to understand how he/ she interacts with University life. help the student to understand the importance and value that a college edu- cation may have. inform the requirements of the student's major. assist in judging the different job alternatives the student may have if he/ she takes given courses. help the student to identify different vocational goals before making a decision inform about different educational opportunities available after the com- pletion of the bachelors, associate degree or professional certificate. explain the relationship between courses in progress and the ones the student will take in the future. guide the student toward the completion of the major requirements. .-——_———————————————_——————-—-——————-————-—n—————-———_—-——————‘-—-——— -——————p————-—— y...— ..___-.__.___.._________.___.._-_..._-_____-_.._..___.__________..____._-_.__.__.____________.._._ r... —--——-——--—-——-——————-—-————_———~—_-_—-_-———_—————-—-———_———————__—————-——-—--Ip— ~—————_—_—~——-——_——-———-_—————_—-——-——————_————_—_———-—_—-—————_———-———_—-—_—————_——— p..— ———‘———-—————————-——————————————————_—_—————————————--—_—-—————————-——-—--—-—— p—o— 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42 43. 44. 188 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement explain the different majors within the student selected field of study. guide the student toward the completion of graduation requirements. explain job opportunities for those graduating from his/her major. follow the student's academic progress (through college years. encourage the student to evaluate his/her goals according to academic progress. encourage the student to establish vocational and occupational goals. Inform about extracurricular activities. discuss social issues if presented by the student during the academic advising session. discuss political issues if presented by the student during the academic advising session. discuss with the student aspects concerning his/her moral development. help the student deal with personal and/ or family problems or concerns (not ne— cessarily related with the University) help the student to choose activities which may contribute to his /her total development. l. U1 . Ayudarme a entender los procedimientos de . Referirme a diversos servicios ofrecidos - Conocer e informarme sobre las diversas . Conocer e informarme sobre los requisitos 189 FUNCIONES DE EL/LA CONSEJERO/A ACADEMICO A continuacién aparece un grupo de aseveraciones. Marca con una (X) e1 encasillado que corresponda con tu opinion de lo que debe hacer e1 0 la profesor(a) que se te asigne como consejero(a) académico. Hay cinco posibles respuestas: (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo Cada aseveracién esta precedida por la frase: El/La profesor(a) que se me asigne como consejero(a) académico debe: Informarme sobre becas de estudio, préstamo y empleo. matricula, altas, bajas y pagos. Informarme sobre servicios al estudiante disponibles en la universidad tales como cafeteria y libreria. Por la universidad cuando sea necesario. Conocer e informarme el contenido de los cursos que ofrece 1a universidad concentraciones que ofrece la universidad. Que debo cumplir al tomar determinado ’ curso 0 al elegir determinada concentraCion 190 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo 8. Conocer e informarme las normas o relacionadas con la transferencia de una universidad a otra. . Conocer e informarme sobre las normas de convalidacién, sustitucion y de excecién de curso. Conocer e informarme sobre las normas de estatus probatorio y de suspenSion de la universidad. Sugerir cursos segun mis intereses y necesidades. Ayudarme a programar los cursos segun e1 nivel de dificultad de los mismos. Ayudarme a programar los cursos segun sus necesidades particulares. Sugerirme cursos que me ayuden a decidirme por una vocacion u ocupaCion. Discutir conmigo los motivos que pueda tener para darme de baja 0 de alta Y ayudarme a tomar una deCiSion. Firmar los formularios autorizando altas y bajas. Advertirme de posibles dificultades si me matriculo en demasiados cursos 0 en varios cursos de mucha dificultad al mismo tiempo. Sugerirme cursos que reten mi capacidad. Conocer mi progreso académico cada semestre. Ayudarme a resolver problemas que Confronte con los procedimientos de la universidad. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 191 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo Explicarme el propésito de los cursos del Programa de Educacién General. Explicarme 1a relacion entre los cursos del Programa de Educacion General y los de mi concentracién. Explicarme las diversas formas de estu- dio tales como: estudio independiente, seminarios, internados. Ayudarme a encontrar e1 sentido que la universidad tiene para mi vida. Estar informado(a) y ayudarme a estar alerta sobre cémo mi Vida es afectada y a su vez afecta la Vida en la universidad. Ayudarme a entender 1a importancia y el valor que puede tener para mi una educacion universitaria. Explicarme la razon de ser de los requisitos de la concentraCion. Ayudarme a visualizar las alternativas de empleo que estarian disponibles Sl tomo determinados cursos. Ayudarme a anticipar diversas metas .‘ vocacionales antes de tomar una deCiSion. Conocer y explicarme sobre las oportunidades de estudios a1 terminar e1 bachillerato, grado asociado o certificado profesional que estoy estudiando. Explicarme 1a relacion entre los cursos que esten tomando y los que tomare mas tarde. Guiarme hacia 1a aprobacion_de los requisitos de la concentraCion. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37 38 39 40 41. 42. 43. 44. 192 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo Conocer y explicarme los diversos campos de especializacion dentro de mi concentracion. Guiarme hacia la aprobacién de los requisitos de graduacion. Conocer y explicarme las oportunidades del mercado de empleo para el area de estudio que seleccione. Conocer mi progreso académico a través de mis afios de estudios. Estimularme a establecer metas vocacionales y ocupacionales. Estimularme a evaluar mis metas vocacionales y/u ocupacionales de acuerdo a mi progreso académico. Conocer e informarme sobre actividades en la universidad aparte de los cursos (actividades extra-curriculares). Conversar conmigo sobre loS problemas o situaciones de la sociedad Si 105 presento en la situacion de consejeria. Conversar conmigo sobre situaciones o problemas politicos Si los presento en la situacion de consejeria. Estar atento(a) y discutir conmigo aspectos relacionados con mi desarrollo moral. Ayudarme a manejar problemas o . . preocupaciones personales o familiares (no relacionados con la univerSidad). Ayudarme a seleccionar actividades que contribuyan a mi desarrollo y mejoramiento total. A continuacion 193 FUNCIONES EN LA CONSEJERIA ACADEMICA aparecen cinco posibles respuestas: Marque con una (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo académico de estudiantes subgraduados. Cada aseveracion esta precedida por la siguiente afirmacion: Parte de mis funciones como profesor/a de esta Universidad es ofrecer consejeria académica a los estudiantes subgraduados. Entiendo que como consejero/a académico debo: H N (A) I .5 U1 m o \l o (D informarle sobre oportunidades de becas de estudio, préstamos y empleos. ayudarle a entender los procedimientos de matricula, altas, bajas y pagos. informarle sobre servicios a1 estudiante disponibles en la Universidad tales como: cafeteria y libreria. referirle a diversos servicios ofrecidos por la Universidad cuando sea necesario. conocer e informarle e1 contenido de los cursos que ofrece la univerSidad conocer e informarle los requisitos que debe cumplir antes de tomar determinado curso o elegir determinada concentracién. conocer e informarle las normas relacionadas con la tranferenCia de una Universidad a otra. conocer e informarle las diversas . concentraciones que ofrece 1a UniverSidad aparece un grupo de aseveraciones para las cuales (X) e1 encasillado que mejor represente su opinion respecto a lo que —usted entiende debe realizar como consejero(a) A 10 ll 12. 13 14 15 l6. 17 18 19 20 21 o 194 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo conocer e informarle sobre las normas de convalidacién, sustitucién y de exencion de cursos. conocer e informarle sobre las normas de estatus probatorio y de suspension de la universidad. sugerirle cursos segun sus intereses y necesidades. ayudarle a programar los cursos segun el nivel de dificultad de los mismos. ayudarle a programar los cursos segun sus necesidades particulares. sugerirle cursos que le ayuden a decidirse por una vocacién u ocupaCion. discutir con él o ella los motivos que pueda tener para darse de baja 0 de alta y ayudarle a tomar una deCiSion. firmar los formularios autorizando altas y bajas. advertirle de posibles dificultades si se matricula en demasiados cursos 0 en varios cursos de mucha dificultad a1 mismo tiempo. sugerirle cursos que reten su capacidad. conocer su progreso académico cada semestre. ayudarle a resolver problemas que confronte con los procedimientos de la Universidad. explicarle e1 proposito de los cursos del Programa de Educacion General. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 o 195 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo explicarle la relacion entre los cursos del Programa de Educacion General y los de su concentracién. explicarle las diversas formas de estudios, tales como: estudio independiente, seminarios, internados. ayudarle a encontrar el sentido que la Universidad tiene para su Vida. estar informado(a) y ayudarle a estar alerta sobre como su Vida es afectada y a la vez afecta la Vida de la Universidad. ayudarle a entender la importancia y el valor que puede tener una educaCion universitaria. explicarle 1a razon de ser de los requisitos de la concentraCion. ayudarle a visualizar las alternativas de empleo que estarian disponibles Si toma determinados cursos. ayudarle a anticipar diversas metas_ _’ vocacionales antes de tomar una deCiSion. conocer y explicarle sobre las ‘ oportunidades de estudios al terminar el bachillerato, grado asociado o certificado que esté estudiando. explicarle 1a relacién entre los cursos que esté tomando y los que tomara mas tarde. guiarle hacia la aprobacion'de los requisitos de la concentraCion que seleccione. 33 34 35 36 37 38 o 39. 40 41 42 43 44 O 196 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo v conocer y explicarle los diversos campos de especializacion dentro de su concentracién. guiarle hacia la aprobacién de los requisitos de graduacion. conocer y explicarle las oportunidades del mercado de empleo para el area de estudio que seleccione. ' conocer su progreso académico a través de sus afios de estudio. estimularle a establecer metas vocacionales y ocupacionales. estimularle a evaluar sus metas vocacionales y/u ocupacionales de acuerdo a su progreso académico. conocer e informarle sobre actividades en la Universidad aparte de los cursos (actividades extracurriculares). conversar con el 0 con ella sobre_ . problemas o situaciones de la soc1edad Si las presenta en la situacion de consejeria conversar con e1 0 ella sobre situaciones o problemas politicos Si 105 presenta en la situacion de consejeria. estar atento(a) y discutir con e1 0 ella aspectos relacionados con su desarrollo moral. ayudarle a manejar problemas o. precupaciones personales (no directamente relacionados con la UniveISidad). ayudarle a seleccionar actividades que contribuyan a su desarrollo total. APPENDIX E ACADEMIC ADVISING RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 197 ACADEMIC ADVISING RELATIONSHIP For the following statements place an (X) in the box which best describes your opinion as to what the professor should do when providing academic advising. There are four possible alternative responses: In complete disagreement In disagreement Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement Ow? Each statement is preceded by the following phrase: During the advising session the professor designated as my academic advisor should: 1. know and call me by my first name. 2. be interested in my personal and/or family concerns, beyond those related to the University aspects. 3. listen to me. 4. communicate frankly and openly with me. 5. foster open, frank communication from me. 6. suggest, not impose, the course I should take. be interested in knowing how I feel in the University. \I 8. consider that our conversation is con- fidential not revealing information I may provide. LO treat me as a friend. 10. help me to find-a personal meaning to those courses I may be taking. . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23 o 24. 25. 26 27. 28. 198 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement V help me to be alert to my own behavior. know my personal limitations. respect my decisions. know my personal characteristics. understand how I feel. encourage me to use my abilities. perceive my values. ask me how I feel. respond to my feelings in a warm sensitive, respectful way. invite me to Share my personal as well as family problems with him or her. give me his/her private telephone number. inform me the days and time when we could meet. meet with me several times during each term. meet with me, at least, 15 minutes each time. inform me where is his/her office located. meet with me without an appointment. meet with me in his/her office. carry a light caseload of students for academic advising. 29. 30. 31. 32. 199 ) In complete disagreement ) In disagreement (C) Unsure ) In agreement In complete agreement have time to provide academic advising. consider this task as important. invite me to the interviews. call or write me if I fail to register in a given term. 200 ACADEMIC ADVISING RELATIONSHIP For the following statements place an (X) in the box which best describes your opinion as to what the professor should do when providing academic advising. There are four possible alternative responses: (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement Each statement is preceded by the following phrase: During the advising session as an academic advisor I Should: 1. know and call him/her by his/her first name. 2. be interested in his/her personal and/ or family concerns, beyond those related to the University aspects. 3. listen to him/her. 4. communicate frankly and openly with him/ her. 5. foster open, frank communication from him/her. 6- Suggest, not impose, the courses she/he should take. 7. be interested in knowing how he/she feels in the University. consider that our conversation is con- fidential not revealing information I may get from him/her. a) 9. treat him/her as a friend. 10. help him/her to find a personal meaning tOIfluacourses he/she may be taking. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 201 (A) In complete disagreement (B) In disagreement (C) Unsure (D) In agreement (E) In complete agreement help him/her to be alert to his/her own behavior. know his/her personal limitations. respect his/her decisions. know his/her personal characteristics. understand how he/she feels. encourage her/him to use his/her abilities. perceive his/her values. ask her/him how she/he feels. respond to his/her feelings in a warm, sensitive, respectful way. invite him/her to share his/her personal as well as family problems. give him/her my private telephone number. inform him/her the days and time when we could meet. meet with him/her several times during each term. meet with him/her, at least, 15 minutes each time. inform her/him where my office is located. meet with him/her without an appointment. meet with him/her in my office. carry a light caseload of students for academic advising. 29. 30. 31 32. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) 202 In complete disagreement In disagreement Unsure In agreement In complete agreement have time to provide academic advising. consider this task as important. invite her/him to the interviews. call or write him/her if he/she fails to register in a given term. 203 RELACION EN LA CONSEJERIA ACADEMICA Hay cinco posibles respuestas: (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo v En la relacion de consejeria académica el/la profesor/a que se me asigne debe: A B C . D E 1. Conocerme y llamarme por mi primer nombre. - 2. Interesarse en conocer aspectos relacionados con mi Vida personal y familiar mas alla de la Vida en la universidad. 3. Escucharme. 4. Comunicarse conmigo en forma franca. 5. Promover que me comunique con el 0 ella de forma franca. 6. Sugerir, no imponer los cursos que debo tomar . 7. Preocuparse por conocer como me Siento en la universidad. 8. Considerar que nuestra conversacién es confidencial (privada) y no revelar informacion que obtenga de mi. 9. Tratarme como a un(a) amigo(a)- 10. Ayudarme a encontrar un significado o sentido personal a los cursos que seleccione. 11. Ayudarme a estar alerta a mi propia conducta. 12. Conocer mis limitaciones personales. 13. Respetar mis decisiones. l4. Conocer mis caracteristicas personales. 15. 16 17. l8. 19 20. 21. 22 23 24. 25 26. 27. 29. 30. 31. 32. ) En completo desacuerdo ) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo Entender Como me Siento. Estimularme a hacer uso de mis habilidades. Percibir mis valores. Preguntarme cémo me Siento. Responder a mis sentimientos en forma calida y respetuosa. Invitarme a compartir mis problemas o preocupaciones personales o familiares. Darme su numero de teléfono privado. Informarme los dias y horas en que puedo reunirme con él 0 con ella. Reunirse conmigo varias veces durante cada semestre. Reunirse conmigo, por lo menos, quince minutos cada ocasion. Informarme dénde esta localizada su oficina. Atenderme sin cita previa. Tener pocos estudiantes aconsejados a su cargo. Tener tiempo para atender las tareas de consejeria academica. Considerar que esta tarea es importante. Invitarme a entrevistarme con el 0 ella. Llamarme o escribirme si no me matriculo en algun semestre. 205 RELACION EN LA CONSEJERIA ACADEMICA Hay cinco posibles respuestas: A En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo Cada frase esta precedida por la siguiente aseveracién: Parte de mis funciones como profesor de esta Univer- sidad es ofrecer consejeria académica a los estudiantes sub—gradua- dos. Entiendo que en mi relacion con los estudiantes que se me asignen debo: H conocer y llamarle por su primer nombre. 2. interesarme en conocer aspectos relacionados con su vida personal y familiar mas alla de la Vida en la Universidad. 3. escucharle. 4. comunicarme con él o ella en forma franca. 5. promover que se comunique conmigo en forma franca. 6. sugerir, no imponer, los cursos que debe tomar. 7. preocuparme por conocer Como se siente en la Universidad. 8. considerar que nuestra conversacién es confidencial (privada) y no revelar informacién que obtenga de e1 0 ella. 9. tratarle como a un(a) amigo(a). 10- ayudarle a encontrar un sentido personal a los cursos que toma. 11. ayudarle a estar alerta a su propia conducta. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 26 27 28. 29 30. 206 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo conocer sus limitaciones personales y académicas. respetar sus decisiones. conocer sus caracteristicas personales. entender cémo se siente. estimularle a hacer uso de sus habilidades. percibir sus valores. preguntarle cémo se siente. responder a sus sentimientos en forma calida y respetuosa. invitarle a compartir sus problemas o preocupaciones personales o familiares. darle mi numero de teléfono privado. informarle los dias y horas en que puede entrevistarse conmigo. reunirme con él 0 con ella varias veces durante cada semestre. reunirme con él o ella durante, por lo menos, quince minutos cada vez. Informarle donde esta localizada mi oficina. Atenderle sin cita previa. Atenderle en mi oficina. Tener pocos aconsejados a mi cargo. Tener tiempo para atender las tareas de consejeria académica. Considerar que esta tarea es importante. 207 (A) En completo desacuerdo (B) En desacuerdo (C) Indeciso (D) De acuerdo (E) Completamente de acuerdo 31. Invitarle a entrevistarse conmigo. 32. Llamarle o escribirle Si no se matricula en algun semestre. APPENDIX F ACADEMIC ADVISING EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE 1. 208 ACADEMIC ADVISING EXPERIENCES Is there an important task that the professor as an academic advisor Should perform that is not listed? Explain. ”‘- Is there any task which you think the professor as an academic advisor should not perform and is not listed? Explain. Do you know who has been deSignated as your academic advisor? Explain. How were you informed about that designation? Have you met with him/her during this semester, last semester or during the summer in an academic advising session? Explain. What topic was discussed during your first meeting? 'What was the topic in subsequent meetings? How would you evaluate the service you received from your academic advisor? Respond only if you answered Yes to question number 5. Very much productive Productive Somehow productive Not productive Injurious —_ — _ —— __ 10. 11‘ is your academic advisor to Respond only if you answered Yes How prepared do you think carry out this task? to question number 5. Very much prepared Prepared Somehow prepared Not prepared How many advisors do you think should be assigned to each professor for academic advising? Are you interested in knowing or meeting your academic advisor? 210 ACADEMIC ADVISING EXPERIENCES IS there an important task that you think the academic advisor should perform that is not listed? Explain. Is there any task which you think the academic advisor should not perform and is not listed? Explain. Do you know who are your advisees? Explain. How have your advisees been informed about your designation as their academic advisor? Explain. Do you think you have an adequate number of students as advisees? Explain. Have you met with anyone of your advisees during this term, last semester or during the summer in an academic advising session? Explain. Which has been the most frequent topic of your first meeting with your advisees? Have you met for more than one session with anyone of your advisees? On the average how many interviews have you had with your advisees? 10. ll. 12. 211 How would you evaluate the service you have provided to your advisees as academic advisor? (Respond only if you have answered Yes to question number 6) Very productive Productive Somehow productive Not productive Injurious How prepared.do you feel you are to perform academic advising duties? Very much prepared Prepared Somehow prepared Not prepared Are you interested in starting or continuing your work as an academic advisor with undergraduate students? Explain. 212 EXPERIENCIA EN LA CONSEJERIA ACDEMICA 1. éHay algun aspecto- o tarea que crees debe realizar el/la consejero(a) académico que no esté listado? 2. aHay algun aspecto o tarea que crees que no debe realizar como consejero(a) académico que no este listado? 3. éYa sabes quién es tu consejero(a) académico? 4. écémo te enteraste? 5. éHaS conversado con él o ella durante este semestre, e1 semestre pasado 0 el verano en calidad de consejero(a) académico? Si (pase a la pregunta #6) No (pase a la pregunta numero 10) 6. éCual fue el tema de tu primera conversacién con tu consejero(a) académico? 7. éCual ha sido el tema de conversaciones subsiguientes? 213 8. LCémo evaluarias ese intercambio con e1 0 la consejero(a) académico? Muy productivo Productivo Un poco productivo Nada productivo Perjudicial 9. aCuan preparado esta tu consejero(a) académico para hacer esta tarea? Muy preparado(a) Preparado(a) Un poco preparado(a) No esta preparado(a) 10. éCuéntos aconsejados crees que debe tener cada consejero(a) académico a su cargo? 11. éTienes interés en conocer quién es tu consejero(a) académico? ################################################################# Como parte de esta investigacién deseamos entrevistar a estudiantes que deseen compartir experiencias u opiniones sobre este tema. Si desea ser entrevistado(a) llene y desprende este talonario y entrégarlo a la persona que recoja el resto del material 0 en la Division de Educacion. Nombre Numero de teléfono 0 extension en el recinto Horas y dias en que podrias ser entrevistado(a): 214 EXPERIENCIA EN LA CONSEJERIA ACADEMICA l. éHay algun aspecto o tarea que usted cree debe realizar como consejero(a) académico que n9 esté listado? 2. Hay algun aspecto o tarea que usted cree que 29 debe realizar como consejero(a) académico que no esté listado? 3. éTiene una lista de los estudiantes que 1e han sido asignados como aconsejados? 4. ape qué modo 1e ha informado a ellos que usted es su conse jero(a)? 5. 6Considera que el numero de estudiantes que se le ha asignado es adecuado? 6. éHa conversado durante e1 semestre pasado, e1 verano o durante este semestre con algun estudiante asignado en calidad de consejero(a) académico? Si 6Con cuantos? No (pase a la pregunta numero 12) 7. éCual ha sido el tema mas frecuente de su primera conversacién con estos estudiantes aconsejados? 10. ll. 12. 215 éHa sostenido mas de una conversacién de consejeria académica con algunos(s) de los estudiantes que le han sido asignados? aEn promedio, cuéntas entrevistas ha sostenido con sus aconsejados? acémo evaluaria ese intercambio con ese(a) o esos(as) estudiantes? Muy productivo Productivo Poco productivo Nada productivo Perjudicial Explique brevemente éCuan preparado(a) se siente para hacer la tarea de conse- jeria académica? Muy bien preparado(a) Preparado(a) Un poco preparado(a) No estoy preparado(a) Explique brevemente su respuesta éTiene interés en iniciarse 0 en continuar con la tarea de ofrecer consejeria académica a los estudiantes subgraduados? , w. ‘M’ A 4.1...- ..Avsibiw-s, ., ~. 5. i - 216 Como parte de esta investigacion deseamos entrevistar a profesores(a) que‘ deseen compartir sus opiniones y/o experiencias sobre este tema. Si desea ser entrevistado(a) llene y desprenda este talonario. Puede entregarlo junto al resto del material, dentro del sobre o hacérmelo llegar a la Divisién de Educacién. Nombre . Numero de teléfono o extenSion en el reCinto _ Dia y hora en que estaria disponible para la entreVista APPENDIX H COVER LETTER AND INSTRUCTIONS 217 INSTRUCTIONS This instrument has three parts. In the first one you are asked to provide information that describes you but does not identify yourself. In part two you are asked to mark with an X the square that matches your answer. There are five possible answers: (A) - In complete disagreement (B) - In disagreement (C) - Unsure (D) - In agreement (E) - In complete agreement In part three you are asked to answer each question according to your experience with this new program of academic advising by the faculty. Please, do not write your name, social security number or any other information which may identify yourself in any part of the instruments. Once again, thank you for your cooperation. was-Avis.“ . 4.1-iii 113..-... .1. -4 » 218 Dear Professor: I am conducting a research as part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State University. This investigation is related with the functions of the professor as an academic advisor and about the nature of the relationship between the academic advisor and the student. The information gathered could provide the basis to understand students' and faculty expectations regarding this program. The results of this study will be useful to this campus, where, since last term, faculty members are responsible for providing academic advice to undergraduate students who have completed their first thirty credit-hours. The Chancellor has authorized the participation of professors in this investigation. You have been selected randomly as part of the sample which will participate in this research. I am willing to respond to any question you may have regarding your participation and about the purpose of the study. You will not be penalized in any way for not participating in the study and the privacy of your responses is guaranteed. Your identification is not necessary in any part of the instruments. The data will be presented as group response, only for the Specified purpose. The instrument you are receiving, which takes about fifteen minutes to be answered, is intended to gatherE‘information about what you think of the idea of assigning professors to provide academic advise to undergraduate students. I appreciate the completion of the questionnaire within a week. An envelope is included to facilitate your sending the answered questionnaire to the Education Division, or I can stop by your office to pick it up. Close the envelope to protect the confidentiality of the information provided. . I appreciate your interest and collaboration. The results Will be presented in a document which will be available, upon request. ~ Cordially, Isaura Alvarado 219 Dear Student: _ You remember that when you entered this University counselors had the major responsibility in offering advice on academic aspects. The faculty members will do that task from now on. Students will be assigned as soon as they complete their first year of study or their first thirty credit-hours. Each professor will be assigned a given number of students to which they should provide the necessary help that could permit students make decisions while in the University. You will be assigned or maybe haVe already been assigned to a professor as your academic advisor. I am conducting a research as part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State University. This investigation is related with the functions of the professor as academic advisor and about the nature of relationship between the academic advisor and the student. The information gathered could provide the basis to understand the students' and faculty' expectations regarding this program. I am willing to respond to any question you may have regarding your participation and about the purpose of the study. Your participation must be voluntary. Feel free to return the questionnaire without answering it or even if you start and then decide not to complete it. You will not be penalized in any way for not participating in the study. The privacy of your res- ponses will be guaranteed. The instrument you will receive, which takes about fifteen minutes to be answered, intends to gather information about what you think of the idea of assigning professors to provide academic advice to undergraduate students. Your opinion is important because in this way the University can organize a program which responds to your preferences. I appreciate your interest and collaboration. Results will be presented as group Statistics in a document which will be made available to those interested, upon request. Cordially, Isaura Alvarado APPENDIX H STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION \l o oo o 220 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STUDENTS' QUESTIONNAIRE . Be sure that you are in the room and course number which is written in the yellow paper that you received. If such is not the case go to corresponding department. If you are unable to locate that section/course go to the alternate section. When administering the questionnaire to the alternate- section/course remember that the professor of this group was not previously informed. Give him/her the letter addressed to the professor. He/She is ,supposed; to be informed through the dean about the purposes of this investigation. If the professor does not agrees to allow the administration, of the questionnaires leave the room. Return the materials to my office. I will try to locate the originally sampled section/course. Once you have the authorization to administer the questio- nnaires, introduce yourself to the students. Tell them that the purpose of -your visit is to request their answer to questions that are related with the academic advising service they receive in the Universirty. Distribute the letters addressed to the students. Do not distribute the questionnaires yet. . Read the letter aloud and make sure that the students are following you. Say: "You are going to give your opinion of what you think should be the functions of that professor which was or will be assigned to you as an academic advisor. This has nothing to do with the professor who is teaching this course in which you are now." Distribute the questionnaires. Ask them to read the instructions. Say that you will be available to answer questions if they raise their hands. If anyone asks a rquestion, ask him/her what does he/she understand; Invite hin/her to answer following that understanding. Do not provide further information; you may be adding meaning or suggesting an answer. THANKS ISAURA l. .b \l o on I 221 INSTRUCCIONES PARA LA ADMINISTRACION DEL CUESTIONARIO DE LOS ESTUDIANTES Asegurese de que esta en la seccion del curso que aparece en el papel amarillo que se le entregé. Si no fuera ese el grupo seleccionado, puede cotejar donde se encuentra dicho grupo a través del departamento correspondiente. Si no progresa esa gestién dirijase a la seccion alterna. Al administrar el cuestionario a una seccién alterna, tome en consideracion que ese/a profesor/a no ha sido notificado de antemano de que su seccién ha sido seleccionada. Preséntele la carta que aparece dirigida al profesor/a y pregunte si puede proceder a administrar el cuestionario. Se supone que ese profesor esté informado a través de una comunicacién que le envio cada decano/a a su facultad sobre los propositos de esta investigacion. Si se niega dé las gracias y devuelva el material a mi oficina con una nota explicativa de lo que ocurrio. Tratarémos de localizar la seccidn que fue seleccio- nada originalmente, otro dia. Una vez tenga autorizacion del profesor/a para administrar el cuestionario, preséntese a los estudiantes y diga que su proposito es pedirles que completen unas preguntas relaciona das con la consejeria académica que ellos reciben en la universidad. Distribuya la carta dirigida a los estudiantes. No distribuya los cuestionarios todavia. Lea la carta en voz alta asegurandose de que los estudiantes le escuchan. Afiada: "Ustedes van a dar su opinion respecto a lo que ustedes piensan deben ser las funciones de ese/a profesor/a que se les asigno o se les va a asignar como consejero/a académico. Esto no tiene nada que ver con el profesor o profesora que les esta dando esta clase". Distribuya los cuestionarios. Digales que lean las instruc- ciones antes de empezar a contestar y que si tienen una pregunta que levanten la mano y usted pasara por su asiento. Cuando un/a estudiante le llame para hacerle una pregunta, preguntele qué el/ella interpreta. Cuando él/ella le explique lo que interpreta, digale que responda segun esa interpretacion. No abunde en el item; podria estar anadiendo contenido o sugiriendo una respuesta. Gracias Isaura REFERENCES REFERENCES Alberti, R. E. (1972. January). Influence of the faculty on college student development. Journal 9: College Student Personnel, 2;. 18-23. Allan, T. (1976, April 11-14). Analysis 2; the academic advisement proces . Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. Andrews, F. M., Klem, L., Davidson, T. N.. O'Malley. P. M.. & Rodgers. W. L. (1981). A guide f2; selecting statistical technigues fgg analyzing social science data (2d edJ. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Survey Research Center. Institute for Social Research. Astin. A. W. (1968). The college environment. Washington, DC: Ameri- can Council on Education. Astin, A. W. (1972). Higher education and the disadvantaged student. Washington, DC: Human Service Press. Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects 2: college 23 beliefs. attitudes and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin. A. W. (1979). Strengthening student recruitment and retention: Some ideas from research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Council on Education. (Mimeographed) Astin, Au W. (1982). Minorities i2 American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Axelrod. J" & Freedman. M.B.(1969).Search.for'meaning.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bachhuber, T. D. (1971, Spring). Faculty—~The critical variable for successful career planning and placement. Journal 2; College Placement, 31, 40—45. 222 223 Barr. R. B. (1983, August). Student retention and advising: An inter- institutional comparison and case study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43. 397A. (University Microfilms No. DA 8314236) Beltzer. S. Z. (1984). Persistence of GED students in a public commu- nity college: A test of the Tinto model. Dissertation Abstracts International. (University Microfilms No. 84—123, 29) Bennett, N. H. (1979). An analysis of relationship and power: The foundation for effective advising in a graduate school of social work. Dissertation Abstracts Internatiopgly 49, 289ML (University Microfilms No. 7925737) Benson,.L B” Williams, D” &Brundy,L.(1979,0ctober).Addressing Ehg major issues involving advising 53 g state university. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising, Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Bess. J. L. (1973. Fall). Integrating faculty and student life cycles. Review 2f Educational Research, 33, 377-404. Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theopy: Expectations, identities and behavior. New York: Academic Press. Biggs,IL Au Brodie,.L S” & Barnhart, W.J.(l975).The dynamics of undergraduate academic advising. Research i2 Higher Education. 3. 345—357. Bonar, J. R. (1976, May). Developing and implementing a systems-design training program for academic advisers. Journal pf College Student Personnel, 11, 190-198. Borg, W. R.. & Gall, M. D. (197 9). Educational research: Ag introduc- tion(3rd ed.L New YorkzLongmans. Bostaph. C" & Moore. M. (1980, January). Training academic advisors: A developmental strategy. Journal 2; College Student Personnel, 21, 45-50. Brady, S. M. (1978). Academic advisingz: A study of faculty goals and student needs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 145A. (University Microfilms No. 78-10, 688) Brock, S. C" Gardner, R” & Kramer, H.(1978, October 8-11). Meas- uring faculty advisors' effectiveness. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Academic Advising, Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 090) 224 Brown, C. R. (1972. June). Evaluation pf g college curriculum advisopy program utilizing student advisors. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 063 906) Carney. C. G.. & Barak, K. A. (1976, July). A survey of student needs and student personnel services. Journal pf College Student Personnel. 11, 280-284. Centra,.L A” & Rock, D.(l969).College environments and students' academic achievement. American Educational Research, 8. 623-634. Chando, C. M. (Ed.). (1978, October 8—11). Iflpact: Advising makes the difference. Second National Conference on Academic Advising, Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 090) Chickering, A. W. (1972). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chorosky. M. N. (1983). The academic advising needs of undergraduate elementary education majors at the University of Arizona. Disser- tation Abstracts International, 45. 667A. (University Microfilms No.DA 83-152. 78) Christensen, K.C.,& Magoon,13 M.(1974).Perceived.hierarchy of help-giving sources for two categories of student problems. Journal pf Counseling Psychology, 21, 311-314. Combs, A. W., Avila, D. L.. & Purkey. W. W. (1971). Helping relation- ships: Basic concepts for the helping professions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Conroe, R. M. (1979, October 14—17). Academic advising with medical students: A program description. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising, Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Consejo de Educaci6n Superior. (1985). Estadisticas sobre las institu- ciones g2 educacion post-secundaria d2 Puerto Rico, Afio Académico 1985. Corey, G” Schneider. M” & Callahan“ P.(l984).Issues and ethics ip the helping professions. California: Brooks/Cole. Coyle, T. H. (1971, January). Students expect teachers to do more than teach. Journal pf College Student Personnel. 12, 58—61. 225 Crescioni. L. H. (1983, Diciembre). Opiniones 1e 10:; estudiantes del .——_.——__—.———————.——— _—.—.———.—_—_.____—— Interamericana da Puerto Rico. (Mimeographed) Crocket, D. S. (Ed.). (1978). Academic advising: A resource document. Iowa: American College Testing Program. (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 189 906) Crocket, D. S. (1979, October 14-17). _H_o_w M E m advising pro-— gram? A self—inguigy technigue. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Academic Advising, Kansas State University, Nebraska). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Crookston, B. B. (1972, January). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal o_f College Student Personnel. 1.2, 12—17. Dameron. J. D., & Wolf. J. C. (1974, November). Academic advisement in higher education: A new model. Journal o_f_ College Student Personnel. E, 470—473. Daniels, L. S. (1977). Counseling. In W. T. Packwood (Ed.). College student personnel services. Springfield, 11.: Charles C. Thomas. Dassance, C. R., & Batdorf. L. (1980. March). Educational advising BE retention: Applying £15 student development model. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 190 176) Dautch. S. E. (1972, December). Advisees' self-reported satisfaction with academic advisors and effectiveness of advisors. Dissertation Abstracts International, _Zfi, 2706A-2707A. (University Microfilms No. 72-31, 389) Dennis, L. E., & Kauffman, J. F. (1966). The college and the student. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Derrico, D. R. (1979, November). A comparison of selected student success criteria for full-time degree seeking Miami—Dade Community College. North Campus students who were professionally advised as opposed to those students who were self—advised. Dis— sertation Abstracts International, £0) 2433A. (University Micro- films No. 79—19. 837) Dilley. J. S. (1967, January). Student-faculty non-communication. Journal 3f College Student Personnel, 8, 282—285. 226 Donk.In J” & Oetting, E.R.(l968).Student-faculty relations and the faculty advising system. Journal pf College Student Personnel. 2. 400—402. Dressel, F. B. (1974). The faculty adviser. Improving College and University Teaching, 2%, 57—58. acter. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Erkurt, S.. & Mokros. J. R. (1984. Summer). Professors as models and mentors for college students. American Educational Research Journal. 2;, 399-417. Everett, M. F. (1984). Perceptions of faculty-student interaction and the relationship to institutional attrition patterns in selected universities in the state university system of Florida. Disserta- tion Abstracts International. 32, 998A. flhfiyersity Microfilms No. DA 84—16 , 701) Fashbender. K. E. (1970). A selective system of faculty advising as a means of implementing community college counseling.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 034 534) Feinberg, L. H. (1969). Relationship between college student behavior and attitudes toward student-faculty contact and student response on the social introversion scale of the MMPI. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 4281A. (University Microfilms No. 66907) Feldman,IC A.(Ed.).(l972a).College and student.New York: Pergamon Press. Feldman, K. A. (1972b). Some theoretical approaches to the study of change and stability of college students. Review pf Educational Research, fig. 1-26. Feldman. K. A., & Newcomb. T. M. (1969). The _iflpact pf college pp students. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Ferguson. G. A. (1981). Statistical analysis i3 psychology and educa- tion (5th edJ. New York: McGraw-Hill. Frink, J. D. (1983). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of a centralized undergraduate advising system at the college level (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh) (University Microfilms No. 84—11, 742) 227 New York: Cowles Book Co. Ford, J. (1983. October). Producing a comprehensive academic advising handbook. NACADA Journal, g. 61—68. Gamson, Z. F. 1972. Performance and personalism in student—faculty relations. In K. A. Feldman (Ed.). College and student. New York: Pergamon Press. Gardner, R. E. (1978. October 8—11). Contracting for advising service. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 090) George,IL J” & Salevouris, M.J.(l978,0ctober 8-11L Faculty members 22g academic advisipgi A Socratic approach. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 090) Glennen, R. E. (1971. May). Faculty counseling--An important and effective aspect pf student development. Paper presented at the Canadian Guidance and Counseling Association Convention, Toronto. Gonzélez-Ferreira. N. (1985, January). Nuevas Estructuras g3 Orientacién Academics: Exposicidn A $5 Facultad del Recinto Metropolitano. (Mimeographed) ‘ Gordon. G. (1973, February 9-12). A meta-presentation pf A theoretical National Convention of the American Personnel and Guidance Asso- ciation. San Diego. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085 621) Gordon. V. (1980. July). Training academic advisers: Content and method. Journal 2; College Student Personnel, 2;, 334-340. Gordon. V. (1982. November). Training future academic advisors: One model of a pre—service approach. NACADA Journal, 2, 35—40. Grites. T. J. (1974). Student perceptions and self-perceptions of faculty members in the related roles of classroom teacher and academic advisor. Dissertation Abstracts International, g2, 5053A. (University Microfilms No. 74—29, 763) _—_—_—.————.—.——. opment. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Personnel Guidance Association. Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 247 820) 228 Grites, T. J. (1976b. April 11-14). Maximizing Egg Egg pf faculty advisors. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. Chicago. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED 133 633) Grites. T. J. (1979. October 14-17). Workshop pp pp! £2 develop A workshop f2; faculty advisors. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Kansas State University, Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Grites, T. J. (1981, February). Academic advising: An atlas for liberal education. The Forum for Liberal Education, g. 1-12. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2d edJ. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guinn. D (1985, January). The role of academic advisors as perceived by faculty, students and administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, £2, l99lA—l992A. (University Microfilms No. DA 84— 23, 977) Hadley, E. E. (1979. October). Monkey 22 Egg middle--Challenges pp £22 academic advisor's professional integrity. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising, Kansas State Univer— sity. Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Harnett, R.TL, & Centra,.L A.(1974, Winter).Faculty views of the I academic environment: Situational vs. institutional perspectives. Sociology pf Education, AZ. 159—169. Harrington, T. F. (1972. November). The literature on the commuter student. Journal 2; College Student Personnel, lg, 546-550. Heath, D. H. (1968). Growing-up 32 college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Helmstader, G. C. (1964). Principles pf psychological measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall. Higginson,1u C.(Ed.).(l981, October ll—14).Acadepi£_advising:2§§ pivotal point. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Academic Advising. Indianapolis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv- ice No. ED 245 577) Hoffman. A. B. (1972, November). A study of student and faculty perceptions about an undergraduate advisement program in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University. Dissertation Abstracts International. §§, 2104A. (University Microfilms No. 72- 29. 982) 229 Hoffman, F. M., & Wartell, M. A. (1980. September). A freshman science and math dormitory program effects on retention: A preliminary report. Journal o_f College Student Personnel. 23;. 472. Holmes. D. (1979, October 14—17). Evaluation _ag 3 catalyst f2; institu- tional change _a_n_d faculty development. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Kansas State Univer— sity, Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hornbuckle, P. A., & Mahoney, W. B. (1979). Group interaction as a vehicle to facilitate faculty-student advisement. Journal 3f College Student Personnel. 2. 253-257. Hutchins, D. E., & Miller. W. B. (1979). Group interaction as a vehicle to facilitate faculty-student advisement. Journal 2f College Stu- dent Personnel, a. 253—257. Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. (1981). Faculty handbook. Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. (1982. Spring). Middle States Self—Study--l982, Task force report: Faculty and teaching. Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Vice-Presidency for Planning. (1986a). Selected statistical series. Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Vice—Presidency for Planning. (1985—86b, Fall). Statistical report. Jacob. P. E. (1957). Changing values 2 college. New York: Harper & Row. Jody. M.. & Ledford, R. (1979, October 14—17). fig role pf faculty advisors _i_p retention o_f academically underprepared students. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advis- ing, Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduc— tion Service No. ED 221 091). Kapraun, E. D. (1982, November). Academic advising to facilitate student retention. NACADA Journal, 59—69. Kapraun, E. D., & Coldren, D. W. (1981, January). The Tayette course guide: Personalizing academic information. Journal o_f. College Student Personnel. 2_2_. 67. 230 Katz. J.. et al. (1969). E time for youth: Growth and constraint E college students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kaufman. P. J.. & Neterset, A. J. (1975, April). Selected communication variables and their effect upon advisee satisfaction with adviser- advisee conferences. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 106 701) Keller. R. L. (1979, October). fl assessment pf faculty academic advisor training programs _a_t_ pkg Christian Consortion Colleg . Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advis— ing. Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 221 091) King. M. C. (1984. October). Transfer student information interaction with faculty and its relationship to selected educational outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International. _4_5_, 1052A. (Uni- versity Microfilms No. DA 84—16, 982) Koloc, F.. Burns. L., & Luede, D. (1983). A_c___adem1_c advising1_n the (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 6—47) Koplin, D. A., & Rice. L. C. (1975, January). Consulting with the faculty: Necessary and possible. Personnel and Guidance Journal. _5_3, 367-372. Kramer. H. (1983, October). Advising implications for faculty develop- ment. NACADA Journal, A, 2.5-31. Larsen, M. D.. & Brown, B. (1982, March). Student fl faculty expecta- tions o_f academic advising: A preliminag report. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Higher Education. Washington. DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 216 280) Larsen, M. D.. 8: Brown. B. (1983, March). Student and faculty expecta- tions of academic advising. NACDA Journal. 2' 31-37. Lewis. L. S. (1967, November). Students' images of professors. The Educational Forum. 12, 185—190. Lewis. L. S. (1972). University faculty and students: A profile. In K. A. Feldman (Ed.). College and student. New York: Pergamon Press. Long. S. (1977, Winter). Dimensions of student academic alienation. Educational Administration Quarterly. 1;. 16—30. Mahon. E. (1979. October 14-17). Development 52g implementation 2: g mentor program. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Docu— ment Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Mahoney. J” Bogard,.L H" & Hornbuckle, P.A.(l978).The relation- ship of faculty experience and advisee load to perceptions of academic advising. Journal pf College Student Personnel, $2, 28— 32. Manuel, R. N. (1972. December). The relationship of student satisfac- tion with academic advising to the non-authoritarian scales of the Omnibus Personality Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional. EA, 2737A—2738A. (University Microfilms No. 72-19. 875) Marchese. T. (1983. April). Memo to the retention committee. Bulletin pf the American Association pf Higher Education. l2. 7-9. Mayhew, L. B. (1969). Colleges today 22g tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mayhew. L. B. (1980). Surviving £23 eighties. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. McClure. R. C. (1979. October 14—17). Academic advising: A model pf professionals. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising, Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) McCrary. R. D. (1981. January). A computer-based academic advisement program. Journal pg College Student Personnel. g2, 72-73. McKeachi. W. J.. & Yi-Guang-Lin. (1971. January). Sex differences in student responses to college teachers: Teacher warmth and teacher sex. American Educational Research, g. 221-226. Metz. J. (1979. April ll-14). Academic advisement: Personnel 229 preparation. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED 133 631) Michigan State University. Office of Undergraduate Education. (1984L Perceptions of fall 1983 first-time freshmen. (Mimeographed) Miller, D. C. (1964). Handbook pf research and design and social measurement. New York: David McKay. 232 Murry, J. P. (1972. November). The comparative effectiveness of student to student and faculty advising programs. Journal pf College Student Personnel. lg, 562, 566. National Institute of Education. United States Department of Education. (1984, October). Involvement ip learning: Realizing £23 potential p; American higher education. Final report of the Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. Nie, N. et al. (1983). Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nisbet, J. As (1981). Advising with 20/20 vision: Improving student retention py using learning styles information ip academic advising. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the NAAA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 213 376) Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theogy (2d ed). New York: McGraw— Hill. Nye, F. I. (1976). Role structure and analysis p; ppp family. Califor- nia: SAGE Publications. (TBannion, T. (1972). An academic advising model. Junior College Journal, fig, 62-69. O'Bannion, T.. Fordyce, J. W., & Godwin. F. (1972). Academic advising in the two—year college—-A national survey. Journal pg College Student Personnel. 12' 411-419. Packwood. W. T. (Edd. (1977). College students personnel services. Springfield. IL: Charles C. Thomas. Parker. 0. A. (1974. July). Student development: What does it mean? Journal pf College Student Personnel. l2. 248—256. Pascarella. E. T. (1977. September). Patterns of student—faculty informal interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. Journal p; Higher Education. fig. 540-552. Pascarella, E.T.,6.Terenzini, P.T.(1978. March/April).Student- faculty informal relationship and freshman year educational outcomes. Journal 2; Educational Research. 1;. 183-189. Pascarella,E.Tu &Terenzini.P.T.(1980,February).Predicting students' persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal pi Higher Education. 2;, 60—75. 233 Pascarella. E. T. et a1. (1981). Pre-enrollment variables and academic performance as predictors of freshman year persistence. early withdrawal, and stopout behavior in an urban. nonresidential university. Research 1_n Higher Education. 1_5_. 329-349. Payne, D. A.. & McMorris. R. F. (1967). Educational and p§ychological measurement: Contributions 3 theog and practice. Massachusetts: Blaisdell. Polson. C. J.. & Jurich. A. (1979. October 14-17). Ag alternative approach :cp academic advising: Advising center. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Popham, W. J. (1967). Educational statistics: Use and interpretation- New York: Harper & Row. Raffo, J. A. (1978). La actitud religiosa del estudiante universitario de Puerto Rico. Revista Latinoamericana pp Psicologia, 1_0_. 387— 401. __——_———_———_— advising. George Mason University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 232 509) Roberts. D. (1976, April). Academic advising i_n action: A specific program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 113 630) Rogers. C. R.. & Stevens. B. (1967). Person pp person: The problep p; being. California: Real People Press. Roscoe. J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behav- ioral sciences (2d ed.). New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Rossman. J. E. (1967, October). An experimental study of faculty Russel. J. H.. & Sullivan, T. (1979, July). Student acquisition of career and decision-making skills as a result of faculty advisor intervention. Journal pf College Student Personnel. _2_O. 291—296. Ryan, C. C. (1980. October). Adult student 933 faculty expectations o_f academic advising ii: p non-traditional university. (Master's thesis, Metropolitan State University). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 203 216) 234 Sandford. N. (Ed.). (1967). The American college: A psychological _a_rg social interpretation pp higher learning. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Sandford. N. (1969). Where colleges fail: A study o_f the student _a_s A person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwarts, D. G. (1972, November). Identification and analysis of the student advisor—student interpersonal relationship. Dissertation Abstracts International. 3_3. 2135A. (University Microfilms No. 72- 23, 071) Seldin. P. (1984). Changing practices 32 faculty evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sheffield, W., & Meskill, V. B. (1972. January). Faculty adviser and academic counselor: A pragmatic marriage. Journal o_f_ College Student Personnel. _l_3__, 28—30. Siegel, S. (1972). Estadistica pp paramétrica aplicada _a_ las Ciencias g E conducta. Mexico: Editorial Trillas. Snyder. J. F.. Hill, C. E., & Derksen, T. P. (1972). Why some students do not use university counseling facilities. Journal p_f Counseling ngchology , E, 263-268 . Tamminen, A., Gum. M.. Smaby, M.. 6: Peterson, T. (1975. March 23-26). Where there's p skill there's p p_ay. Paper presented at the Thirty—First Annual Convention of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Serv— ice No. ED 109 583) Tapswan, S. (1985. February). Assessment of the roles and functions of advisors in a school of education. Dissertation Abstracts International. A_5_, 2313A. (University Microfilms No. DA 84—24. 010. Tarris, C. (1974. Sept.). What does college do for a person? Frankly very little. Psychology Today, §, 73. Teague, G. V.. & Grites. T. J. (1980. January). Faculty contracts and academic advising. Journal o_f College Student Personnel. 2;. 40-44. Terenzini. P. T. (1981). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions: A replication. Research 11p Higher Education, 1_5. 109—127. Terenzini, P. T.. & Pascarella, E. T. (1980. November). Student/faculty relationship and freshman year outcomes: A further investigation. Journal pf College Student Personnel. A1, 521. 527. 235 Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthe- sis of recent research. Review pf Educational Research, Ag. 89— 125. Trombley. T. B. (1979a. October 14-17). A primapy component pg effec- tive faculty advising trainipg programs: Assessing App improving personal skills. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Trombley, T. B. (1979b). Self-study pp p centralized advising unit pp the University p: Vermont. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 225 449) Tryon, G. S. (1980. July). A review of the literature concerning perceptions of and preferences for counseling center services. Journal pp College Student Personnel, El, 304~311. Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico. Comite Coordinador para el desarrollo de un Modelo del Programa de Orientacidn Universitaria. Vicepresidencia de Asuntos Acadéhicos. (19 ). Modelo para pl programa g3 Orientacidn Universitaria pp ;p_Universidad Inter- americana p5 Puerto Rico. Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico. Vicepresidencia de Planifi- cacioh. (1985. mayo). Movimiento pp matricula sub-graduada pp 12 Universidad Interamericana. (Mimeographed) Vreeland, R. S” & Bidwell. C. E. (1966. Summer). Classifying univer- sity departments: An approach to the analysis of their effects upon undergraduates' values and attitudes. Sociology pf Education. 39. 237—254. Ward. M. (1979. October 14-17). Academic advisement pp p shoestring budget. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising, Kansas State University, Nebraska. (ERIC Document Repro— duction Service No. ED 221 091) Wash. D. (1979, October 14—17). Advising's bottom line 25 pp ppp p_p. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advis- ing, Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 221 091) Wesley, D. (1978. October 8-11). Evaluation pp academic advising. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 090) 236 Williams. V. (1979. October 14-17). A three-pronged approach _tp improving academic advising. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Academic Advising. Kansas State University. Nebraska. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 091) Wilson. R. C., Gaff. G. C.. Dienst, E. R.. Wood, L., & Barry. J. L. (1975). College professors and their impact pp students. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wilson. R. C., & Woods, L. (1974. Winter). Social psychological acces- sibility and faculty-student interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology o_f Education. 4_7, 74-92. Winston. R. B., Jr.. & Sandor, J. A. (1984). Evaluating academic advising: A preliminary manual for the academic advising inventog. Georgia: Student Development Associates. Witters. L. A., & Miller, H. G. (1971, Winter). College advising: An analysis of advisor-advisee roles. Journal p_f_ SPATE. 2, 36-40. ._ " “”‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEs