L“ -' 11. A If... a, I axis-r-nrvazg if no I a g. ' .§)r--'-'.mm era-'1‘: animus-1p '.rl£ ".0233: F...” fagnvfiufl' Lia: fwaurt' This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Study of the Undergraduate Academic Advising Program At Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia, As Perceived By Students and Faculty Advisers presented by Sultan Said Magsood has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Educational Administration w mad Major professo{ Datei/aJI/yé’ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Eq ual Opportunity Institution 0-12771 RETURNING MATERIALS: 1V153I_J Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from m your record. FINES Will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A STUDY OF THE UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC ADVISING PROGRAM AT UMM AL-OURA UNIVERSITY. SAUDI ARABIA: AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENTS AND FACULTY ADVISERS By Sultan Said Magsood A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1986 cf unfergri 95:66:95 a" "he the f 99rce1vec 3 my, The litu‘lty GCV" f OlstudEn‘ 5% News en‘- \o lna | | ‘ Perm} l Mme“ tr lte: emc \ ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC ADVISING PROGRAM AT um AL-DURA UNIVERSITY. SAUDI ARABIA. As PERCEIVED BY STUDENTS AND FACULTY ADVISERS By Sultan Said Magsood This study was designed to investigate the undergraduate aca- demic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. Two major objectives of the investigation were (1) to determine the academic advising needs of undergraduate students as perceived by faculty advisers of under- graduates and the undergraduate students themselves and (2) to deter- mine the factors or problems that faculty advisers and students perceived as precluding both groups from performing and benefiting adequately from the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity. The sample comprised 883 male undergraduate students and 110 faculty advisers. Two questionnaires. one for faculty advisers and one for students. were used to collect demographic data. perceptions of students and faculty advisers of the students' academic advising needs. and perceptions of faculty advisers and students of the factors or problems that preclude them from performing and benefiting from the academic advising program at Umm Al--Qura University. Statistical technique standard ceived ti» Mires as Wising .‘ ”Portant Ccncerns ' "Why a: advising f Tn M of 45 i iCeCemic a fJ-‘lcthns t Tummy: Stu: entis c stmentos y Gents! Chd f m Three Sultan Said Magsood techniques used for data analysis were frequency distributions. means. standard deviations. rank ordering. t-test. MANOVA. and ANOVA. This research revealed that faculty advisers and students per- ceived the 16 academic advising functions presented in their question- naires as functions that should be fulfilled. Both groups considered advising functions related to academic and administrative concerns more important than functions related to personal and vocational/career concerns in terms of the extent they should be fulfilled. Moreover. faculty advisers and students revealed some degree of need for all 16 advising functions. This research also revealed that faculty advisers considered 41 out of 45 factors that limit their efforts in performing their work as academic advisers as influential. On the students' side. 37 out of 46 functions that prevent or discourage students from benefiting from the academic advising program available to them were considered influential. Demographic variables identified in the study. except for student's college affiliation. student's adviser's nationality. and student's years in college. did not significantly differentiate stu- dents' and faculty advisers' perceptions of the factors presented in Part Three of their questionnaires. Based on the study findings. recommendations were made to help improve the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. Jillfllistlld In the name. of Allah, the most merciful and the most beneficient Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, who says in the Holy Qur'an, "Proclaim! (or Head!) In the name of the Lord and Cherisher who created, Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood, Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful, He who taught (the use of) the pen, --Taught man that which he knew not. " And peace be upon his prophet and messenger Mohamnad who said, "For him who adopts a path seeking knowl- edge, Allah eases the way to Paradise and angels spread their wings for a seeker of knowledge, being pleased with his occupation, and all that are in the heavens and the earth, including the fish in the water, ask for forgiveness for a learned one. A learned one is superior to a worshipper as the moon is superior to all the planets. The divines are heirs of the Prophets and the Prophets do not leave an inheritance of dirhems and dinars but only of knowledge. He who acquires knowledge acquires a vast portion (Abu Daud and Ti’midhi). " ii This work is dedicated to the memory of my beloved father (may his soul rest in peacel). Said Magsood Bokhary. for his constant prayers and encouragement; to my mother. Jamillah. for her sacrifices. prayers. patience. and encouragement; and to my brothers. Abdul-Azize. Ahmmed. and Abdul-Rahman. for their support and advice in completing this study. A special dedication to my wife. Sabah. my lovely son Ammar. and my beautiful daughter Abbrar. for their understanding. patience. and encouragement throughout the duration of this study. Ti tions of 1.- Dr. for his 9. “it. inc 2 Drs their value Drg minim“ The The Wtic‘ 5““?! Iouic Um.- “Wes. To l dunng be r- ‘ ir ACKNGVLEDGMENTS ' This work could not have been undertaken without the contribu- tions of many people. Special thanks and appreciation are extended to: Dr. Eldon Ray Nonnamaker. chairman of my doctoral committee. for his guidance. direction. consistent counsel. continual encourage- ment. and constructive advice throughout my doctoral program. Drs. Howard Hickey. Louis Hekhuis. and Marvin Grandstaff for their valuable support and service on my doctoral committee. Drs. Roushdy Toiemah and Farouq Abdul-Salam for their help and consultation. Those faculty members and students at Umm Al-Qura University who participated in completing the questionnaires. without whom this study would not have been possible. Umm Al-Oura University for its support throughout my doctoral studies. To all my brothers and friends. who were very helpful during the process of completing this study. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TBLES O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O I O O 0 Chapter I. THE EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . Purpose of the Study . . . Limitations of the Study . Importance of the Study . Definition of Terms . . . Organization of the Resear ch Repor . II. UMM AL-OURA UNIVERSITY AND ITS ACADEMIC ADVISING mmRAM O I O O O O O O O O O l O O O O O O O O Umm Al-Oura University . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent Status of Umm Al-Oura University . . . The Future of Umm Al-Oura University . . . . . The Academic Advising Program at Umm Al-Oura University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Background of Academic Advising Academic Advising During Recent Years . . The Importance of Academic Advising . . . Modern Definitions of Academic Advising . Responsibility of Academic Advising. . . . Faculty Members as Academic Advisers . . . Faculty Adviser's Role . . . . . . . . . . . Professional Counselors as Academic Advisers An Effective Academic Advising Program . . . . Factors That Make the Academic Advising Program EffeCtive O O O O I O O O O O O O I O O O O O Obstacles Hindering an Effective Academic Adv151ng Program 0 O O O O 0 O I O I O O O O 0 Studies of Students' Academic Advising Needs . . . smmary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Page OONGU‘I# 11 12 13 14 15 20 21 22 25 26 27 29 33 35 39 41 41 44 48 IV. V . '5 IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Population . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of the Research Instrument . Description of the Research Instruments The Faculty Adviser Questionnaire . . Undergraduate Students' Questionnaire Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . Measure One . . . . . . . . . . . Measure Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . V. RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the Demographic Data of Faculty Advisers and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty Advisers' Demographic Data . . . . . . . . Students' Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty Advisers' Responses to Questions Concerning Advising Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty Advisers' Perceptions of Students' Academic Advising Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty Responses: Extent to Which Advising Functions Should Be Fulfilled . . . . . . . . . Faculty Need Discrepancy Scores . . . . . . . . . Students' Responses to Questions Concerning Advising Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Perceptions of Their Academic Advising Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Responses: Extent to Which Advising Functions Should Be Fulfilled . . . . . . . . . Students' Need Discrepancy Scores . . . . . . . . Faculty Advisers' Perceptions of the Factors and Problems That Limit Their Performance as Advisers Faculty Responses to the First Major Factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors TCward Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty Responses to the Second Major Factor: Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty Responses to the Third Major Factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behavior TCward the University and Its Academic Advising Program . . . Students' Perceptions of the Factors and Problems That Prevent Them From Benefiting From the Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 64 64 69 74 74 74 79 82 82 88 91 92 94 99 3U tPage Students' Responses to the First Major Factor: Students' Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Students' Responses to the Second Major Factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Students' Responses to the Third Major Factor: The University and Its Academic Advising Program . 104 Comparison of Faculty and Student Responses to the 15 Items Presented Similarly to Both Groups . . . . 105 Students' Responses to the 15 Items . . . . . . . . 106 Faculty Advisers' Responses to the 15 Items . . . . 108 Cbmparison of Students' and Faculty Advisers' Responses to the 15 Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 The Effects of Some Demographic Variables on Faculty Advisers' Perceptions Regarding the Factors Included in Part Three of Their Questionnaire . . . 115 Faculty Advisers' Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Faculty Advisers' Academic Rank . . . . . . . . . . 118 Faculty Advisers' College Affiliation . . . . . . . 120 Faculty Advisers' Years of Advising Experience . . . 122 Faculty Advisers' Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 The Effects of Some Demographic Variables on Students' Perceptions Regarding the Factors Included in Part Three of Their Questionnaire . . . 127 Students' Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Students' College Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Students' Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Students' Advisers' Nationality . . . . . . . . . . 138 Students' Years in College . . . . . . . . . . 140 Faculty Advisers' Responses to the Three Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Faculty Advisers' Responses to the First Question . 144 Faculty Advisers' Responses to the Second Question . 145 Faculty Advisers' Responses to the Third Question . 147 Students' Responses to the Three Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Students' Responses to the First Question . . . . . 150 Students' Responses to the Second Question . . . . . 152 Students' Responses to the Third Question . . . . . 153 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 VI. SUWARY. FINDINGS. (DNCLUSIONS. IND RECOMENDATIONS . . 159 Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Methodology.................... 160 vii .Page Discussion of Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Faculty Advisers' and Students' Perceptions of the Students' Academic Advising Needs . . . . . . 165 Faculty Advisers' and Students' Perceptions of the Factors Limiting Advisers' Efforts and Preventing Students From Benefiting From the Academic Advising Program at Umm Al-Qura University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Students' and Faculty Advisers' Perceptions of the Combined Items Presented Similarly to Both Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Effects of Some Demographic Variables on Faculty Advisers' and Students' Responses to the Four Major Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Faculty Advisers' and Students' Responses to the Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Cenclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Recommendations...................19A Recommendations for University Authorities . . . . . 195 Recommendations for Faculty Advisers . . . . . . . . 196 Recommendations for Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Recommendations for the Office of Registration . . . 198 Recommendations for the Departments . . . . . . . . 199 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . 199 APPWDICES I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 202 A. ENGLISH VERSION OF THE COVER LETTER AND THE FACULTY ADVISER AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES . . . . . . . 203 mRREsmNDENCE O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 226 BURKE'S PERMISSION LETTER, BURKE'S QUESTIONNAIRE, AND HIS CATEGORIZATION OF THE 15 ACADEMIC ADVISING FUNmImS O O O C O C O C C I C C O O I O O I O O O O O 237 CATEGORIZATION OF THE 45 ITEMS PRESENTED IN “HE THIRD PART OF THE FACULTY ADVISER QUESTIONNAIRE INTO THREE MM OR FACTORS O I C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 2h 3 CATEGORIZATION OF THE 46 ITEMS PRESENTED IN THE THIRD PART OF THE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE INTO THREE MM OR FACTORS O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O C C O O 2 h 7 THE 15 ITEMS PRESENTED SIMILARLY TO FACULTY ADVISERS AND STUDENTS IN THE THIRD PART OF THEIR QUESTIONNAIRES . 250 viii yr) — BIBLIOGRI-F .Page E. CATEGORIZATION OF THE 16 ACADEMIC ADVISING FUNCTIONS PRESENTED IN PART TWO OF THE FACULTY ADVISER AND stENT QUESTIWNAIRES O O C C I O O O O O O O O O O O O 25‘ BIBLIWRWY O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 25h 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 Table 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.11 5.12 5.14 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Demographic Data of the Faculty Advisers Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Years at Umm Al-Qura University . College Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . Enrollment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Nationalities . . . . . . . . . . Nationalities of Students' Advisers . . . . . . . Results of t-Test for Faculty "Need" Discrepancy Rank Distribution of Mean Scores for "Should Be Fulfilled" Responses to Items on Part Tho of the Faculty Advisers' Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . Rank Distribution of "Need" Discrepancy Scores for Faculty Responses to Items on Part Two of the Faculty Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of t-Test for Student "Need" Discrepancy Rank Distribution of Students' Mean Scores for "Should Be Fulfilled" Responses to Items on Part Two of the Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rank Distribution of "Need" Discrepancy Scores for Student Responses to Items on Part Three of the Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order of Items Constituting the First Major Factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 65 69 7O 7O 71 72 73 75 77 84 89 _Page 5.15 Rank Order of Items Constituting the Second Major Factor: Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.16 Rank Order of Items Constituting the Third Major Factor: The University and Its Academic Advising Program . . . . 97 5.17 Rank Order of Items Constituting the First Major Factor: Students' Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic AdVTST "9 O O O O I O I O O I O O O O O O O O O I O I O O 101 5.18 Rank Order of Items Constituting the Second Major Factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behavior TCward Academic AdVTSTng O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O 102 5.19 Rank Order of Items Constituting the Third Major Factor: The University and Its Academic Advising Program . . . . 105 5.20 Rank Order of Students' Responses to the 15 Items Presented Similarly to Students and Faculty Advisers . . 107 5.21 Rank Order of Faculty Advisers' Responses to the 15 Items Presented Similarly to Students and Faculty AdVTSerS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 109 5.22 Results of t-Tests of Students' and Faculty Advisers' . Responses to the 15 Items Presented Similarly to 80th Groups 0 O I O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O I O O O 112 5.23 Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Faculty Advisers' Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 5.24 Results of Univariate F-Test With 1.108 Degrees of Freedom: Faculty Advisers' Nationality . . . . . . . . . 117 5.25 Means and Standard Deviations for Faculty Advisers' Nationality Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Major Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 5.26 Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Faculty AdVTSSPS' Acade'nic Rank 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 118 5.27 Results of Univariate F-Test With 1.106 Degrees of Freedom: Faculty Advisers' Academic Rank . . . . . . . . 119 5.28 Means and Standard Deviations for Faculty Advisers' Academic Rank Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Major Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 xi 5.29 Res 5.30 Res. 5.31 liea' 5.32 REL; ii 5.33 Res- 5. E. 5.31 "ea: 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 s... 5.41 5.42 5.43 Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Faculty Advisers' College Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Univariate F-Test With 6.103 Degrees of Freedom: Faculty Advisers' College Affiliation . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Faculty Advisers' College Affiliation Regarding Their Perceptions of theFourMajorFactors................ Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Faculty Advisers' Years of Advising Experience . . . . . . . . Results of Univariate F-Test With 4.105 Degrees of Freedom: Faculty Advisers' Years of Advising exper1 ence O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O C O O O O O O 0 Means and Standard Deviations for Faculty Advisers' Years of Advising Experience Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Major Factors . . . . . . . . Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Faculty Advisers' Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Univariate F-Test With 4.105 Degrees of Freedom: Faculty Advisers' Age . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Faculty Advisers' Age Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Major Factors Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Stu dents. Age 0 O O O 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O I O 0 Results of Univariate F-Test With 1.881 Degrees of Freedom: Students' Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Age Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Major Factors Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Students' College Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Univariate F-Test With 6.876 Degrees of Freedom: Students' College Enrollment . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Students' College Enrollment Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Major Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xli .Page 121 121 123 124 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 132 134 _Page 5.44 Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Students' Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5.45 Results of Univariate F-Test With 1.858 Degrees of Freedom: Students' Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5.46 Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Nationality ,Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Major Factors . 137 5.47 Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Students' Advisers' Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.48 Results of Univariate F-Test With 2.790 Degrees of Freedom: Students' Advisers' Nationality . . . . . . . . 139 5.49 Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Advisers' Nationality Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Maj or FaCtors I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 140 5.50 Results of Multivariate Test of Significance for Students' Years in College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5.51 Results of Univariate F-Test With 2.879 Degrees of Freedom: Students' Years in College . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.52 Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Years in College Regarding Their Perceptions of the Four Maj or FaCtors O O O O I O I O I O 0 I O O O O O O O O O 143 S Wand fc' ‘ \- CHAPTER I THE EDUCATIONAI. PRwLEM Saudi Arabia needs trained Saudi Arabians to satisfy a large demand for advanced technicians in all fields. One of the most ambi- tious efforts being undertaken by the Saudi Arabian government is to train indigenous manpower. In this regard. Nabtfl (1980) wrote: Attempts have been made to develop Saudi manpower to cope with the country's growth targets and to replace the foreign workers with nationals. In order to reach this goal the government embarked on a massive crash expansion program of the school system. (p. 33) In article 229 of the Educational Policy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1978). it is stated that: Manpower is considered by the State as the springboard of the utilization of all its other resources. The State considers the development of this power. through education and cultivation. the basis for general development. (p. 4) Exposure to more opportunities of higher education is an impor- tant strategy the Saudi government has employed to achieve development of well-qualified manpower in the country. Accordingly. the institu- tions of higher education have been undergoing massive and unprece- dented expansion in student population and educational facilities. Backer (1982) noted that the government of Saudi Arabia increased its spending for higher education from 1.982 billion dollars to 5.539 billion dollars between the years 1976 and 1980. as the ne ”58pr l on foreig- to nth er ; Provide t A‘ foreign 1.. Seatis .5; as the UH °I§¢iizati 119;, Inst FD Terms. E-e were 1m“ [high the; ESL-gerbil Resulting from ongoing needs for well-trained manpower as well as the need to train the Saudi population to provide that manpower itself. institutions of higher education were almost entirely dependent on foreign technicians. Some foreign technicians were contracted to provide training in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian students also traveled to other countries to pursue opportunities in higher education. A11 Saudi institutions of higher education were modeled after foreign institutions or greatly influenced by the experiences of the Saudis who had returned with advanced degrees from other countries such as the United States. 'This influence was most apparent in the areas of organizational developmemt. admissions policies and procedures. facili- ties. instructional methods. textbooks. methods of registration. and curriculum. Foreign influence came from two sources during two different periods. Between 1950 and 1970 Saudi institutions of higher education were influenced by Egyptian educators who brought to Saudi Arabia that which they had learned at British and French institutions of higher education. Educators from other Arab countries were also influential (Faheem. 1982). The second period extended from 1970 to the present. During that period most Saudi institutions of higher education shifted from the British and French educational influences to U.S. influences--the credit-hour system predominated. Ali (1979) noted: The University of Petroleum was the first Saudi university to implement the American semester credit hour system. In 1973 King SaLC Coll. Unive by t‘ p in Dhahri5 assistanc applicati, accompani Althck Ifisro COFQFI 15 st (p. 7 0r ties ctr-1.. 'SEStabi iCegemc Saud (Riyadh) University started to implement the concept in the College of Education on an experimental basis. King Abdul Aziz University implemented the new system in 1975 after it was approved by the supreme Council of the University. (p. 277) With the exception of the University of Petroleum and Minerals in Dhahran. which effectively applied the credit-hour system due to assistance provided by American experts who implemented the system. the application and implementation of the Western credit-hour system was accompanied by many difficulties. Jan (198) stated: Although the semester credit-hour system has provided new routes to improving the University in Saudi Arabia. there is still a need for comprehensive studies to be conducted to find out why such a system is still facing many difficulties in implementation and practice. (p. 74) One of the most serious difficulties facing the Saudi Universi- ties during the process of implementing the semester credit-hour system is establishing an academic advising program. At the present time. academic advising is not being provided effectively. as expressed by some of the university constituents. Many reasons have been identified that explain this situation. 1. The semester credit-hour system in Saudi Universities is relatively new. Academic advising is an essential component in the credit-hour system. Consequently. its functioning within the system of higher education is characterized by inexperience. 2. Decision makers perceive facilities. registration. admis- sions. curricula. and libraries as higher priorities than academic advising. Therefore. little attention has been paid to that function. 3. Even though many faculty members are Arabs from other countries. they were trained to implement the British system. Their exposure | Den fr: iemic a Universi' Progral i i" i the Suspe CEPtabiy Sion dttr “Rf-emit exposure to the semester credit-hour system is minimal which prevents them from utilizing it in Saudi Arabia. The experience of one university exemplifies the problems aca- demic advising faces in Saudi Arabia. Constituents at Umm AJ-Qura University expressed their dissatisfaction with the academic advising program in the following way. An article in Sadda_51:1am1a. the university newspaper. reported the suspension of some students from the university due to their unac— ceptably low grade point averages. 'The Dean of Registration and Admis- sion attributed their low grade point averages to shortcomings in the academic advising programs in some departments. The Di rector of the Registration Office blamed students' low achievement on many factors. one of which was the inadequacy of the academic advising program. He perceived it as inadequate because of (a) increased enrollments and subsequent increased faculty advisement loads. and (b) lack of experience of faculty members as academic advis- ers. The Director of the Office of Academic Advising indicated that the students' suspensions were due to lack of cooperation between faculty advisers and students in the academic advising process. WW Given the above. it is apparent that the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University experiences many problems and improvement is sorely needed. A logical place to begin improving the system ‘. program} sity's s tink, tici, GAG i I lined at; limit Ia: Process 'esercin; fuifmme T‘ generate “Strike: system is indicated by recognizing the fact that an academic advisement program exists primarily to serve the academic needs of the univer- sity's students. As Burke (1981) noted. tinkering with aIn] [advising] system which does not reflect par- ticipant needs will do little to resolve the fundamental problem. . . . An effective advising program is one that reflects the needs and expectations of participants in the process.(p. 3) Advisementrrelated needs of faculty and advisees must be deter- mined at Umm Al-Qura University. Factors that prevent students and limit faculty advisers from benefiting from the academic advisement process must also be investigated. Once information is collected regarding perceived needs of both groups and the factors limiting their fulfillment. a more effective faculty advising system can be designed. The study upon which this research report is based attempted to generate information that would assist decision makers solve the above- described problem. W There were three purposes for conducting the study; (a) to investigate the perceptions of faculty members and undergraduate stu- dents at Umm Al-Qura University regarding students' academic advising needs; (b) to determine the major factors or problems that prevent or limit the fulfillment of academic advising as perceived by undergradu- ate students and faculty members; and (c) to contribute to higher quality undergraduate academic advising at Umm Al-Qura University. The study was guided by seven research questions: W: What are the academic advising needs of undergraduate students as perceived by faculty advisors? W2: What are the academic advising needs of undergraduate students as perceived by the students themselves? W: What do faculty members perceive as factors or problems that limit their performance as academic advisers? Wat-19:34: What do the students perceive as factors or problems which prevent or discourage them from fulfilling their academic advising needs? W: Do faculty members' demographic variables (age. nationality. academic rank. years of advising experience. number of advisees. highest degree held. and college affiliation) affect their perceptions of the factors or problems that limit their performance as academic advisers? W: Do students' demographic variables (age. years in college. college of enrollment. students' nationality. advisers' nationality. and student enrollment status) affect their perceptions of the factors or problems that prevent or discourage them from fulfilling their academic advising needs? W: 00 faculty and students differ in their per- ceptions of the following aspects of academic advisement: (a) the possible outcomes expected from the academic advisement process. (b) the accepted definition of the program and related information needs. (c) the commitment of university authorities to academic advising. (d) the establishment of a complementary or centralized advisory bureau. (e) the advisement responsibilities assigned to faculty members. (f) the academic advising program's purposes and procedures. and (g) the evaluation of faculty advisers. lejanonuubeitudx Only male undergraduate students and male faculty members who advise undergraduate students at Umm Al-Qura University were selected as subjects for the study. In addition. recommendations and findings generated by the study's data are exclusive to Umm Al-Qura University. Generalizations to other universities in Saudi Arabia may not be appropriate. l tiD Stu PFC. phi? and ”SECS of deter.“ °539Ctiv the 3C8 (It Students researcnl Resume “ten“ on anIRDDrt 'Dr~ $55126. CTQCi t‘hol shall . ”Um In 595 is ii. in S-Er em ‘1: Wild! In W WW 11: was stated: Academic advising is. for an educational institution. the founda- tion of its counseling structure. Such advising must help the students to resolve questions arising in the selection of specific programs and courses. in the development in the individual of a philosophy of education. and in academic performance. both before and after a student experiences difficulty. (p. 24) Burke (1982) concluded in his study of the academic advising needs of students at Florida State University: ”Academic advisement is an important part of university life because it aids the students in determining and sustaining their course of study as well as career objectives" (p. 24). Emphasizing the importance of this research is the fact that the academic advising program in Saudi universities. in relation to students' needs. has never been systematically investigated by researchers. Despite its relevance to effectively carrying out a credit-hour system (that is already in place). it appears that little attention has been paid to academic advisement. Academic advisement is an important issue to be studied due to other. more "institutional" or "organizational" reasons. Most institutions of higher education in Saudi Arabia use the credit-hour system. However. all K-12 schools (with the exception of a small number of high schools) have the traditional system. Confusion arises as graduates of these schools attempt to enter institutions of higher education where trained academic advisers should be present (but are not these 11 types of kn't 5p. tenth gr tracked grade. I IIPOIIADI 'Dm he. 6 F Atlantic. with the ICVISing (Uties of Ii Of an effq Af are not) to appropriately credit incoming students for courses taken at these institutions of higher education. According to Al-Malleess (1980). Saudi Arabia has two different types of high schools: (a) the "comprehensive" school in which students don‘t specialize in one area but can choose a variety of subjects after tenth grade. and (b) the "traditional" school in which students are tracked into either The Arts or Science concentration after tenth grade. These differences create difficulties for students who need the important skills of trained academic advisers to help them adjust to the new environment and the requirements of the university. Raising the issue or academic advising will bring it to the attention of faculty members who. to a large extent. are not familiar with the credit-hour system or the responsibilities of the academic advising program. yet. in some cases. are required to perform the duties of the academic adviser. Information generated by the study will also benefit university administrators who lack knowledge about the role and specific functions of an effective academic advising program. After the recent academic suspension of many students from Umm Al-Qura University for maintaining an unacceptably low grade point average (Sada Al-Jamia. p. 4. lst ed.; Jumada Al-Ala. 1405). students protested citing the absence ot a clear and effective academic advising program as the reason for their poor performance. The students declared that they had not received any help from the university in under certa GVBDIS assist tionai, aWisin (Burke, lentall) understanding their responsibilities. how and why they should choose certain courses. and how to succeed at the university. The importance or the study is underscored by the above-mentioned events. Wm: Wining-wuties performed by faculty members to assist students with making decisions regarding their personal. educa- tional. and vocational needs (Hardee. 1970). Needy-"Refers to discrepancies between the extent to which advising functions should be fulfilled and the extent to which advising functions are being fulfilled as perceived by students and faculty" (Burke. 1981. p. 9). Esteem-JR have taken hold of. felt. comprehended. grasped mentally. recognized. observed. or become aware of primarily through the senses of sight and hearing" (Smith. 1974. p.9 ). Mangers—All faculty members to whom the responsibili- ty of advising undergraduate students is assigned at Umm Al-Qura Uni- versity. besides their basic responsibilities of teaching. research. and community service. fiagngs--Conditions that students and/or faculty advisers believe prevent or discourage them from properly fulfilling and per- forming academic needs or duties. Wants-411 male students registered at Umm Al- Qura University in the second term of the 1984-85 academic year. object Study. t incorpcr Umm Al-: grain is 10 WW Chapter I introduced the educational problem that was the object of the study. The purpose of the study. limitations of the study. the importance of the study. and a definition of terms were also incorporated in Chapter I. In Chapter II. a historical background of the development of Umm Al-Qura University and a discussion of its academic advising pro- gram is provided. In Chapter III. an overview of related literature is reported. dividing the literature into the following sections: (a) a historical background of academic advising in the Uni ted States. (b) the impor- tance of academic advising. (c) definitions of academic advising. (d) the responsibilities of academic advising. (e) qualities of effective academic advising. and (f) studies of students' academic advising needs. Chapter IV is devoted to a discussion of the methods used in collecting and analyzing the data generated by the study. The fifth chapter presents the analysis of the data as well as an interpretation of the findings. Chapter VI consists of a summary of the major findings and the conclusions drawn from those findings. Recommendations to improve the quality of the undergraduate academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University are also made. Finally. suggestions based on information elicited by the study are introduced. CHAPTER II UM AL-OURA UNIVERSITY AND ITS ACADEMIC ADVISING PRGSRAM The Saudi Arabian educational system was officially established when the first Ministry of Education was founded in 1953. Since that time. the educational system has expanded rapidly. "In terms of our human resources as only one example. Saudi Arabia has been opening between two and three new schools every week during the last five years" (Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia. 1980. p. 5). This growth reflects the country's oil wealth and the government's ambition to transform the country from a poor. backward. desert state to a prosper- ous. industrialized. and conservative Islamic nation. Higher education has also been markedly expanded. During the last 27 years. seven modern universities have opened. During the decade of 1970 - 1980. university enrollment jumped from 6.942 in 1960-70 toi47.990 in 1979-80--a seven-fold increase in ten years. The average annual rate of growth works out to 21.3 percent which must be one of the highest in the world. (Ministry of Higher Education. 1970-1980. p. 31) Included in the seven universities are King Saud University. founded in 1958. and Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud University. founded in 1974. These two universities are located in Riyadh. theTcapital of Saudi Arabia. in the central part of the country. 11 of Dhahr. city of located ‘ | founded i universi 1961. B; try, vhi located. sit, in : toricalij A State | uniye.s11 and enro‘; Uniyer511 110111” ‘ either M 12 The University of Petroleum and Minerals. located in the city of Dhahran. was founded in 1963; King Faisal University. located in the city of Al-Ahssa. was founded in 1975. These two universities are located in the eastern part of the country. King Abdul Aziz University. located in the city of Jeddah. was founded as a private institution in 1967-1968 and converted to a state university in 1971. The Islamic University in Madina was founded in 1961. Both universities are located in the western part of the coun- try. where Umm Al-Qura University. the setting of the study. is located. MW Although Umm Al-Qura University was designated a state univew sity in 1980-81. its foundation was already deeply rooted. both his- torically and physically. Even before it was officially recognized as a state university. Umm Al-Qura University was similar to the other six universities with regards to physical appearance. number of colleges. and enrollment. But the history of what is now known as Umm Al-Qura University began in 1949. when the first Institution of Higher Educa- tion in Saudi Arabia was founded there. At that time it was called the College of Islamic Law. specializing in training students to become either Muslim judges. intermediate school teachers. or high school teachers. The need to train teachers in other academic areas provoked officials to establish the College of Teachers there in 1952. The College of Teachers trained students to teach in academic areas such as English. Islamic Teachers res cell are loca Control . him 1 a1 'EQSPIte Univerg 1985. FL 'EIt off ”me 1 COIIGQGS SEVQnth Leno. Shag SOan] 1 con9‘39 13 English. science. and art. The College of Teachers and The College of Islamic Law became one institution in 1960-61. In 1962. the College of Teachers was once again separated from the College or Islamic Law and was called the College of Education. Both the College of Education and the College of Islamic Law are located in the city of Makkah Al-Mukkaramah and are under the control of the Ministry of Education. By 1970-71. both colleges were affiliated with King Abdul Aziz University in the city of Jeddah. "Despite the integration of these two colleges into King Abdul Aziz University. they were still distinct entities" (Umm Al-Qura University. 1985. p. 9). However. the enormous increase in enrollment made govern- ment officials recognize and respond to the need for more colleges and academic specialties. A royal decree was issued by King Khalid Ibn Abdul Aziz sepa- rating these two colleges from King Abdul Aziz University. The two colleges were assigned the name Umm Al-Qura University--Saudi Arabia's seventh state university. MW Umm Al-Qura University now consists of seven colleges: (a) the College of Shar'ia and Islamic Studies. (b) the College of Arabic Language and Its Arts. (c) the College of Dawa and USUL-Al-Dean. (d) the College of Applied Science and Engineering. (e) the College of Social Studies. (f) the College of Education in Makkah. and (g) the College of Education in Taif. On Septenber 22. 1985. it was reported that: Vinisi consic Saudi I CDcrtr) "emten ECUCat Piesic. Arabia Presige SQrVES yerSity The net: fUIL Sit) 14 the budget of the university for the fiscal year 1985-86 is 452.6 million Saudi Riyals [one U.S. dollar equals approximately 3.7 Riyals]. . . . The total number of students enrolling in Umm Al- Qura University is 14.000 students. Five thousand of that total are female students. (mm. p. 10) Umm Al-Qura University has four major research centers: (1) The World Center for Islamic Education. (2) The Pilgrimage Research Center. (3) the Center for Scientific Research and Revival of the Islamic Heritage. and (4) The Center for Research in Education and Psychology. (Jan. 19%. p. 105) Administratively. Umm Al-Qura University is controlled by the Ministry of Higher Education. The Minister of Higher Education is considered to be the Supreme President of all seven universities in Saudi Arabia. Umm Al-Qura University. like the other six universities in the country. is under the direction of the Supreme Council of Universities. Members of the Supreme Council. whose leader is the Minister of Higher Education. includes the president of the university. the vice- presidents of the university. the deans of faculty. the Dean of the Arabia Institute. and two dignitaries from the community. However. the president of the university assumes all day-to-day responsibilities and serves as the highest ranking university authority. W511! Umm Al-Qura University was recently located within the city of Makkah. Expansion of its facilities is limited. Therefore. the uni- versity is planning to move to a new campus outside of Makkah. The total surface of the new campus will be 15 million square meters. The construction of the new campus will begin in the near future according to an interview with the president of the univer- sity. (Alzflnsln. September 22. 1985. p. 10) In t the Econ bran Citii sity Mid 5 Rent GCvis 15 In the same interview. the president of the university revealed that the College of Medicine. the College of Engineering. and the College of Economics will be established soon. Moreover. other campuses as branches of Umm Al-Qura University will be established in various cities throughout Saudi Arabia. WWW Generally. the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity is implemented departmentally. That is. the planning. executing. and evaluating of the advisement process is conducted by each depart- ment. Faculty members within the departments perform the academic advising function. Unfortunately. the current manner in which academic advising is provided (at the departmental level) creates many problems. The Dean of Registration and Admission and the Director of the Office of Aca- demic Advising. during several meetings with the researcher during the data-collection period to discuss the situation of academic advising at Umm Al-Qura University. said that the most chronic problems caused by the academic advisement function as presently carried out are: 1. The wide range of academic advising delivered to students where some departments have an excellent academic advising program. and other departments have very weak advising programs; and 2. Academic advising in each department depends heavily on the experience of the chairperson in charge of academic advising. (pers. comm. with Salehi Al-Safe and Makki Hunian. March 1985) hccordir universi rience i is inep; does not sion at ment of Deidrtme IACreese the deai PIOgren depart: ch‘Iges deiart. March ‘is tn 0? ate $51.10. 16 According to these university officials. some departments within the university are handicapped due to the lack of academic advising expe- rience by the department chairperson. As a result. academic advising is inappropriately performed. In some departments academic advisement does not even exist. Nevertheless. the Dean of Registration and Admis- sion at Umm Al-Qura University is committed to the continued develop- ment of the academic advising system. The Dean tried to correct this situation by establishing the Department of Academic Advising. The purpose of this department was to increase the cooperation between the departments at the university and the dean's office in order to achieve an appropriate academic advising program. However. in a private interview with the director of this department it was revealed that the department is still new and many changes need to be made in order for it to achieve its goals. The department was established in 1984 (pers. comm. with Makki Hunian. March 1985L Another attempt undertaken by the Dean to improve the situation was the writing of an initiative papen. The paper explained the status of academic advising at Umm Al-Qura University andiencompassed the following major topics: First. the paper described the importance of academic advising in the lives of university students. Academic advising was presented as a vital and very important factor during the students' entire uni- versity experience. It was considered especially crucial in the role it plays in developing the "whole" student. partici Universi ers vhc and non acacemi: ingot! these si Dean's ' Sh‘3I‘tcor needed pr°STAr the dip 17 In addition. faculty members were portrayed as the primary participants upon whom academic advising depends. At Umm Al-Qura University a specific number of students are assigned to faculty advis- ers whose responsibility is to help students overcome their academic and nonacademic problems. The paper also advanced the idea that the academic advising system complements the credit-hour system. Second. the paper reported the shortcomings of academic advis- ing at Umm Al-Qura University while explaining the consequences of these shortcomings as well as their possible causes. According to the Dean's paper. the following consequences are a di rect result of the shortcomings in academic advising at Umm Al-Qura University. 1. Students take courses that are not required; courses needed as prerequisites are not taken (i.e.. students in the graduate program take courses from the master's program while they are still at the diploma level). 2. There is an increase of stress on students during the drop-and-add period because they add and drop too many courses due to the absence of adequate advising. 3. There is an increase in the number of students who with- draw from the university and go to other universities. as well as an increase in the number of students who change their majors. 4. As a result of the consequences discussed above. the students' grade point averages decrease. which in many cases causes them to postpone their studies or be dropped from the university. numbei parisc no ex; advisi memter who dc Perfori during ADC 50' 18 Three major reasons explain the above consequences: (a) the number of faculty members serving as advisers is not adequate in com- parison to the number of incoming students; (b) some of faculty have no experience using the credit-hour system which. because academic advising is a fundamental aspect of its operation. means those faculty members are also unprepared to conduct academic advisement. and those who do practice academic advisement seem unaware and careless in their performance of that duty; and (c) the unavailability of the advisers during registration time causes many students to register independently and sometimes incorrectly. Third. the initiative paper identified the following actions that could help overcome the shortcomings of the present academic advising process: 1. The development of academic advising for freshmen. 2. Increasing the number of publications directed to students to assist them adjust to university life. 3. The distribution of the University_fiu1de to faculty mem- bers. 4. Using all the human and material resources available from the Office of the Dean of Registration and Admission at registration and during the drop-and-add period. 5. A more frequent posting of notices around the university that provide students with updated information about university activi- ties and regulations. p advise tion a tion . under: Igor. Intiuc Action Add pe Echiey GCCorc “Itern UMVer by $66 Resist 19 Finally. the paper outlined the responsibilities of academic advisers as follows: 1. Providing students with scholastic information. informa- tion about the colleges and departments at the university. and informa- tion about courses which are offered in the department. Also. understanding the students' interests to help them choose the right major. 2. The continual monitoring of students' academic achievement including improvements in performance as well as difficulties--taking action. as indicated. 3. Assisting students during registration and the drop-and- add period assuring that students register in accordance with their achievement in previous courses. Also to ensure that students register according to university regulations. 4. During the drop-and-add period. assisting students choose alternative courses that do not conflict with courses already chosen. 5. The academic adviser must promote cooperation between university units as well as maximize the assistance provided students by seeking help from the Student Personnel Office. other faculty. the Registrar's Office. the library. and the medical center. The Dean also issued Ihe_§tudent_fiu1de. which contains valuable information for students. such as: 1. An explanation of the importance of academic advising and its role in facilitating for students the entire university experience. the st ful. help 5 progr. unive: until 1985). sity, . Umm Al univers the uni Urn Ai. idv151l We li Cura Ur 20 2. An explanation of the importance of cooperation between the student and faculty adviser if academic advising is to be success- ful. 3. A statement of the goals of academic advising: (a) to help students understand the credit-hour system and how to plan their programs. (b) to help students select courses in accordance with university requirements. and (c) to monitor students' registration until the end of the drop-and-add period (Umm Al-Qura University. 1985). Sumarx This chapter was devoted to a discussion of Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity. the setting of this study. A brief historical background about Umm Al-Qura's development was provided. The recent status of the university was also discussed. including the recent budget and the way the university is operated. Following that. the future prospects of Umm Al-Qura were discussed. Finally. the writer discussed the academic advising program. its status. shortcomings. and other issues to shed some light on the standing of the academic advising program at Umm Al- Qu ra University. CHAPTER III RELATED LITERATURE The review of related literature consists of the following sections: The first section presents the historical development of the work of academic advising as one of the functions in institutions of higher education in the United States. Section two describes the importance of academic advising. Section three provides definitions of academic advising as practiced at institutions of higher education. The responsibilities of academic advisement at institutions of higher education are listed in the fourth section. which also presents the following aspects of academic advisement: (a) the conflict regard- ing who is responsible for delivering academic advising. (b) the fac- ulty member as a deliverer of academic advisement. and (c) the profes- sional counselor as a provider of academic advising. In the fifth section. the effectiveness of academic advising is discussed. This section is divided into two subsections. The first describes the factors that comprise an effective academic advisement program; the second discusses the obstacles that hinder the achieve- ment of an effective academic advisement program. Finally. studies of students' academic advisement needs are described in the sixth section. 21 ticed 1 limited. since t recogni rdatis search of acac 22 BistoUcaLBackomnmAcadeniLAdxisjm Infonmation regarding the history of academic advising as prac- ticed in institutions of higher education in the United States is limited. Despite the fact that academic advising has been practiced since the early days of higher education in the United States. its recognition as a special area of interest in those institutions is a relatively new phenomenon. DeLisle (1965) acknowledged that: "A search of the literature reveals practically no relevance to the matter of academic advising until the early twentieth century" q» 3). Three factors contributed to the lack of information about academic advising as a specific function in institutions of higher education: (a) there was no real necessity for an organized academic advising program in the early days of higher education since student populations were small and curricula were rigid (Grites. 1979); (b) the absence of a theoretical and operational recognition of the role of academic advising in institutions of higher education (Seppanen. 1981); and (c) academic advising of students by a designated faculty member was unknown in the institutions of higher education in the United States in the early periods. Delisle (1965) reported that: A century or more ago. specialized services to students were unknown. Many of the functions. however. were embedded in the institutional process and less complicated administration of that day. (p. 13) On the other hand. other authors suggested that academic advis- ing as a function practiced in institutions of higher education is not an entirely new phenomenon. In fact. some provided evidence that it is an ol Nonna: Z—i faCtCI ment . studer (Zens were ' faCU1t\ 23 an old function extended from earlier days of American education. Nonnamaker (1959) stated that: The faculty adviser system has its roots deep in the history of American education. The colleges that were first founded in Amer- ica used English institutions as a model in which the faculty and students lived. worked. and ate in a close association. q» 8) During this period. students were considered the most important factor in the teaching-learning process. The students' whole develop- ment was at the core of teaching-learning goals. In higher education. students' personal welfare was as important as classroom instruction (DeLisle. 1965). Additional insights into the practices of that period were recorded by Nonnamaker (1959). who quoted Cowley: The faculties were usually composed of clergymen who lived in the dormitories with the students. Responsibility was assumed for providing guidance in matters of personal conduct. ‘Whe enrollments were small. and the professors were more interested in teaching than research. Early educational practice was directed toward the development of the whole student. Instructional techniques were individualized with a relatively homogeneous faculty and student body. and limited curricular offerings. Few choices were available to the students. The meager necessity for seeking such assistance was fulfilled within the concept of instruction. which probably accounts for strong tradition link advising and instruction.(p. 5) This period also witnessed an intimate relationship between faculty members and students. Nonnamaker (1959) reported that a homo- geneous student body. a common curriculum. and the fact that faculty also served as advisers to their students contributed to the closeness of student-faculty relationships. The close relationship between the faculty and students did not last forever. In the nineteenth century. institutions of higher educa- tion in the United States were greatly influenced by German ‘l uni' r951 Unii nail iacu (lenc 24 universities. Universities in Germany perceived scholarship and research as the primary function of the teaching-learning process. Consequently. little attention was paid to the nonintellectual growth of students. This influence on the institutions of higher education in the United States led to the intellectual development of students as the main purpose of these institutions. The close relationship between faculty members and students. practiced earlier. was abandoned. Evi- dence for this was provided by Nonnamaker (1959). who reported that: One of the basic reasons for the change was the influence of the German universities upon American education. These universities were particularly noted for their use of the scientific method as a way of attacking problems. Thus. many Americans who studied in German universities returned imbued with the importance of research and the pursuit of scientific experimentation. Teachers so edu- cated left students to their own devices. They no longer had time to be interested in them. (p. 9) By the beginning of the twentieth century. a new philosophy began to emerge in the institutions of higher education in the United States. This emerging philosophy called for personal development of students and making the relationship between faculty members and stu- dents more personal. DeLislei(1965) found that the concern for intel- lectualism was being replaced by the original emphasis on the develop- ment of the whole student evidenced in the colonial period. Nonnamaker (1959) recorded that change: At the beginning of the present century a number of new influences began to affect American education. and acted to reverse the phi- losophy and practice of impersonalization. Out of these influences emerged the field of student personnel work. Contributing to the movement were such influences as the ascendancy in elementary and secondary schools of individualized instruction; increased knowl- edge of the problems and capabilities of adolescents resulting from Ur 85 de in: tog 25 research in psychology and educati on; development of tests and testing; and changes in political. educational and social philos- ophy. (p. 11) MW In the recent past. institutions of higher education in the United States began to recognize the importance of attending to all aspects of the development of students. It was thought that this could be accomplished through the academic advising process. However. aca- demic advising was still not assigned corresponding significance from institutions of higher education until very recently. Today. academic advising is more comprehensive. It brings together many specialized personnel who have more information and provide academic and career planning (Grites. 1979). Moor (1976) recognized that universities are realizing that students want to improve the quantity and quality of faculty-student contacts as well as the settings in which those contacts take place. Institutions of higher education have responded by acknowledging that a faculty advis- ing system is an important strategy to satisfying institutional and student needs in the area of academic advisement. Even though academic advising has been perceived more favorably in institutions of higher education recently. its practice is still conducted in the way it was conducted a generation ago. Donk and Getting (1968) reported that: Most of our college and university campuses still utilize the faculty advising system inherited from the last generation. The adviser is generally assigned at random within the student's col- lege or in his proposed major field. This adviser typically checks and signs the student's cl ass schedule in the registration process. th th. in. Ge ins: 91‘s Is ll n90“ erti 26 and. while technically approving the class schedule. all too fre- quently serves mainly in a clerical role. In fact. a trained clerk could undoubtedly check whether or not the student's program met the requirement for his degree and status in the institution. thus freeing the adviser professor for more efficient us of his time. (p. 400) IbLImDortancaJLAcadenmAdnsino Despite practicing academic advising in a manner inherited from the last generation. its importance as a process and a function is apparent and noticeable in institutions of higher education today. In this regard. Burke (1981) concluded that "academic advisement is an important part of the university life because it aids the students in determining and sustaining their course of study as well as career objective" (pp. 2-3). Program administrators at the University of Michigan underlined the importance of academic advising in institutions of higher education in the United States. They emphasized that academic advising is the foundation of counseling functions. Such advising must help students (a) select specific programs and courses. (b) develop a philosophy of education. and (c) perform adequately in their course work. both before and after a student experiences difficulty (Hardee. 1970). The increased importance of academic advising as a process in institutions of higher education has been recognized by other research- ers as well. Chathaparampil (1970) observed that academic advisement is important because college students. as a group. are very heteroge- neous. They differ physically and intellectually. and adjust differ- ently to the university experience. 27 The crucial role academic advising can play in the recent and future life of institutions of higher education has also been studied. Winston et a1. (1982) reported that: The current literature suggests that academic advising has great potential for reflecting change in modern higher education. The changing population of students. the need to increase retention. the need of students for adult role models. student consumerism. and the intent of many colleges and universities to provide educa- tional programs. . . to educate the whole student have generated new interest in academic advising. (p. 3) Was Academic advising has been conceptualized in different ways. In the 19505. academic advising was an administrative activity in which faculty members approved the courses students would take. In the 19605. it was regarded as more of a counseling function. Academicians were called upon to develop closer relationships with students and to demonstrate personal concern for them. In the 19705. academic advising was perceived as a decision-making process. incorporating students and advisers. whose purpose it was to reduce students' concerns and maxi- mize their educational potential and benefits to be derived from the institution (Grites. 1979). It was a collaborative effort that was "ongoing. multifaceted. and the responsibility of both student and advisor" (Grites. 1979. p. 8). The literature also reveal ed many attempts by writers in this field to define academic advising. Representative examples follow. 1. DeLisle (1965) defined academic advising as: an educational experience. representing both a dynamic. continuing process and relationship. Thereby. a student and interested. cap- able members of the staff and faculty are engaged in a common ad its li‘l’hls 28 pursuit of the existing resources of the educational institution to the end that the student may realize his educational and career goals according to his unique capabilities. (p. 169) 2. Hardee (1970) defined academic advising as: An activity dispatched by members of teaching faculty and directed toward assisting students with their educational. vocational. and personal concerns at a defined level of competence. (p. 9) 3. DeLisle (1965) provided an additional definition of academic advising: its ing a process of mediation between the students and the resources of an institution to the end that the student makes optimal progress toward the goals of liberal and professional education in the light of his own abilities. interests. and aspirations. Therefore. aca- demic advising involves assisting students in (a) assessment of his own abilities. interests. and aspirations. (b) acquiring infome- tion about courses. curriculum. regulations. and procedures. (c) interpreting the nature and goals of undergraduate (liberal and professional) education. (d) planning his total four year program. both courses and other experiences relevant to his career goals. (e) planning a career. (f) locating resources of the university which. through consultation. testing or otherwise. will assist the student in reaching his career goals. (p. 117-118) 4. Packwood (1977) defined the task of academic advising in narrowest sense: a choice of specific courses to meet requirements of a particular curriculum. . . . Advisement may also include helping with the choice of curricula and plans for making adequate programs within the course of study. Its major concern is with educational pro- gramming. (p. 469) 5. Winston et a1. (1984) presented the task of academic advis- as: a developmental advising both stimulates and supports students in their quest for an enriched quality of life. it is a systematic process based on a close student-adviser relationship intended to aid students in achieving educational and personal goals through the utilization of the full range of institutional and community resources. It is a critical higher education function that requires the involvement and expertise of both academic faculty and students affairs professionals. (p. 8) I a: de lie 1;“. Sid Con Mei: 29 WW9 Despite the recognition by colleges of the importance of identi- fying a model or organizational framework for the delivery of advising. there is still an unsettled dispute among researchers about who is responsible for advising in institutions of higher education. Nonnamaker (1959) indicated that the roles of faculty advisers and personnel specialists. with regards to advising students. are not well defined. Some faculty disapprove of the disintegrated approach to advisement that personnel specialists employ (i.e.. advising the stu- dent in so many directions that development of the whole student is made more difficult). On the other hand. personnel specialists argue that faculty advisers are not prepared to genuinely assist students with more personal problems; that faculty are too preoccupied with other matters to attend to students' other. non-academic concerns (Nonnamaker. 1959). The differences in the approaches of these two groups results in the fact that "services are duplicated. advice is controversial and the student is either confused or forgotten" (Nonna- maker. 1959. p. 13). The argument regarding assigning the responsibility of academic advising is a controversial issue. Many efforts have been and are being undertaken to diffuse this argument. which may help in its reso- lution. Both groups. faculty members and professional counselors (i.e.. personnel specialists). are trying to settle this argument because they recognize that it is beneficial to students for agreement to be reach ed. __—-. rec: ists adCi (th sion on - J- A. to b Fe56e and 1 tlon’ 30 A reconciliation may be coming. Both groups are beginning to recognize the unique contributions they can make. Personnel special- ists often tried to validate their roles in the educational process by adding to their own responsibilities those usually assigned to faculty (whose training is also specialized. but different). Personnel profes- sionals are now recognizing that difference and perceive the roles of both groups as complementary. However. it appears as though personnel specialists may have been overly zealous in demanding so much of the responsibilities related to student advisement because faculty accepted their diminished role and now the tide has turned-~personnel special- ists are trying very hard to influence faculty to becomeimore active in the advisement process. Nonnamaker (1959) reported: allowing for the fact that perhaps many personnel people have underestimated the interest of faculty in advising students. the matter of involving teachers in faculty advisory systems has become a matter of considerable concern.(p. 14) Conflict regarding the assigning of academic advising continues to be a controversial issue. at least in the literature. Other researchers. however. believe that a conflict between faculty members and the professional counselor. regarding the academic advising func- tion. does not exist. Hardee (1970) conceptualized the functions of professional counselors in three ways and emphasized the interactive quality of the relationship between faculty advisers and counselors as follows: (a) counselors instruct faculty advisers in learning theory. personality development. and assessment procedures that contribute to establishing stud infl shar vitr gran PETS sons orde C0un SIOn e551: 31 student learning experiences; (b) counselors intentionally extend their influence on students by working on a one-to-one basis with faculty who share in the confidences of students on a daily basis; and (c) together with the faculty. professional counselors promote a new dimension in learning by joining with administrators to provide experimental pro- grams for persons who are educationally and economically disadvantaged. persons who experience handicaps. politically active persons. and per- sons involved in integrating the campus and surrounding community in order to improve the human condition. Four steps for carrying out academic advisement have also been identified. The corresponding tasks are completed by both the counse- lor and faculty member involved in the advisement situation. The four steps follow: 1. Exploration of life's goals--facilitated by the professional counselor; 2. Exploration of vocational goals--facilitated by the profes- sional counselor; I 3. Selection of program--facilitated by faculty adviser; and 4. Selection of courses--facilitated by faculty and/or student assistants (Dameron & Wolf. 1974). Cooperation between faculty and professional counselors has been viewed by some writers as critical for students. the cornerstone of the academic advising function. league and Grites (1980) asserted that: Although student personnel professionals have generated improve- ments in the academic areas that affect the academic advising prc Sys fol Spec tl'or idvi 10y1 UErt dent pres pref Pist‘ 32 process through admission counseling. orientation programs. fresh- man seminars. career development centers. and learning labora- tories. the faculty cannot be overlooked or discarded. Rather. cooperative efforts between the faculty and student personnel staffs need to be expanded. Mutual expertise must be recognized and used for the betterment of the total institution. (p. 41) Examination of the responsibility of delivering the academic advising generates many other questions regarding this issue: What is the best delivery system for academic advising? What kinds of delivery systems are used now to carry out the academic advising process? What kind of delivery system do the students prefer when they encounter problems? What is the stance of those who advocate a specific delivery system? A discussion of factors having an influence on these issues follows. Academic advising processes should be developed tolneet the specific advising needs on each campus. The unique setting and situa- tion of the institution should be reflected. Therefore. academic advising methods cannot be totally prescribed (Winston et ah» 1982h The most comuuuiacademic advising delivery systems include advisement by faculty advisors. professional counselors. fellow stu- dents as peer helpers. and group advising (Winston et al.. 1984). However. according to data gathered from both faculty and stu- dents at Colorado State University during a study to evaluate the present advising system. students were asked to indicate in order of preference where they would go with both an academic and a personal problem. Originally. about 67% of the students had indicated that they would go to their faculty adviser with an academic problem. This figure remained unchanged after two years. Nevertheless (although upon enter that tvo‘ sour edvi: 33 entering college only slightly more than 75% of the students indicated that they would go to the instructor with an academic problem). after two years. over 90% indicated that the instructor was the preferred source of help. Of those who indicated that they would go to an adviser with a personal problem. only 10% would do so after two years as compared to 20% of freshmen (Donk & Oetting. 1968). Observations of advocates for advisement systems staffed by faculty. professionally trained personnel. and students are presented below. WWW Faculty members comprise one of the most common means of advis- ing students in institutions of higher education in the United States. Winston et al. (1982) reported that "Faculty members have. and continue to be the primary movers in academic advising delivery systems" (p. 41). In that work. Corstenen is quoted as stating that "79 percent of all advising programs are currently maintained by the faculty" (p. 412). A longitudinal study of student development found that faculty has a tremendous influence on students: Student-faculty interaction has a stronger relationship to student satisfaction with the college experience than any other involvement variable or. indeed. any other student or institutional character- istic. (Astin in Winston et al.. 1982. p. 11) Those who believe that faculty members should advise students. have many reasons to support their belief. Teague (1977) stated that ”proponents of a faculty advisement system offer several persuasive arguments for assigning either sole or primary responsibility for 0f the 1m; 34 advising to instructional staff” (p. 281). Other reasons include similarity of the teaching/advising functions (Hardee. 1970). expert- ness and specificity of teaching faculty (Hallberg. 1964). "instructor knowledge of academic programs" (Gallagher 8. Demos in Teague. 1977. p. 281). and "frequency of contact between faculty and students" (Evans & Neagl ey in Teague. 1977. p. 281). Donk and Oetti ng (1968) believed that: One rationale for assigning the adviser to this role is usually that of providing the student with a faculty contact. a person he can go to if he encounters difficulties. and who can provide guid- ance in planning his academic program and career. The student is typically required to check with this person each quarter or semes- ter. again with the idea that continued contact will lead to a relationship that will benefit the student educationally and per- sonally. (p. 400) In assigning the faculty member responsibility as a del iverer of the advising function. certain policies must be in place to ensure that the advising is effective. All academic and administrative personnel must recognize the importance and institutional significance of academic advising. Teach- ing loads and the number of advisees should be equitably assigned to faculty members. In addition. in—service programs must be provided all new instructors (Packwood. 1977). Additional counselors to handle personal-life and vocational counseling problems. and sufficient clerical help. would improve the overall advisement function (Packwood. 1977). (P ACE the In ecu 13th tion I 35 Finally. a program of evaluation by students. instructors. and counselors would provide necessary feedback on faculty effectiveness (Packw ood. 1977). We Conducting the advising system through the faculty members as academic advisers requires a well-defined role. Hardee (1970) reported that: The advisor is more than an information and traffic officer. He conveys to the student a philosophy of contemporary education. a rational base for the consideration of problems. and suggests plans of action in which he may move. (p. 21) In addition to that. Hardee suggested the following functions as the adviser's role: 1. 2. The adviser will assist the student in effecting a program of study consonant with the latter's interests and competencies; The adviser will assist the student in periodic evaluation of his academic progress The adviser will assist the student in initial exploration of long-range occupational and professional plans. referring him to sources for specialized assistance; The adviser will serve as coordinator of the learning experi- ences of the students. assisting in the integration of the various kinds of assistance rendered--health and psychological aids. remedial work. financial aids. religious counseling--the panoply of all services available to the student.(p. ll) Bostaph and Moor (1980) presented the following five functions as the academic adviser's role. 1. An academic adviser should offer students complete informa- tion regarding university policies and regulations. curricular options. m re 29'; 36 students' individual interests. special educational opportunities. and university services. 2. Monitoring students' progress. needs. and changing inter- ests. advisers should assist students make appropriate decisions about the selection of courses or programs on a term-by-term basis. 3. Advisors should also contribute to the development of their advisees by getting to know them on a personal level (i.e.. becoming aware of their problems. motives. goals. and expectations). 4. Advisement on educational objectives and the philosophy of education should be offered advisees in an attempt to help them under- stand the requirements of specific programs. With each student. advis- ors should examine the nature of disciplinary and interdisciplinary study. 5. One of the most important functions is providing advisees the opportunity to establish educational programs and career strategies consistent with their interests. permitting them to develop a long- range plan and rationale for their entire academic experience. To adequately perform the role of adviser. Hardee (I970) sug- gested that faculty members must possess or acquire considerable knowl- edge and skills when he stated: The adviser should have considerable knowledge of the combined educational offering--the total of available classes. extra class. clinic. laboratory. library. and field experiences. The adviser should have comprehensive knowledge of the curriculum. . . . . In addition. the advisor should be familiar with campus in its varied structural parts. should recognize the prevailing climate of learn- ing on campus. and should have acquired. or be in the process of acquiring. adequate skills for communicating with various students in varying subcultures in authentic. appropriate. and meaningful ways. (p. 11) thc ofi Thi by fac tea del II. 9 aSSi Ian. 37 Even though many educators agree that faculty members Should carry out the academic advisement functions. many faculty members avoid those responsibilities. It has been reported that teaching faculty often have not fulfilled their obligations in academic advisement. This was attributed to the possibility that advising is not perceived by faculty members as an integral part of their work. Consequently. faculty have devoted most of their time to research. writing. and teaching (Bostaph & Moor. 1980). Hornbuckl e. Mahoney. and Borgard (1977) indicated that at least eight factors affect faculty members' perception of advising: role relevancy. relationship to professional advancement. accept- ance of personal involvement. role security. salience of advising. need for personal contact. access to academic information. and need for personal information about the advisees. Additional factors such as faculty academic experience. advisee load. and tenure affect faculty perception of academic advising. (p. 297) Finally. whether or not the faculty member is the primary deliverer of academic advising in institutions of higher education in the United States. certain factors have to be considered in order to assure the usefulness and effectiveness of the program. These factors range from the training of individual faculty members to perform the duties of academic advising to the existence of a well-defined commit- ment from the administration of the institutions of higher education to the academic advising programs. The following paragraphs are devoted to the discussion of these factors. To ensure the usefulness and effectiveness of an advising system carried out by faculty members. support and commitment from adni port cont oppc advi niec tive an: ' advi. -_~n_oH ~—,..—.— _ _H4 _ -_ 38 administrators is necessary. Furthermore. administrators should sup- port the development of a faculty advisement system and promote its continuity. Bostaph and Moor (1980) suggested that in-service training opportunities should be provided existing personnel and new faculty advisers should also be trained. A training program directed to new faculty that is not accompa- nied by a corresponding in-service training program is counterproduc— tive to the developmental aspects of the advising process. Training and in-service opportunities are necessary in establishing a successful advising system (Bostaph & Moor. 1980). An adequate reward system for faculty members who perform the duties of academic advising improves effectiveness of academic advising programs. Institutions of higher education must establish a reward system for those who conduct advising to promote their enthusiasm and participation. Sticle (1982) observed that: The faculty conduct their advising in addition to their regular full-time responsibilities of teaching and committee assignments. Viewing advising as an added burden where one is not compensated may account for some of the poor functioning. (p. 264) Contributing to the decreased effectiveness of the faculty advising program is assigning faculty members more advisement responsi- bilities than they can handle. The amount of advising assigned should be carefully monitored to prevent "overloading" the faculty. Hallberg (1964) reported in this regard: If advising loads are inappropriately high. then advice is without quality and faculty advisement reduced to mere programming or clerical assistance. which obviously does not require highly quali- fied professional faculty. Given an appropriate advising load and fi fi OL 39 clerical assistance. however. the faculty adviser can carry out this important professional function. (p. 115) Follow-up and systematic evaluations of the adviser's work are essential to a successful academic advising program. Currently. few institutions have implemented intentional assessment procedures of faculty advising programs. To increase the level of performance of the faculty members as well as the degree of importance assigned the advis- ing function. evaluation of the advisement process should be carried out (Sti c1 e. 1982). Finally. the function of advising students must be expressed in the faculty member's contract or in the collective bargaining agree- ment. Teague and Grites agreed that if faculty were to have acknowl- edgment that the advisement role is valid. than it should have been specifically included in collective bargaining agreements and con- tracts. However. that function was vaguely operational ized (1980). W mammalian: Delivery of the advising function by faculty members is common in institutions of higher education in the United States. Most of the literature about advising has agreed on the suitability of faculty members advising students. However. disagreement about the issue of faculty advisement exists. Some educators believe that the function of advising should be assigned to professional counselors. The following discussion presents that perspective. It is impossible for faculty members to know about all curricu- lar changes. especially at large universities (Packwood. 1977). On the 40 other hand. professional counselors are accustomed to monitoring these changes. Counselors generally acquire interpersonal skills that permit them to establish a comfortable rapport with students. which increases the possibility that students will contact these skilled communicators when problems develop. Unless faculty members have been specifically trained. most will not possess knowledge about the counseling process itself or about diagnostic testing--skills the professional counselor would bring to the position (Packwood. 1977). Dameron and Wolf (1974) stated that the counselor should assume the responsibility of academic advisement for the following reasons. 1. It is felt that there is no substitute for training. experi- ence. and commitment. These are credentials mentioned by O'Banion. and we believe that trained guidance personnel pos- sess them to a greater degree. in relation to developmental student academic advising. than do faculty members whose career choice has set their primary commitment and background in instructional areas. 2. Economically. the cost of using faculty members for implement- ing program choice. course choice. and. in some cases. course scheduling appears to be considerable if instructional staff members are given released time for such activities. The consequences of faculty-facilitated advisement without rel eased time seem even more formidable. 3. Faculty knowledge of current trends in the competitive employ- ment market may be limited by individual subject field interest and concentration. whereas guidance personnel. trained and motivated to maintain current and comprehensive knowledge of these trends as a primary part of their job. should be more knowledgeable in this area. 4. Due in part to the lack of an administrative structure to provide such coordination. overall coordination of academic advisement efforts is usually lacking in faculty-facilitated programs. (p. 471) ing ' sibl been for 1lite effe‘ Dent Stug. 30y“ FUlur effEr 41 Teague (1977) confirmed the existence of perspectives support- ing the professional counselor as the most appropriate person respon- si ble for the process of academic advising: "Strong arguments have been set forth by those favoring counselor control of advisory duties" (p. 281). AW Achieving an effective academic advising program is one of the main issues presented in the literature regarding academic advisement. Discussions about two categories of factors are common: (a) factors that help in the development of effective programs. and (b) factors that prevent its occurrence. The following discussion examines those two categories. WW Win—mm Generally speaking. no single factor is considered the panacea for achieving an effective academic advising program. However. an integration of many factors can contribute to the development of an effective academic advising program. One factor is the actual partici- pants in the academic advisement process itself: faculty members. students. and administrative personnel. The faculty member should be aware of all aspects of academic advising to ensure his/her advising effectively. The Committee on the Future of Michigan State University--1959 defined the essentials for an effective faculty advising program as follows: her play UHCE lish the T, An. (In _LA. tIVe Cc 42 To carry out the functions. the academic adviser should be inter- ested and effective in his role as defined by institutional policy. Furthermore. he should be willing to prepare himself for his assignment and continue to learn through meetings with other advis- ers. staff from special services. consultation with others. and the use of materials and manuals provided. The preparation should include familiarity with: (1) the educational goals of the univer- sity; (2) appropriate use of information about students; (3) approaches to interviewing to help students learn to make decisions and deal with daily problems; (4) the relationship of motivational. social and emotional factors or conflict to educational goals. the resources available to students who need special assistance and effective ways of referring when indicated; and (5) special pro- grams for various categories of students. (DeLisle. 1965. p. 115) In addition to the advisement responsibilities of the faculty member. administrators of the institutions of higher education also play a key role in achieving program effectiveness. The support. understanding. and enthusiasm they demonstrate is essential in estab- lishing an effective advisement program. Administrators' commitment to the academic advising program is also required. Bostaph and Moor (1980) suggested: To establish a high degree of commitment to the academic advising process. university and school administrators in higher level posi- tions must become cognizant not only of the educational value of advising but of the role advising plays in the retention of stu- dents and in the promotion of the school's image to prospective students. In this regard. administrators might look more closely at instituting a three-fold management operation for actual izing the role of advising in their own particular schools through an adequate reward system. available in-service training programs. and a developmental approach to advising. . . . Not only must adminis- trators financially reward advisors. but they must also offer positive feedback. recognition. and staff support. on 47) Students also contribute significantly to achieving an effec- tive academic advising program. They must involve themselves and take advantage of the academic advising process. Hallberg (1964) stated: If we attempt to revitalize the advising programs in our large colleges and universities. it is necessary that faculty regard the lei eff Stra men: ddvf eye] but am“ DECS? ”icat 43 advising function as an important phase of higher education today. as they did in the past. at the same time. advising programs must keep step by allowing students to take upon themselves a great responsibility for their own programming. and by allowing faculty advisers assistance in the clerical function during peak advising periods.(p.117) In Hofman (1974) the results of studying and reviewing college- level advisement plans and programs were presented. and standards for effective advising programs were identified. 1. The number of potential advisees should be established. 2. Students' needs must be clarified. Students attending public universities may have different needs than those attending private or highly selective schools. 3. Top-level administrators and department chairs must demon- strate their interest in the program by providing constant encourage- ment to the advisers. 4. Faculty should receive appropriate compensation for their advisement functions. 5. When rank. salary. and other benefits are reviewed. the evaluation of faculty members' advising should be considered. 6. Often. faculty advisers are appointed by an academic dean. but serve thereafter under the supervision of a student personnel administrator. An understanding of the organization of the advisement program. with delineation of lines of authority and channels of commu- nication. must be clear to all concerned. 7. Faculty members selected to participate in the advisement program must Lani to be a faculty adviser (i.e.. he/she must be gen- uinely interested in helping students). Just as important is the facu‘ Facu' to pi Extei selii Iinir advi: trail not - OEVIg Curr H" 44 faculty adviser's ability to work with students on academic problems. Faculty who are respected by their peers should be selected as advisers to promote respect for the program by the academic community. 8. Advisement responsibilities must be clearly defined. The extent to which faculty advisers provide vocational or personal coun- seling should be determined. 9. The need for faculty to perform clerical duties should be minimized. 10. Faculty advisers should be encouraged to improve their advisement performance through access to and participation in inservice training programs. 11. The success of an advising program depends on whether or not its purposes and procedures are understood by administrators. non- advising faculty. students. their parents. and high school personnel. The limitations of the program should also be explained. 12. The advising must allow for changing campuses. students. curricula. and so on. 13. Evaluations must be ongoing. They can be either informal observations of daily activities or a comprehensive research study. Wire Wroclaw DeLisle (1965). in her study about academic advising of under- graduate students at Michigan State University. recorded many circum— stances that should be avoided in theistudent-faculty relationship: (a) frequently reassigning students to different advisers. (b) an env pri fan (35! his ing. thei QCQC r... 6155 sUTr 'Ork Sltt uity t1LEE 45 environment in which the advising takes place that does not guarantee privacy. (c) assigning faculty advisers who are not sufficiently familiar with university offerings. (d) advisers that are often inac- cessible to students. and (e) demonstration by the faculty adviser of his/her lack of a genuine and personal interest in the task of advis- ing. In Burke (1981). Trombley and Holmes were quoted as suggesting that there are obstacles to an effective advising system: 1. In most institutions academic advising is an activity of low status which offers the adviser few rewards for superior per- formance; 2. Although advising is generally the responsibility of many dif- ferent persons and Offices on any campus. few institutions have integrated programatically or organizationally the various resources into a coherent campus-wide advising system; and 3. Most faculty lack the necessary range of skills and knowledge to be excellent advisers and they lack the initiative to improve. (p. 24) A relatively new but potentially serious obstacle to faculty academic advising might be collective bargaining. In a recent study. Teague and Grites (1980) determined that faculty advising may gradually disappear as a faculty responsibility resulting from the confusion surrounding whether advising is an economic (related to the amount of work done) or academic function. as defined in collective bargaining situations. Burke (1981) reveal ed in his study that. as perceived by tac- ulty members. the major obstacles to effective advising include lack of time to perform those duties in addition to other responsibilities. lack: progr. tions issue tion cant: Stude Also 1lite tion Cent 46 lack or adequate rewards. and the absence of academic advising training programs directed to faculty. WW It seems that the issue of students' advising needs in institu- tions or higher education in the United States is becoming an important issue. This increased concern has been attributed to greater competi- tion among universities for students due to declining numbers of appl i- cants (Burke. 1981). Another reason for the increase in studies of students' advising needs is the diversity in the student population. Many studies were conducted to assess students' needs in rel a- tion to academic advising. Donk and Getting (1968) reported that students need advice in two areas: (a) academic requirements and regulations. and students' status with regards to those requirements; and (b) curricula. majors. courses. and career opportunities. Students also need to have personal discussions with faculty members regarding intellectual matters as well as the development of more personal rel a- tionships with members of the faculty. It is suggested that this may contribute to students' sense of belonging and being personally counted. in the academic community. Brady. as quoted in Burke (1981). found that: Faculty goals and students' needs were incongruent in 75 percent of the categories identified. Faculty goal priorities centered around (1) achieving good communication with advisers. (2) having approp- riate referral resources. (3) helping students set goals. (4) maintaining a general advising level rather than addressing spe- cific problems. (5) having adequate physical faciliti es. and (6) having sufficient time to fulfill their advising duties. On the other hand. students expressed needs centered around (1) obtaining accurate information. (2) help in achieving (rather than setting) tie the "Qt an: Thi del fa 47 goals. (3) access to varied referral resources. and (4) a desire for direct. clear. informed. open-minded. individualized and trust- ing communication with their adviser. (p. 37) Another study. conducted to determine the vocational and educa- tional needs of freshman students at Ohio State University. indicated that even though students perceived their university experience as partial preparation for a career. they needed more information to make decisions about their careers and vocations than that which was avail- able (Burke. 1981). Regarding faculty perceptions of students' academic advising needs at Florida State University. Burke (1981) reported that faculty and students perceived the students' academic advising needs similarly. The findings also indicated that students' greatest needs centered on those advising functions that would provide direction to their aca- demic. career. and life goals. Finally. the issues that students may wish to discuss with a faculty adviser include: 1. long-range occupational or vocational plans; 2. immediate occupational or educational plans; 3. selection of a program of study; 4. evaluation of abilities. aptitudes. skills. personality traits; 5. evaluation of progress in particular course work; 6. assistance in how-to-study (general or for a specific course); 7. equalization of course load (in view of a part-time work illness. commuting. family responsibilities); 8. remedial or tutorial assistance (writing. speaking. reading. listening); 9. financial aid (partrtime work. loans. scholarships); 10. personal adjustment (in relation to an instructor. member of the family. employer. students and others); 11. health (physical. emotional); 12. extra-class activities (student government. clubs. athletics. etc.); 13. placement (partrtime. summer-time. after graduation); and "E on t. Sp. 'd efi UEr 48 14. religious or ethical (personal values. life goals. philosophy. (Hardee. 1%19 P. 39) Sum This chapter was devoted to a discussion of the related literature. Many topics were discussed. First. the writer examined historical development of the process of academic advising through the different periods of the history of higher education in the United States. Second. the importance of academic advising as a process and a function in institutions of higher education was discussed. Third. the conceptualization of academic advising and the different ways it has been defined was provided. Fourth. the conflict regarding who is responsible for delivering academic advising at institutions of higher education was reported. with more discussion of the disputes concerning the delivery of academic advising by faculty members or by personnel specialists. Fifth. the achievement of an effective advising program was discussed. The factors that make the academic advising program effective. and those that hinder an effective advising program. also were reviewed. Finally. students' advising needs as an important issue in institutions of higher education in the United States were reviewed. ne th. ac dC (en Dc~ 9'6. Enrc CHAPTER IV METHODS AND PROCEDURES There were three purposes for conducting the study: (a) to investigate the perceptions of faculty members and undergraduate stu- dents at Umm Al-Qura University regarding students' academic advising needs; (b) to determine faculty and students' perceptions regarding the major factors that prevent or limit the fulfillment of academic advising needs; and (c) to improve the quality of the undergraduate academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. This chapter is devoted to discussing the methods and proce- dures used in conducting the study and is divided into five sections. including descriptions of the (a) population and the research sample. (b) development of the instruments used in the study. (c) research instruments themselves. (d) data-collection procedures. and (e) sta- tistical methods used in analyzing the data. mm This study's purpose was to investigate the undergraduate aca- demic advising program performed at Umm Al-Qura University. Hence. the population of the study comprised all male academic advisers of under- graduates and all undergraduate male students who were employed or enrolled in Umm Al-Qura University during the second semester of the A9 HA 8! 5?. SE th tech the by 5. “On 50 1984-85 academic year. The academic advisers of the graduates. the graduate students. the female academic advisers of undergraduates. and the female undergraduate students at Umm Al-Qura University who are a part of the university population were not included in the target population of this study because of the aforementioned purpose of the investigation. W Choosing the sample of a certain population is considered a hard task to achieve ideally (Borg 8. Gall. 1979). However. two main points have been identified (Borg & Gall. 1979; Scheaffer et al.. 1979) as very important steps that researchers must take in selecting a sample. These two points are the population's representation by the selected sample and the size of the sample. Borg and Gall stated in this regard: The sample should not only be selected so as to be representative of the population from which it is drawn. but it should also be large enough so that the investigator can be reasonably sure that if he had drawn a different sample using the same procedures he would have obtained similar results in his research. If an adequate number of subjects is not included in the sample. then one's confidence in the research findings will be shaky. (p. 178) Consequently. the researcher used the stratified random sample technique in the sample-selection process to insure the achievement of the aforementioned two points. A stratified random sample. as defined by Scheaffer et a1. (1979). is "one obtained by separating the popula- tion elements into nonoverlapping groups. called strata. and then selecting a random sample from each stratum" (p. 59). ON 0114 '8 th SE C0 of dr. 3C. Si Oh in Cm 51 The population comprised two main strata variables. The first one was all male academic advisers of undergraduates. and the second one was all male undergraduate students at Umm Al-Oura. Both groups were further divided by college. Seven colleges were in existence when the study was conducted. Hence. the academic adviser variable was divided into seven strata. and the students were also divided into seven strata. Using the stratified random sample technique. a study sample composed of these 14 strata was drawn. The sample of academic advisers of undergraduate students used in this investigation was drawn from a list obtained from the computer center at Umm Al-Qura University during the time of the study. To divide the academic advisers of undergradu- ates into seven strata according to college affiliation. an alphabeti- cal list for each stratum was established. A sample of 186 academic advisers of undergraduates. which included academic advisers represent- ing each of the seven strata. was drawn randomly through the use of the table of random numbers. The male undergraduate student sample used in this study was drawn from enrollment records for the second semester of the 1984-85 academic year. obtained from the computer center at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity. As mentioned before. the male undergraduate students were divided into seven strata. Hence. students in each stratum were listed in alphabetical order. A sample of 1.815 male undergraduate students. which included students representing all seven strata. was drawn ran- domly through the use of the table of random numbers. Fe 81 th 51 51. the 8h: The fact 52 WW To achieve the intended purposes of the study. an appropriate research instrument was developed. a questionnaire. To develop the questionnaire. a comprehensive review of related literature was under- taken to gain more information about other studies and the instruments used. These studies considered students' needs. attitudes. and factors that decrease the chances for successfully implementing effective aca- demic advising programs. Literature about the techniques of constructing a wel l-designed questionnaire was also reviewed and permission was received from T. H. Burke to use the questionnaire he used in his study. Student and Faculty Perceptions of Students' Academic Advising Needs at Florida State University. as the second part of the questionnaire of the study that is the subject of this dissertation. Researchers at Michigan State University (MSU). Saudi graduate students studying at MSU. and a graduate student from North Yemen studying at the University of Michigan were also consul ted to improve the questionnaire. Finally. the researcher returned to Saudi Arabia to ensure that the revised questionnaire was correctly translated into Arabic. WW5 Two questionnaires were used to collect the data for the study. The first questionnaire was developed for distribution among male faculty advisers of undergraduates at Umm Al-Qura University. The ' ii at be hi it ac fu Ge 53 second questionnaire was developed to be distributed to male undergrad- uate students at Umm Al-Qura University. A description of the two questi onnai res fol lows. W The faculty adviser questionnaire consisted of four parts. The first part included items designed to elicit demographic information about the faculty advisers participating in the study. Data regarding age; nationality; academic rank; years of advising experience; number of advisees assigned; highest degree held; and college. department. and major affiliation were elicited. This information was sought to deter- mine if there were any differences in faculty advisers' perceptions based on certain identifiable characteristics. The second part of the faculty adviser questionnaire. as origi- nally designed by Burke. consisted of 15 functions (see Appendix C). which were identified in the literature as the major functions in the academic advising program (Burke. 1981). Burke classified these 15 functions into four major categories to facilitate the analysis of the data: (a) academic functions. (b) career/vocational functions. (c) administrative functions. and (d) personal functions. However. the researcher used only 13 of Burke's 15 functions. The following functions were excluded: (a) inform students of the employment opportunities in the student's intended field of study. and (b) refer students to the appropriate sources of information for loans. scholarships. financial aid. or other methods of financing the stu- dents' education. These two functions were considered irrelevant to ac ac fu 6C 54 the study. The first function was eliminated because students in Saudi Arabia are granted a job upon graduation. The second function was excluded because Saudi students studying in institutions of higher education pay no fees or tuition. The final version of the second part of the questionnaire developed for the study consisted of questions related to 16 academic advising functions. Thirteen of these functions were the same ones used by Burke. After consulting with MSU researchers and many Saudi graduate students. three additional functions were added because of their relevance to the study. Faculty were asked to respond to the 16 functions taking into account their own perceptions of (a) the extent to which a faculty adviser should fulfill each function and (b) the extent to which each function was being fulfilled at the time of the study through the academic advising system at Umm Al-Qura University. Need. with regard to particular advising functions was indicated if there was a significant discrepancy between the extent to which faculty stated that the faculty should fulfill certain functions and the extent to which they perceived those functions were being fulfilled through the academic advising system.(Burke. 1981. p. 46) Part three of the faculty adviser questionnaire dealt with those factors identified in the literature as major factors limiting a faculty adviser's efforts to perform his duties as an academic adviser. This part of the questionnaire consisted of 45 factors organized in three categories: (a) factors or problems related to the faculty advisers' attitudes or behaviors towards academic advising. (b) prob- lems or factors related to students' attitudes or behaviors toward fr '6 f1, nu: Ni Per 55 academic advising. and (c) factors related to the university and its academic advising program (see Appendix D). This categorization did not represent discrete and separate factors or problems. and the categories do not appear as individual items in the questionnaire. It was just used to facilitate the analysis of the data. Of the 45 above-mentioned factors. 15 were incorporated into items that also appeared in the student questionnaire in order to obtain information related to Research Question #7 (see Appendix 0). Finally. part four of the faculty adviser questionnaire con- sisted of three open-ended questions. The first question asked about the current status Of the academic advising program conducted at Umm Al-Qura University as perceived by the faculty members. The second question asked the respondents to list additional factors or problems that limit the faculty adviser's efforts to conduct their work as academic advisers that were not mentioned in part three of the ques- tionnaire. The third question asked faculty advisers to name the three most important factors they thought would encourage them to benefit from the academic advising program. Answering the open-ended questions was optional. NEW The student questionnaire also consisted of four parts. The first part asked for students' demographic information. including age. number of years in the university. college and department where advised. nationality. adviser's nationality. and student status (i.e.. part-time or full-time). 56 Part two was designed to measure the students' perceptions of (a) theiextent to which faculty advisors should fulfill each of the 16 advising functions and (b) the extent to which each of the 16 functions were being fulfilled through the academic advising system at (Mun Al-Qura University at the time of the study. This part is similar to part two of the faculty advisers' questionnaire. The third part of the student questionnaire was intended to elicit information about the functions or problems that prevented students from benefiting from the academic advising program. This section consisted of 46 items grouped in one of three categories: (a) factors or problems related to the students' attitudes or behaviors directed toward academic advising. (b) problems related to the faculty advisers' attitudes or behaviors toward academic advising. and (c) factors or problems related to the academic advising program itself (see Appendix D). The categorization of these 46 items did not represent discrete and separate factors or problems. They do not appear in the question- naire itself and were identified only for the purpose of the data analysis. Fifteen of the items were also used in the faculty adviser questionnaire (see Appendix 0). Finally. part four of the student questionnaire consisted of three open-ended questions similar to the ones used in the faculty adviser questionnaire. These three questions were stated for the same reasons that the open-ended questions were used in the faculty adviser questionnaire. . r 'I is )e Se 57 mm Since the study was conducted in Saudi Arabia and the elabora- tion of all other aspects of the research took pl ace in the Uni ted States. two major measures were instigated to facilitate the collection of needed data. M The following actions were undertaken to reach the setting of the study in Saudi Arabia. 1. A letter was obtained from the chairman of the researcher's doctoral committee to be sent with a copy of the approved proposal to the Saudi Educational Mission explaining the researcher's need to go back to Saudi Arabia to conduct the study. 2. A letter from the Saudi Arabian Mission. the chairman's letter. and the proposal were to have been sent to the researcher's sponsor (Umm Al-Qura University) to obtain its approval for the researcher to return to Saudi Arabia to collect the data. 3. However. the researcher did not wait for the sponsor's official approval because it would have taken at least two months. and the period during which the study was to be conducted (second semester of the 1984-85 academic year) would have passed. necessitating the researcher's waiting until the first semester of the 1985-86 academic year. Therefore the researcher requested a one-way ticket from the Saudi Arabian Educational Mission and returned to Saudi Arabia to conduct the study. o! S. 58 manual» Upon arrival in Saudi Arabia. the following actions were under- taken to facilitate the data-collection process. 1. Approval from Officials at Umm Al-Qura University was obtained to seek the cooperation of the seven colleges and their respective departments in the university. 2. A letter from the Dean of the College of Education was obtained to get the c00perati on of the seven colleges and other depart- ments in the university. 3. Lists of the male undergraduate students enrolled in the second semester of the academic year 1984-85 and the faculty advisers of those students were obtained from the computer center at Umm Al-Qura University. 4. Knowing the names of individuals comprising the two sam- ples. the researcher distributed the Arabic version of the two ques- tionnaires to the student and faculty respondents throughout the university's departments. 5. Six graduate students from the College of Education were chosen to assist in distributing the questionnaire to students. The researcher distributed the questionnaire to the faculty sample and provided necessary instruction. 6. Since the return of the responses from faculty members was very slow. personal meetings were held with those not responding to seek their active participation. .r If. 59 7. Upon acquiring the appropriate number of compl eted’ques- tionnaires to fulfill the objectives of the study. the researcher returned to the United States to complete the study. DanJmesIs To answer the research questions. several statistical methods were used. Descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions. means. standard deviations. and rank ordering were used to define each variable in the study. To answer Research Questions I and 2. the statistical treatment used was the same used by Burke (1981). Mean scores were obtained for both categories at responses ("should be ful filled"/"is now being fulfilled“) to each item in the second part of the faculty and student questionnaires. The mean score for each category was subtracted to determine the level of discrepancy (need) for each item. A t-test was applied to each item of the second part of both questionnaires to determine if differences between mean scores were significant at the .05 level. Mean scores for both groups were put into rank order based on level of need. The mean scores of students and faculty responses to the "should be ful filled" category were put into rank order to demonstrate the perceived importance of the advising functions identified in the study. Frequency distributions for responses to all items in the second part of the two questionnaires were tabulated for both samples. To answer Research Questions 3 and 4. the items in part three of both questionnaires were rank ordered. The importance of the '6 uni er. ler 0f i 513; Get, faCL HOi‘e (hie. 60 problems was established depending on the mean of each item. The higher the mean. the more that item was perceived as an influential factor or problem that limits or prevents faculty advisers and students from benefiting from the advising program. All items in part three of the two questionnaires represented four major factors related to stu- dents. faculty. the university and its academic advising program. and the compound factors. The items within each factor group were arranged in rank order corresponding to their means. from lowest to highest. This rank order was established to identify the items' influence within the four major factor groups. The following criteria. which were used by Ghawanni (1985). were used in this study to determine the items' degree of influence: (a) items with means between 1.0 and 2.0 were considered entirely uninfluential; (b) items with means between 2.0 and 3.0 were consid- ered uninfluenti al; (C) items with means between 3.0 and 4.0 were considered influential; and (d) items with means between 4.0 and 5.0 were considered very influential. To answer Research Questions 5 and 6. a multivariate analysis of variance test (MANOVA) was carried out to determine if there was a significant difference between the categories of each demographic char- acteri stic with respect to the four major factor groups (students. faculty. the university and its program. and the compound items). Moreover. after each MANOVA test a univariate analysis of variance test (ANOVA) was applied to determine which of the major factors contributed to overall significance in the MPNOVA test. que thr fol Unn l b. tio Ple' Pro! QUEr dhd from res; fact demi date id“ 61 To answer Research Question 7. t-tests were performed on the questions that were the same in part three of both questionnaires. comparing students' responses with faculty responses. Finally. part four of the two questionnaires. which included three open-ended questions. was examined. Each item was treated in the following way: The first question asked about the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. The responses were categorized as follows: 1=bad. 2=acceptable. 3=good. and 4=excellent. A frequency distribu- tion was used to see the division of the responses according to the previous categorization. The second open-ended question asked about other factors or problems not mentioned in part three of the questionnaires. A fre- quency distribution for the responses to this question was calculated. The third open-ended question asked what factors the students and faculty advisers thought provided more assistance in benefiting from the academic advising program. A frequency distribution for all responses was calculated to identify the most frequently mentioned factors perceived as providing assistance in benefiting from the aca- demic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. The next chapter is devoted to presenting the analysis of the data provided by the undergraduate male students and male faculty advisers of undergraduates at Umm Al-Qura University. advi cues for the Srac Iii-c d6e7 dis: adv (tn. the cus n.1, Res. _ l ) ji— CHAPTER V RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS The main purpose of this research was to study the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia. Seven questions were stated in the first chapter as the research questions for this study. Two questionnaires were used to collect the data for the study. Both questionnaires were distributed to the male under- graduate faculty advisers and to the male undergraduate students at Umm Al-Qura University. This chapter is devoted to a discussion of the analysis of the collected data. The data analysis and description are presented in tabular form. This chapter is organized as follows: The first section deals with the presentation of the demographic data concerning the 883 students and 110 faculty advisers who responded to the questionnaires distributed to both groups. The second section discusses the faculty advisers' responses to the second part of the faculty questionnaire (the 16 academic advising functions). and is related to Question 1 of the research questions stated in Chapter I. The third section dis- cusses the students' responses to the second part of their question- naire (the 16 academic advising functions). and this section deals with Research Question 2 stated in Chapter I. The fourth section discusses 62 63 the faculty advisers' responses to Part Three or their questionnaire (factors or problems that limit the faculty advisers' efforts to per- form their work as academic advisers). This section deals with Research Question 3 stated in Chapter I. The fifth section concerns the students' responses to Part Three ot the students' questionnaire (factors or problems that prevent students from benefiting from the academic advising program available at Umm Al-Qura University). and this section is related to Research Question 4 as stated in Chapter I. The sixth section is devoted to a discussion 01' the comparison of the faculty and students' perceptions of some items presented similarly to both groups to see if there were any differences in their perceptions regarding these items. This section is related to Research Question 7. The seventh section is devoted to a discussion of the effects of some of the independent variables. such as age and nationality. on the faculty advisers' perceptions of the four major factors included in Part Three of the faculty questionnaire (students' attitudes and behav- iors toward academic advising. faculty advisers' attitudes or behaviors toward academic advising. factors related to the university and its academic advising program. and the combined items presented similarly to students and faculty in the third part of the two questionnaires). This section is related to Research Question 5. The eighth section of this chapter discusses the effects of some of the independent vari- ables. such as age and number of years at the university. on students' perceptions of the four major factors stated in Part Three of the students' questionnaire (factors related to students' attitudes or bel beh an: sin Res the of Ier titre thDi filial Que: 5.i den: 64 behaviors toward academic advising. faculty advisers' attitudes or behaviors toward academic advising. factors related to the university and its academic advising program. and the combined items presented similarly to students and faculty). This section is related to Research Question 6. Finally. the ninth and tenth sections deal with the analysis of the three open-ended questions posed in the fourth part of the student and faculty adviser questionnaires. These three ques- tions are concerned with (a) students' and faculty advisers' per- ceptions 0f the present situation of the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. (b) the other factors or problems (that limit or prevent both faculty advisers and students from benefiting from the academic advising program) that students and faculty advisers thought were not included in Part Three of the questionnaires. and (c) the three most important factors or problems faculty advisers and students thought encouraged them to benefit from the academic advising program available at Umm Al-Qura University. WW W5 W The total number of faculty advisors who responded to the questionnaire was 110 out of 186. or about sex of the sample. Table 5.1 presents all of the faculty advisers' demographic data. These demographic data are discussed in the following paragraphs in the order in which they are shown in the table. Nat‘ Aces Rah. Yea Fl expe 65 Table 5.l.--Distribution of demographic data of the faculty advisers surveyed. Demographic Absolute Relative Variable Category Frequency Frequency Agea l--25-29 l .9 2--30-35 12 10.9 3--36-40 34 30.9 4--41-45 28 25.5 5--46-50 13 11.8 6--51-55 7 6.4 7--56-60 8 7.3 8--61 and over 7 6.4 Nationality l--Saudi 32 29.1 2--Egyptian 60 54.5 3--Sudani 6 5.5 4--Pakistani 1 .9 S--Jordanian 5 4.5 6--Syrian 4 3.6 7--Iraqi 2 1.8 Academic 1--Instructor 6 5.5 Rank 2--Assistant professor 62 56.4 3--Associate professor 26 23.6 4--Professor 16 14.5 Years of l--< 1 year 11 10.0 experienceb 2--l to <3 31 28.2 3--3 to <6 31 28.2 4--6 to <9 20 18.2 5--9 to <12 8 7.3 6--12 to <15 3 2.7 7--15 and over 6 5.5 Hig. Hel: Col‘ Aff‘ Catt 3.14 adv aSs 66 Tab" 6 5 .1.-'C0ntlnued. Demographic Absolute Relative Variable Category Frequency Frequency Number of l-- 1-4 4 3.8 Advisees 2-- 5-8 12 11.3 Assignedc 3- 9-12 15 14.2 4--13-l6 21 19.8 5--17 and over 54 50.9 Highest 1--M.A. or M.S. 7 6.4 Degree 2--Ph.D. 101 91.8 Held 3--Other 2 1.8 College l--A1-Dawa College 9 8.2 Affiliation 2--Al-Shari'a College 28 25.5 3--Arabic Language College 19 17.3 4--Social Science College 15 13.6 5--College of Education in Makkah 13 11.8 6--College of Engineering and Applied Science 13 11.8 7--College of Education in Taif 13 11.8 aMean of the categories of age = 4.164. standard deviation of the categories of age = 1.695. bMean of the categories of years of experience in advising = 3.145. standard deviation of the categories of years of experience in advising = 1.507. cMean of the categories of numbers of advisees assigned to adviser '54w0280 standard deviation of the categories of number of advisees assigned to adviser = 1.207. 67 Table 5.1 shows the ages of the faculty advisers from all seven colleges at Umm Al-Qura University. As shown in the table. about 80% of the faculty advisers were between the ages of 30 and 50. The age group 36-40 had the highest percentage compared with other categories. The mean for the category of the faculty advisers' ages was 4.164. with a standard deviation of 1.695. Table 5.1 also shows the nationality of the faculty advisers. Almost 71% of the faculty advisers were non-Saudis. which indicates that Umm Al-Qura University has a high percentage of its faculty mem- bers from outside Saudi Arabia. This is related to the fact that the educational system in Saudi Arabia in general and the higher education system in particular are new systems. The first institution of higher education in Saudi Arabia was established in the late 19505. Hence. the researcher thinks that the institutions of higher education in Saudi Arabia will need many years to become sel f-sufficient in terms of faculty members. (A large number of Saudis who study for advanced degrees return to the Saudi universities as staff members.) The table shows that 54.5% of the faculty members were from Egypt. This reflects the large number of Egyptians who participate in the development pro- cess in Saudi universities. (Egypt is considered the first-ranking nation in the Arab world in terms of its people's participation in the development Process in the Arab nations.) Saudi faculty advisors accounted for 29.1% of the total sample. 68 As shown in Table 5.1. 56.4% of the faculty advisors surveyed were assistant professors. whereas 23.6% were associate professors. 14.5% were full professors. and 5.5% were instructors. The table also shows that 84.5% of the faculty advisers had had less than 12 years of advising experience. and about 14.5% had had 12 or moreiyears of advising experience. These data indicated that a large portion of the faculty advisers at the university had had modest academic-advising experience. However. that finding can be related to the fact that a large portion of those faculty members' background is different from the credit-hour system applied at the university. The mean score for the category of the years of experience of faculty in advising was 3.145. and the standard deviation was 1.507. Table 5.1 also shows that 50.9% of the respondents had 17 or more student advisees assigned to them. The mean for this category (number of advisees assigned to the faculty adviser) was 4.028. and the standard deviation was 1.207. As also shown in Table 5.1. 91.8% of the respondents held a Ph.D. This figure is consistent with the academic-rank category. in which it is apparent that the majority of respondents were PhJL degree holders. Finally. Table 5.1 shows that 25.5% of the respondents were from the College of Shari'a. which is the largest college in Umm Al- Qura University. 69 MW Table 5.2 shows that 83.5% of the respondents were in the 20-25 year age group. This indicates that the age of the student respondents was representative of college students' age. (It is assumed that a student should be 18 years old when he graduates from high school in Saudi Arabia.) The mean for this category was 2.446. and the standard deviation was .761. Table 5 .2.--Students' ages. Absolute Adjusted Category Frequency Frequency l--l7-l9 64 7.2 2--20-22 443 50.2 3--23-25 294 33.3 4--26 and over 82 9.3 Total 883 100.0 Mean = 2.466 Standard deviation = .761 Table 5.3 shows that 78.3% of the respondents had spent from one to less than five years at Umm Al-Qura University. Moreover. about 19% of the respondents had spent less than one year at the university. The mean of the respondents' number of years at Umm Al-Qura was 2.210. and the standard deviation was .776. Table 5.4 shows the distribution of respondents according to the seven colleges at Umm Al-Qura. One hundred eighteen of the respondents were from the College of Dawa. 232 were from the College of 7O Shari'a. 63 were from the College of Arabic Language. 183 were from the Social Science College. 80 were from the College of Education in Makkah. 126 were from the College of Engineering and Applied Science. and 181 were from the College of Education in Taif. Table 5.3.--Number of years at Umm Al-Qura University. Absolute Adjusted Category Frequency Frequency l--< 1 year 168 19.0 2--1 to <3 years 385 43.7 3--3 to <5 years 305 34.6 4--5 years and above 24 2.7 No response 1 .. Total 883 100.0 Mean = 2.210 Standard deviation = .776 Table 5.4.--College affiliation. Absolute Adjusted Category Frequency Frequency l--Al-Dawa College 118 13.4 2--Al-Shari'a College 232 26.3 3--Arabic Language College 63 7.1 4--Social Science College 183 20.7 5--College of Education in Makkah 80 9.1 6--College of Engineering and Applied Science 126 14.3 7--College of Education in Taif 81 9.2 Total 883 100.0 Mean = 3.653‘ Standard deviation = 1.923 71 Table 5.5 demonstrates that 846 (95.8%) of the respondents were full-time students. whereas only 37 (4.2%) of the respondents were part-time students. Umm Al-Qura University is similar to the other six universities in Saudi Arabia in the fact that most of its undergradu- ates are ful l-time students. (King Abdul-Aziz University in Jeddah has what is called Intisub for undergraduate studies. But it is different with the concept of part-time students.) Table 5.S.--Enrollment status. Absolute Adjusted Category Frequency Frequency F ul l-time enrollment 846 95 .8 Part-ti me enrol lment 37 4 .2 Total 883 100 .0 As shown in Table 5.6. 758 (85.8%) of the total number of students responding to the questionnaire were Saudis. That finding can be explained by the high number of Saudi high school graduates who enroll in institutions of higher education in their own country. Table 5.6 shows that 19 foreign nationalities were represented in the sample. This finding is related to the opportunity the university gives many Muslim students from outside Saudi Arabia who have an interest in studying at one of the university's colleges and meet the acceptance requirements set by the university. All of these students are granted 72 scholarships by the university as part of the Saudi Arabian govern- ment's commitment to enhancing and upgrading Islam through Islamic fields of study. Table 5.6.--Students' nationalities. Absolute Adjusted Category Frequency Frequency Saudi 758 85.8 Yemeni 25 2.9 Palestinian 21 2.4 Sudani 9 1.0 Jordanian 8 .9 Syrian 6 .7 Egyptian 5 .6 Turkish 5 .6 Indonesian 5 .6 Philippino 4 .5 Pakistani 3 .3 Indian 2 .2 Thai 2 .2 American 2 .2 Afghani 1 .1 Lebanese 1 .1 Tanzanian 1 .l Bangladeshi l .1 Nigerian l .1 Ivory Coast 1 .1 No response 22 .. Tetal 883 100.0 As shown in Table 5.7. 433 (54.6%) of the advisers of students who responded to the questionnaire were Egyptian. This finding cor- roborates the fact that a large percentage of the faculty and staff at Umm Al-Qura University are Egyptian and is consistent with the data 73 shown in Table 5.1 (faculty advisers' nationalities). However. 222 (28%) of the responding students indicated that they had Saudi advis- ers. The latter figure indicates the steadily growing number of Saudi faculty and staff at Umm Al-Qura University and reflects the govern- mentfls attempt to train and prepare Saudi citizens to fill faculty positions in all Saudi universities. This growing percentage of Saudi faculty members is encouraging because in the past a greater number of faculty members were non-Saudis. Table 5.7.--Nationalities of students' advisers. Absolute Adjusted Category Frequency Frequency Egyptian 433 54.6 Saudi 222 28.0 Sudani 50 6.3 Pakistani 20 2.5 Syrian 17 2.1 Indian 12 1.5 Jordanian 11 1.4 Palestinian 9 1.1 Burtish 4 .5 Afghani 3 .4 Yemeni 2 .3 Moroccan 2 .3 Bangladeshi 2 .3 Kenyan 2 .3 Lebanese l .1 Mauritanian l .1 Nigerian l .1 Sri Lankan 1 .1 No response 90 .. Total 883 100.0 74 WW“ Wheels This section deals with the faculty advisers' responses to items in Part Two of their questionnaire. Sixteen functions were included in this part as academic advising functions. This section of the faculty questionnaire was a modified version of a study done by Burke (1981). Hence the procedures used in analyzing this part were similar to those used in Burke's study. The faculty advisers at Umm Al-Qura University were asked to respond to each function (item) in terms of their perceptions of the extent to which the advising function should be fulfilled and the extent to which it was being fulfilled. "Need" was defined as a sig- nificant (.05 level) discrepancy between faculty advisers' perceptions of the extent to which an advising function should be fulfilled and the extent to which it was being fulfilled. Table 5.8 shows the results of t-tests of faculty advisers' need scores and the rank order of these scores according to the mean discrepancies. Wanna W W Table 5.9 shows the rank order of the faculty advisers' responses for the extent to which advising functions "should be ful- filled." Responses to the I6 functions demonstrated that 7 of the 16 advising functions should be fulfilled at least ”to some extent" (as determined by the questionnaire responses scale). The mean scores for 75 -.__ m.s ems... seas. _oocom _mco_mmocota \oumscmcm o_n_mmoa coo—axe mucocaum a_o: w _w.__ __ _mom. >c5um mo EmcmOLQ o_Eocmom chocu mc_ccm_a c_ mucocaum um.mm< N mc_um_:e_um mn.m_ N w_m~._ >__m:uoo__ou:_ can mc_umocouc_ ocoE mouco_coaxo emu—.66 c_o;u oxme Cu m>m3 cc_u Cu mucocaum a_o: o :_.w m. mmcq. mocacouOEQ cowumcum_moc omcaoo can: mucocaum um_mm< m mw.m_ _ mmnm._ mouzam_c >__Emm ..m.o .mccoocoo Ao_eocmomc0cv _chmcoe zu_z mucocaum um_mm< : _w.—_ m.m Nw__._ mc_c_mcu _mco_umoo> coocmo ;u_3 mucocaum um_mm< m mu.o_ :. omom. mucocsum Cu mucoeoc_:coc cam mco_um_:moc o_Eocmom >u_mco>_c: c_m_axu N w~.o_ m.m mmao._ teams m mc_uoo_om :_ mucocaum um_mm< — amok-» xcmm >ocmaoc6m_o co_ua.cumoo Emu. .02 m coo: . sou. .>ocmaocom_c :cooc: >u_:umm cow mumouuu mo mu_:momun.m.m o_nmk 76 ._o>o_ mo. use an unmo_m_cm_m ecu: owm._ mc_voooxo Eou_ come we unduly mo moLOUmm mw.o_ N. momw. . nee—acca u_Eocmum c_o;u oeooco>o o» mucocaum ommcsoocu @— mm.o_ m.m mmao._ m_oocom oumacmcm o>_uooam0cn Lem oucocomoc _mEOmLoa m.ucoc:um m we o>com m— ow... m.m ~w__._ mucumcum_c_5cm >u_mco>_c: ;u_3 coucaooco >ocu mac—acca ;u_3 mucocaum a_o: :— mm.m m. mmsw. >u_aomm cosuo ;u_3 Louc506co >ocu mac—note ;u_3 mucoczum a_oz m— :w.m m. munw. ucoeo>0cae_ u_umm_o;om Lem mco_u -mommam cam oo_>cm o_Eocmom :u.3 mucoczum oc_>0cm ~— mm.~_ m.: 0mm... >u_mco>_c: ecu um mo_u_c:ucoaao cm_:o_cc:omcuxo mc_ccoocoo co_umec0mc_ no.3 mucoczum oo_>ocm _— m_mom _mco_umo:co c0\ccm coocmo c_o;u oo.~_ m w_m_._ mucosa—aeoo ;o_;3 “emcee: co c_oav coco—coaxo xccz oe_ulucma m:_c.muno c. mucocaum um_mm< o— mm... m mm:_._ maaEmo co oocmum_mmm mo moccaom cocuo ozone co_um5c0mc_ oumcloula: ;u_3 mucocaum oc_>0cm m one a an >ucmaocum_o :0. a come so .02 m hi 3 a com: .u _ o u. Eon. .uo=c_ccou--.m.m «.5.» 77 these seven advising functions ranged from 2.509 to 2.745 (based on a scale of 1 = lowest and 4 = highest). However. the advisers' responses for 4 of the 16 functions (8. 13. 9. and 3) indicated that they should be fulfilled to a very little extent. The mean scores for these four functions ranged from 2.24 to 2.436. The remaining five advising functions had mean scores ranging from 1.736 to 1.945. The responses of the faculty advisers demonstrated that all 16 functions were con- sidered functions that should be fulfilled to various extents. In other words. none of the 16 factors was identified by faculty advisers as one that should not be fulfilled. Table 5.9.--Rank distribution of mean scores for ”should be fulfilled" responses to items on Part Two of the faculty advisers' questionnaire. Rank Mean“ Advising Function 1 2.745 12. Provide students with academic advice and sugges- tions for scholastic improvement 2 2.709 5. Assist students with course registration proce- dures 4 2.673 2. Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students 4 2.673 7. Assist students in planning their academic program of study 4 2.673 16. Encourage students to overcome their academic problems 6 2.564 1. Assist students in selecting a major 78 Table 5.9.--Continued. Rank Meana Advising Function 7 2.509 6. Help students to find ways to make their college experiences more interesting and intellectually stimulating 8 2.436 8. Help students explore possible graduate/profes- sional school study 9 2.400 13. Help students with problems they encounter with other faculty 10 2.282 9. Provide students with up-to-date information about other sources of assistance on campus 11 2.245 3. Assist students with career vocational training 12 1.945 11. Provide students with information concerning extracurricular opportunities at the university 12 1.945 15. Serve as a student's personal reference for prospective graduate schools 14 1.927 4. Assist students with personal (nonacademic) concerns. e.g.. family disputes 15 1.773 14. Help students with problems they encounter with university administrators 16 1.736 10. Assist students in obtaining part-time work experience (paid or unpaid) which complements their career and/or educational goals aMean scores based on the following scale: Extent of Fulfillment: Not at all To a very little extent To some extent To a great extent AWN—I 1111 II II 79 Moreover. faculty responses to these items indicated that func- tions identified as academic and administrative advising functions (see Appendix E) were ranked as the most important advising functions. In addition. faculty responses were consistent with some of Burke's find- ings and inconsistent with others. The consistency was in regard to the academic functions; in this study and in Burke's study they were considered the most important functions that snould be fulfilled. On the other hand. the faculty responses in this study indicated that the administrative functions were considered along with the academic func- tions as the most important functions that should be fulfilled. whereas Burk's findings indicated that the career functions were considered the most important functions that should be fulfilled besides the academic functions. Table 5.9 also shows that the faculty advisers' responses indicated that those functions concerned with personal and career/ vocational matters were ranked lowest as functions that should be fulfilled. yet according to the faculty responses they were still within the scope of functions that advisors should fulfill. WW Table 5.10 shows the rank distribution of need discrepancies for the 16 advising functions. The faculty responses indicated that the eight functions with the highest need discrepancy of the 16 func- tions were those concerning the personal. career/vocational. adminis- trati ve. and academic areas. However. even though two functions of academic concern (Help students to find ways to make their college 80 experience more interesting and intellectually stimulating and Help students explore possible graduate/professional school study) were among the eight highest-ranked functions. two of the academic-concern functions (Encourage students to overcome their academic problems and Provide students with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement) were among the five lowestrranked functions. Table 5.10.--Rank distribution of "need" discrepancy scores for faculty responses to items on Part Two of the faculty question- naire. Need Rank Discrepancya Advising Function 1 1.3727 4. Assist students with personal (nonaca- demic) concerns. e.g.. family disputes 2 1.2818 6. Help students to find ways to make their college experiences more interesting and intellectually stimulating 3 1.1818 10. Assist students in obtaining part-time work experiences (paid or unpaid) which complement their career and/or educational goals 4.5 1.1636 8. Help students explore possible graduate/ professional school study 4.5 1.1636 11. Provide students with information concern- ing extracurricular opportunities at the university 81 Table 5.10.--Continued. Need Rank Discrepancya Advising Function 6 1.1455 9. Provide students with up-to-date informa- tion about other sources of assistance on campus 7.5 1.1182 3. Assist students with career/vocational planning 7.5 1.1182 14. Help students with problems they encounter with university administrators 9.5 1.0455 1. Assist students in selecting a major 9.5 1.0455 15. Serve as a student's personal reference for prospective graduate schools 11 .9091 7. Assist students in planning their academic program of study 12 .8909 16. Encourage students to overcome their aca- demi c problems 13 .8727 12. Provide students with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement 14 .8636 2. Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students 15 .8455 13. Help students with problems they encounter with other faculty 16 .4455 5. Assist students with course registration procedures 9Indicates the differences between mean scores for ”should be fulfilled" and "is now being fulfilled." 82 Comparing Tables 5.9 and 5.10. it is apparent from the faculty responses contained in Table 5.9 that those functions relating to academic concerns (Provide students with academic advice and sugges- tions for scholastic improvement and Encourage students to overcome their academic problems) were among the four highest-ranked functions that should be fulfilled. whereas the same two functions were among the four lowest-ranked functions as needs. as shown in Table 5.10. Simi- larly. the two functions related to administrative concerns (Assist students with course registration procedures and Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students) were among the four highest-ranked functions that should be fulfilled (see Table 5.9). whereas those two functions were among the four lowestrranked functions as needs (see Table 5.10). In summary. the overall responses of faculty advisers indicated that all of the t-tests for the 16 functions were significant at the .05 level. as shown in Table 5.8. W W In this section. students' responses to items appearing in Part Two of the student questionnaire are analyzed and presented in the same manner as similar data for faculty advisers were presented in the preceding section. As in that section. the word "need" was defined as a significant (.05 level) discrepancy between mean scores of students' responses to the two categories (the extent to which an advising 83 function should be fulfilled and the extent to which it was being fulfilled). T-tests were used to determine if the discrepancies were significant at the .05 level. Table 5.11 shows the results of t-tests for student "need" scores. In addition. a rank ordering of mean scores for students' responses to the "should be ful filled" category is presented to iden- tify the importance of the advising functions as perceived by students. Following that. a rank distribution of "need” discrepancy scores of students' responses to the 16 functions appearing in Part Two of the student questionnaire is given. Web WM Table 5.12 shows the rank order of student responses in the category "the extent to which advising functions should be fulfilled." As Table 5.12 shows. 5 of the 16 functions at least to "some extent" should be fulfilled according to the students. The mean scores for these five functions ranged from 2.525 to 2.651 (based on a scale from 1 = lowest to 4 = highest). Out of the nine highest-ranked functions. all of those functions related to academic concerns were considered as functions that should be fulfilled. The nine highest-ranked functions (12. 5. 2. 16. 13. 6. 7. 1. 8) of the students' responses were the same as those of the faculty responses. but with different rank orders except for the first four highest-ranked functions (12--Provide stu- dents with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement. 5--Assist students with course registration procedures. 2--Explain 8A :m.nm m m_mo._ >caum _oc;om _mco_mmom0ca \oumacmcm o_n_mmoa duo—axe mucocaum a_o: m se.mm o. _mms._ sess. co sacmoca umeocmom c_o;u mc_c:m_a c. mucocaum um.mm< n mcwum_:E_um mm.om m _mmm._ >__m:uoo__ouc_ can mc_umocouc_ ocoe mooco_coaxo emu—_oo c_o:u oxme cu m>m3 cc_m cu mucocaum a_o: m -.mu m. mom—.— mocacoUOLQ co_umcumwmoc omcaoo ;u_3 mucocsum um_mm< m ~w.om m_ momm._ mouaam_c >__Em$ ..m.o .mccoocoo Au_eocmumcocv _mcomcoa ;u_3 mucoczum um_mm< : w:.~m m.m mum:._ mc_ccm_a _mco_umuo>\coocmu ;u_3 mucocaum um_mm< m mo.:m m.» mnma._ mucovzum cu mocoeoc_:coc cam mac—um_:moc u_eocmom >u_mco>_ca c_m_axu N mo.:m n mamm._ comma m m:_uuo_om c. mucocsum um_mm< _ no em >ocmaoc0m_a no a Lo 0 so .02 cu Flu x z and: _u _ m o a. sea. .xocoaocomwc.:cooc5 ucocaum to» mumoulu mo mu_:mo¢--.__.m o_amh ..o>o. mo. ono om onmo.m.cm.m one: omm.. mc.coouxo Eco. none .6 omoolo mo mocoomm 85 nu.nm : onwm.. meo.n0ce o.socmum c.0no oeouLo>o co monocaom ommcaoocm o. no.Nm N. wo.n.. m.06num oomzomcm o>.ouoam0ca no. monocoooc .chmcoa m.ococ:om m we o>com m. .m.mm N wnom.. mcoomcom.c.5cm >o.mco>.c: no.3 coocaooco >ono mEo.n0ca no.3 monocaom a.o: n. mo.wm . NN.N.. >o.:umo conoo no.3 coocsooco >ono meo.n0ca no.3 monocaom a.o: m. NN.Nm m. .wmm.. ocoeo>0cas. o.omm.onum no. mco.omomm:m one oo.>om u.Eocmoo no.3 mocovaom ov.>0cm N. mm.mm n. mmwm.. >o.mco>.c5 ono om mo.o.c:ocoaao cm.:o.cc:omcoxo mc.ccoocco co.ocEc0mc. no.2 monocaom oo.>6cm .. m.mom .mco.omoaco c0\ccm coocmu c.ono mm.mm .. mmn:.. ocoEo.ano nu.nz .c.~ac: co o.mav mooco.coaxo ncoz os.olocma mc.c.mono c. monocaom om.mm< o. Nm.mm m Nmmm.. maaEmo no oucmom.mmm we mouc50m conoo o30nm no.omEcooc. oomcIOolq: no.3 monocsom oc.>0ca m omohlo xcmx >ocmaocom.o co.oa.comoa Eco. .02 m :00: Emu _ ............... .euscnocou.-.__.m ._amo 86 university academic regulations and requirements to students. and 16-- Encourage students to overcome their academic problems). which were ranked identically by faculty and students as the four highest-ranked functions that should be fulfilled. In addition. all of those func- tions (7. 12. 8. l. 6. 16) that related to academic concerns (see Appendix ) were among the nine highest-ranked functions that students and faculty considered to be functions that should be fulfilled. Out of the six functions students ranked lowest as functions that should be fulfilled. three related torpersonal concerns. two related to voca- tional/career concerns. and one related to administrative concerns. Table 5.12.--Rank distribution of students' mean scores for ”should be fulfilled" responses to items on Part Two of the student questionnaire. Rank Meana Advising Function 1 2.651 12. Provide students with academic advice and sug- gestions for scholastic improvement 2 2.624 5. Assist students with course registration pro- cedures 3 2.574 2. Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students 4 2.533 16. Encourage students to overcome their academic problems 5 2.525 13. Help students with problems they encounter with other faculty 6 2.484 6. Help students to find ways to make their college experiences more interesting and intellectually stimulating 87 Table S.12.--Continued. Rank Meana Advising Function 7 2.460 7. Assist students in planning their academic program of study 8 2.457 l. Assist students in selecting a major 9 2.426 8. Help students explore possible graduate/ professional school study 10 2.425 9. Provide students with up-to—date information about other sources of assistance on campus ll 2.401 14. Help students with problems they encounter with university administrators 12 2.329 3. Assist students with career vocational training 13 2.263 15. Serve as students' personal reference for prospective graduate schools 14 2.232 11. Provide students with information concerning extracurricular opportunities at the university 15 2.176 10. Assist students in obtaining part-time work experiences (paid or unpaid) which complement their career and/or educational goals 16 1.851 4. Assist students with personal (nonacademic) concerns. e.g.. family disputes aMean scores based on the following scale: Extent of Fulfillment: Not at all To a very little extent To some extent To a great extent 1 2 3 4 st Ii th th re re He tr ie St Sll th iCi‘ GS 88 The overall responses for the 16 functions reveal ed that the students considered all 16 functions as ones that should be fulfilled. with variations in the extent to which each one should be fulfilled. Wm: Table 5.13 shows the rank distribution of need discrepancy for the 16 functions according to the students' responses. As shown in this table. the two top-ranked functions according to the students' responses were ones related to personal concerns; these two functions were (Help students with problems they encounter with other faculty and Help students with problems they encounter with university adminis- trators). The next three functions ranked highest as needs by students were those related to academic concerns. 1hese functions were (Help students explore possible graduate/professi onal school study. Help students to find ways to make their college experiences more interest- ing and intellectually stimulating. and Encourage students to overcome their academic problems). Four of the six functions categorized as academic concerns were ranked within the seven hi ghost-ranked functions as a need by students. Ta 89 Table 5.13.--Rank distribution of "need" discrepancy scores for student responses to items on Part Three of the student ques- tionnaire. Need Rank Discrepancya Advising Function 1 1.7172 13. Help students with problems they encounter with other faculty 2 1.7048 14. Help students with problems they encounter with university administrators 3 1.6315 8. Help students explore possible graduate/ professional school study 4 1.5870 16. Encourage students to overcome their academic problems 5 1.5851 6. Help students to find ways to make their college experiences more interesting and intellectually stimulating 6 1.5382 9. Provide students with up-tondate informa- tion about other sources of assistance on campus 7 1.5348 1. Assist students in selecting a major 8.5 1.4530 2. Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students 8.5 1.4573 3. Assist students with career vocational planning 10 1.4551 7. Assist students in planning their academic program of study 11 1.4456 10. Assist students in obtaining part-time work experiences (paid or unpaid) which complement their career and/or educational goals 90 Table 5.13.--Continued. Need Rank Discrepancya Advising Function 12 1.4108 15. Serve as a student's personal reference for prospective graduate schools 13 1.3861 12. Provide students with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement 14 1.3838 11. Provide students with information concern- ing extracurricular opportunities at the university 15 1.3809 4. Assist students with personal (nonaca- demic) concerns. e.g.. family disputes 16 1.1809 5. Assist students with course registration procedures aIndicates the differences between mean scores for "should be fulfilled" and "is now being fulfilled." The four functions that were ranked lowest as needs according to students' responses were those related to administrative concerns. personal concerns. and academic concerns. Two functions (Assist stu- dents with course registration procedures and Provide students with information concerning extracurricular opportunities at the university) were related to the administrative area. One function (Assist students with personal [nonacademic] concerns. 94;. family disputes) was a personal concern. The remaining function (Provide students with aca- demic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement) was related to academic concerns. Finally. those functions scattered through the 91 middle of Table 5.13 as needs were mainly related to the administrative and vocational/career areas of concern. MW W This section presents results of the analysis of faculty advis- ers' responses to the 45 items contained in the third part of the faculty questionnaire. These 45 items were considered by the litera- ture as factors or problems that hinder academic advisers' efforts to perform the academic advising function. As mentioned in Chapter III. 30 of these 45 items were cate- gorized into three major factors. The first factor was Faculty Atti- tudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. which consisted of seven items (see Appendix D). The second major factor was Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising; this factor consisted of 10 items (see Appendix D). The third factor. the University and Its Academic Advising Program consisted of 13 items (see Appendix D). The remaining 15 items were presented for both students and faculty advis- ers similarly in Part Three of both questionnaires. The analysis of these 15 items is presented in later sections. Each item within the three major factors is rank ordered from highest to lowest. depending on the value of each item's mean. to show the importance of each item within each major factor (category). As mentioned in Chapter III. a scale ranging from "very infl uenti al" to "anti rely not infl uenti a1" is used here to rank each item within the major factor. Items with mean scores from 4.0 to 5.0 were considered very infl enti uni r comp anal iten pris majc The Stu: advi was faCL SCOI Side that Scor time 1tem 92 very influential. those with means from 3.0 to 4.0 were considered influential. items with means from 2.0 to 3.0 were considered uninflu- ential. and those with means from 1.0 to 2.0 were considered entirely uninfl uential. The total mean of all items in each major factor was computed to compare the three major factors' overall means. This section comprises the following three subsections: (a) analysis of items comprising the first major factor. (b) analysis of items comprising second major factor. and (c) analysis of items com- prising the third major factor. WM MW W9 Table 5.14 shows the seven items that constituted the first major factor. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. The fi rst-ranked item (Academic advising requires personal contact with students) was considered a very influential one that limits faculty advisers' efforts to perform their role. The mean score for this item was 4.236. The next four items were considered influential in limiting faculty advisers' efforts to perform their advising function. The mean scores for these items ranged from 3.609 to 3.909. One item was con- sidered uninfluenti a1. according to the faculty advisers' responses; that item was (Advising is not considered part of my work). The mean score for this item was 2.200. The lowest-ranked item (Academic advis- ing is largely clerical in nature and not worthy of faculty members' time) was considered entirely uninfluential. ‘The mean score for this item was 1.973. 93 Table S.14.--Rank order of items constituting the first major factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. Rank Item Order Item Mean 5.0. 56 1 Academic advising requires personal 4.236 .898 contact with students 71 2 Academic advising requires enthu- 3.909 .944 siasm to perform 57 3 Conducting academic advising requires 3.827 .956 a certain kind of ability 55 4 Academic advising requires personal 3.682 1.241 personal involvement 86 5 Academic advising takes time from 3.609 1.110 those activities believed to be the rightful preoccupation of faculty members 48 6 Advising is not considered part of 2.200 1.326 fly work 51 7 Academic advising is largely clerical 1.973 1.153 in nature and not worthy of faculty members' time Overall Mean 3.348 The overall mean for the seven items that constituted this factor was 3.348. which means that according to faculty advisers' responses. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising was considered an influential factor. even though one of its constituent items was considered uninfluential and another was considered entirely uninfluential. ESE“ M1 The hig inf adv fou non of and inf fou bel ers tlv thi ere and 94 Wad WWW W9 Table 5.15 presents the ten items that constituted the second major factor. Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. The mean scores of eight of these ten items or problems were 3.0 or higher. which means that all of those eight items were considered influential in limiting faculty advisers' efforts to perform their advising function. In other words. faculty responses indicated that four items or problems (Students show no willingness to seek help for nonacademic problems. The evident absence of encouragement on the part of students to come for help. Students come only for assigning courses. and Students seem to seek help from their peers) were ranked the most influential ones within this major factor. The mean scores for these four items ranged from 3.509 to 3.864. Two items (Students show no need for help and Students show no belief in advising) were considered uninfluential by the faculty advis- ers. The mean scores for these two items were 2.973 and 2.645. respec- tively. The overall mean for the ten items or problems constituting this major factor was 2.38. which means that faculty advisers consid- ered the ten items constituting the major factor of Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising to be influential. even though two items individually were considered uninfl uential. 95 Table 5.15.--Rank order of items constituting the second major factor: Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. Rank Item Order Item Mean 8.0. 14 1 Students show no willingness to seek 3.864 1.062 help for nonacademic problems 15 2 The evident absence of encouragement 3.555 1.097 on the part of students to come for help 18 3.5 Students come only for assigning 3.509 1.353 courses 22 3.5 Students seem to seek help from 3.509 .936 their peers .24 5 Students seek help from their parents 3.327 .920 regarding nonacademic problems 21 6 Students go to offices other than mine 3.236 .967 to solve their nonacademic problems 23 7 Students prefer to solve their prob- 3.164 .991 lems by themselves 20 8 Students go to offices other than 3.018 .977 mine to solve their academic problems ‘12 9 Students show no need for help 2.973 1.288 13 10 Students show no belief in advising 2.645 1.185 Overall Mean 3.2m Table 5.16 contains the 13 items that constituted the third major factor. The University and Its Academic Advising Program. As shown in this table. 12 of the 13 items constituting the third major factor were considered influential factors limiting the faculty advisers' efforts to perform the advising function. The mean scores for these 12 items ranged from 3.064 to 3.855. The first four items in the table (Advising has no relation to professional life. Frequent changes in adviser prohibit any continuity of relationship. There is a failure to provide the academic adviser with the necessary ti me for advising. and There is a failure to provide the academic adviser with the necessary space for advising) had mean score ranging from 3.618 to 3 .855. According to the scale mentioned in Chapter Four. then. these 1 tems were considered to somme extent as very influential factors because their scores were near 4.0. In other words. these factors-the ‘l ack of linking advising work with the professional life of the adviser (such as using it in increasing the salary). the unstable adviser- advisee relationship (in terms of keeping advisees with the same adviser for a long period). and the failure to provide advisers with the necessary time and space to conduct their advising work--seem to affect advisers' efforts to perform their role of advising students. 97 Table S.l6.--Rank order of items constituting the third major factor: The University and Its Academic Advising Program. Rank Item Order Item Mean 5.0. 19 1 Advising has no relation to profes- 3.855 1.148 sional life (as research does. for example) 26 2 Frequent changes in adviser prohibit 3.809 1.088 any continuity of relationship 6 3.5 There is a failure to provide the 3.618 1.341 academic adviser with the necessary time for advising 7 3.5 There is a failure to provide the 3.618 1.341 academic adviser with the necessary space for advising 4 5 Lack of privacy with advisees when 3.564 1.468 they come for advising 43 6 The absence of in-service training 3.514 1.059 programs for academic advisers ‘41 7 Lack of clarity on the part of whom 3.404 1.203 I am responsible to in discharging my duties (who is my boss) 16 8 The absence of financial compensation 3.373 1.164 for conducting advising work 1 9.5 Workload too heavy to conduct advising 3.355 1.331 17 9.5 Advising has no relevant role in the 3.355 1.305 adviser's professional development (e.g.. promotion) 8 11 There is a failure to provide the 3.227 1.332 academic adviser with the necessary materials and information about cur- riculum and about students for adequate advising 98 Table 5 .16 .--Conti nued . Rank Item Order Item Mean 5.0. 42 12 Lack of an appropriate selection 3.064 1.303 system of the faculty member as a faculty adviser 3 13 Advising functions occupy a low 2.855 1.305 status in the department Overall Mean 3.432 The remaining eight items (Lack of privacy. Lack of in-service training. Lack of clarity concerning to whom the adviser is respon- sible. Lack of financial compensation. The heavy workload. The irrele- \rancy of the advising to work improvement. Lack of necessary material to conduct advising. and Lack of appropriate selection of faculty who _ lmecome advisers) were considered by faculty advisers to be influential factors in limiting their efforts to perform advising functions. The mean scores for these eight factors ranged from 3.064 to 3.564. Faculty advisers considered the item (Advising functions occupy a low status in the department) to be uninfl uenti a1. with a mean score 01' 2.855. The overall mean for the 13 items that constituted the third major factor (Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward the University and Its Academic Advising Program) was 3.432. Hence faculty advisers at Umm Al-Oura University considered this major factor influential in 1 inviting their efforts to perform the advising function. even though 99 one of the items comprising this factor was considered to be uninfluen- tial. WWW Who mm This section is an analysis of students' responses to the 31 items in Part Three of the student questionnaire. These 31 items were considered by the literature as factors or problems that prevent stu- dents from benefiting from the academic advising program available to them. The presentation in this section is similar to that in the preceding section. That is. the 31 items were categorized into three major factors. The first factor was Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. which comprised 10 items (see Appendix D). The second major factor was Faculty Advisers' Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. which contained 17 items (see Appendix D). The third factor was The University and Its Academic Advising Program. which comprised four items (see Appendix D). As explained in the preceding section. the remaining 15 items were presented similarly in Part Three of both the student and faculty adviser questionnaires. The analysis of these 15 items is presented later in this chapter. Each of the 31 items is rank ordered within its major factor category. In addition. the total mean of all items comprising each inajor factor is given to enable a comparison of the three factors' overall means. Table 5.T7 shows the ten items that constitute the first major factor (Students' Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising). As shown in the table. students considered the first six items influential in preventing students from benefiting from the academic advising program. These six items were (Solving problems on my own. Getting help from my parents regarding nonacademic problems. Go to officer other than my academic adviser to solve my nonacademic problems. I am not aware of the various aspects of the academic advising program at the university. Advising program seems worthless in solving my academic problems. and Getting help from my peers to solve my problems). The mean scores for these six items ranged from 3.140 to 3.743. The last four items in the table are ones the students consid- ered uninfluential. The mean scores for these four items ranged from 2.615 to 2.944. These items were (Go to officer other than my adviser to solve my academic problems. Lack of good relationship with my adviser. A signature for my schedule is the only thing I need from my adviser. and I am comfortable in going to my adviser for helpL The overall mean for all ten items comprising this factor was 3.245. Hence students' considered the factor Students' Attitudes and Behaviors toward Academic Advising an influential one. even though four of the ten items that constituted this factor were considered uninflu- enti a1 . 101 Table S.17.-Rank order of items constituting the first major factor: Students!.Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. Rank Item Order Item Mean 8.0. 6 1 Solving problems on my own 3.743 1.144 8 2 Getting help from my parents regard- 3.577 1.217 ing nonacademic problems 2 3 Go to offices other than my academic 3.259 1.162 adviser to solve my nonacademic problems 4 4 I am not aware of the various aspects 3.237 1.267 of the academic advising program at the university lO 5 Advising program seems worthless in 3.226 1.269 solving my academic problems 5 6 Getting help from my peers to solve 3.140 1.312 my problems 1 7 Go to offices other than my adviser 2.944 1.320 to solve my academic problems 9 8 Lack of good relationship with m 2.885 1.382 ‘ adviser . 3 9 A signature for my schedule is the 2.832 1.524 only thing I need from my adviser 7 10 I am comfortable in going to my 2.615 1.243 adviser for help Overall Mean 3.245 Table 5.18 shows the 17 items constituting the second major factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. As shown in Table 5.18. students considered 13 of the 17 items influential in preventing students from benefiting from the academic advising program. The mean scores for these 13 items ranged from 3.067 to 3.484. The 13 influential items concerned the availability of advis- ers; advisers' ability to help students with academic and nonacademic problems: lack of interest. enthusiasm. easiness to get along with. and encouragement of students to ask for hel p: and advisers' lack of knowl- edge about the university's offerings. Table 5.18.--Rank order of items constituting the second major factor: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. Rank Item Order Item Mean 8.0. 14 1 My adviser seems to be helpless in 3.484 1.420 solving my nonacademic problems 15 22 Lack of availability of my adviser 3.400 1.372 11 3 My adviser shows no enthusiasm for 3.342 1.318 academic advising 12 4 Performance of his academic advising 3.331 1.244 is inadequate 17 5 Lack of accessibility in meeting my 3.308 1.330 adviser 24 6 Lack of concern about nonacademic 3.306 1.136 problens on the part of my adviser 103 Tab18 S o18."'CO|1t1nU9d. Item Rank Order Item Mean 5.0. 13 20 19 23 18 22 29 26 25 21 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 My adviser seems to be helpless in solving my academic problems Lack of easiness to get along with The evident absence of organization on the part of my academic adviser's performance The evident absence of personal interest on the part of the academic adviser in the task of advising The evident absence of personal knowledge on the part of my academic adviser regarding academic matters The evident absence of encouragement toward self-reliance on the part of my adviser Lack of knowledge on the part of I adviser regarding the offerings at the university The evident absence of clear under- standing of the academic advising process on the part of my adviser's performance The evident absence of knowledge about my major from my adviser The evident absence of adequate personal appearance on the part of my adviser The evident absence of belief on the part of my academic adviser in the task of advising Overall Mean 3.280 3.198 3.163 3.108 3.102 3.100 3 .067 2.927 2.747 2.663 2.573 3.123 1.235 1.240 1.204 1.173 1.211 1.207 1.272 1.236 1.298 1.248 1.010 104 Table 5.18 also shows that students considered 4 of the 17 items uninfl uenti al in preventing students from benefiting from the academic advising program. The mean scores for these four items ranged from 2.573 to 2.927. The items concerned faculty advisers' understand- ing of academic advising. their knowledge about students' majors. their personal appearance. and their belief in academic advising. The overall mean of the 17 items comprising the second major factor was 2.123. This means that students considered the factor Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising to be influ- ential. even though they considered 4 of the 17 individual items con- stituting this factor to be uninfluential. Wind WW Wm Table 5.19 shows the four items constituting the third major factor: The University and Its Academic Advising Program. Students considered three of the four items influential in preventing students from benefiting from the academic advising program. These factors concerned the absence of professional people to carry out the advising. the lack of privacy with advisers. and the lack of opportunities to change advisers. The mean scores for these three items ranged from 3.235 to 3.585. One of the four items was considered uninfl uential: it pertained to the frequent change in advisers assigned to students. The mean score for this item was 2.726. 105 The overall mean for all four items comprising the third factor was 3.212. This indicates that students considered the third factor to be influential in preventing students from benefiting from the academic advising program. Table 5.19.--Rank order of items constituting the third major factor: The University and Its Academic Advising Program. Rank Item Order Item Mean 8.0. 39 l The evident absence of professional 3.585 1.253 people for conducting the academic advising 28 2 Lack of privacy with adviser when 3.305 1.200 he is available 38 3 There is no opportunity to change 3.235 1.112 advisers 27 4 Frequent changes in advisers assigned 2.726 1.409 to me Overall Mean 3.212 W W In this section. the analysis of students' and faculty advis- ers' responses to the 15 items presented similarly in Part Three of both groups' questionnaires (see Appendix D) is presented as follows: First. the students' responses to the 15 items are rank ordered to determine the importance of each item according to its mean score. The 106 scale mentioned in Chapter IV was used in determining each item's importance. Second. the faculty advisers' responses to the 15 items are analyzed similarly to students' responses. to ascertain each item's importance. Third. the responses of the two groups are compared to discover whether any significant differences existed between the groups in terms of their responses to the 15 items. Wm Mains Table 5.20 shows the students' responses to the 15 items pre- sented in Part Three of the student questionnaire. Students considered all 15 items influential in preventing students from benefiting from the academic advising program available at Umm Al-Oura University. The first four items had mean scores ranging from 3.625 to 3.782. These items concerned the absence of an office that can provide information about academic advising. not clearly understanding the purposes and procedures of academic advising. lack of information about academic advising available to students. and absence of orientation programs to help students understand the academic advising process. The three lowest-ranked items had mean scores of 3.308. 3.278. and 3.191. respectively. These items concerned the lack of clarity as to expectations of academic advising. presence of many faculty advisers in one room. and getting help from advisers other than the student's own adviser. 107 Table 5.20.--Rank order of students' responses to the 15 items presented similarly to students and faculty advisers. Rank Item Order Item Mean 8.0. 34 1 The complete absence of a specific 3.782 1.295 office to ask about any information needed regarding academic advising 46 2 The purposes and procedures of 3.756 1.097 advising are not clearly understood 32 3 Lack of information about the aca— 3.627 1.201 demic advising program available to students 36 4 Lack of any kind of orientation by 3.625 1.228 the university to help students understand the academic advising 45 5 The evident absence of a systematic 3.592 1.370 appraisal for the academic advising program 42 6 The absence of a centralized advisory 3.578 1.233 bureau in my college 33 7 The evident absence of a commitment 3.561 1.223 on the part of the university's authorities toward academic advisement 31 8 The evident absence of a well-defined 3.449 1.195 advising program by the university 44 9 Lack of a well-planned academic 3.555 1.181 advising system 41 10 The absence of a complementary office 3.548 1.181 to cooperate with the advisers in conducting the academic advising 40 11 The nonexistence of a centralized 3.546 1.278 advisory bureau in the office of registration 108 Table 5.20.--Continued. Rank Item Order Item Mean 3.0. 43 12 Lack of clear-cut submitted informa- 3.540 1.450 tion regarding the responsibilities assigned to the faculty adviser 30 13 Lack of clarity as to the expecta- 3.308 1.079 tions from academic advising 37 14 Many faculty members share my 3.278 1.368 adviser's roan 35 15 Getting help from faculty member 3.191 1.350 other than my adviser Overall Mean 3.292 from 3.540 to 3.592. appraisal of the academic advising program; The items ranked fifth through twelfth had mean scores ranging These items related to the absence of systematic absence of a centralized advisory bureau at the college; absence of commitment. planning. defi- nition. and information regarding academic advising: absence of a complementary office to cooperate with advisers. and absence of a centralized advisory bureau at the office of registration. Wanna: 19.1mm Table 5.21 shows the faculty advisers' responses to the 15 items presented in Part Three of the faculty adviser questionnaire. Faculty advisers considered these items influential in limiting their 109 efforts to conduct the functions of academic advisers. The mean scores of these 15 items ranged from 3.209 to 3.881. Table 5.21.--Rank order of faculty advisers' responses to the 15 items presented similarly to students and faculty advisers. Rank Item Order Item Mean 8.0. 37 1 The absence of a complementary office 3.881 1.098 to cooperate with the advisers in conducting the academic advising 31 2 The complete absence of a specific 3.790 1.041 office to ask about any information needed regarding academic advising 33 3 Lack of any kind of orientation by 3.772 1.081 the university to help students understand academic advising 44 4 The purposes and procedures of aca- 3.743 1.109 demic advising are not clearly understood 39 5 Lack of clear-cut. submitted infor- 3.636 1.073 mation regarding the responsibili- ties assigned to the faculty adviser 29 6 Lack of information about the aca- 3.627 1.201 demic program available to students 38 7.5 The absence of a centralized advi- 3.618 1.219 sory bureau in my college to conduct the advising work 40 7.5 Lack of a well-planned academic 3.618 1.075 advising system 36 9 The nonexistence of a centralized 3.590 1.136 advisory bureau in the office of registration 110 Table S.21.--Continued. Rank Item Order Item Mean 8.0. 28 10 The evident absence of a well-defined 3.518 1.210 academic advising program by the university 34 11 Many faculty members share a room 3.509 1.283 with me 27 12 Lack of clarity as to the expectations 3.481 1.179 from academic advising 45 13 The evident absence of a systematic 3.394 1.217 appraisal for the academic advising program 32 14 Students seek help from faculty mem- 3.290 1.112 bers other than me 30 15 The evident absence of commitment on 3.209 1.150 the part of the university's authori- ties toward academic advising Overall Mean 3.337 The first eight items had mean scores ranging from 3.618 to 3.881. These items were related to the absence of a complementary office to cooperate with advisers in conducting academic advising. absence of an office to ask about information regarding academic advis- ing. lack of orientation program for students. lack of clarity regard- ing the purposes and procedures of academic advising. lack of information clarifying the responsibilities of advisers. lack of infor- mation for students about academic advising. nonexistence of an 111 advisory bureau at the college. and absence of a wel 1-p1anned academic advising program. The three factors ranked ninth. tenth. and eleventh had mean scores around 3.5. These items concerned the absence of a well-defined advising program. the presence of many faculty advisers in one room. and the nonexistence of a centralized advisory bureau at the office of registration. The four items ranked lowest. with mean scores of 3.481. 3.394. 3.290. and 3.209. respectively. pertained to the lack of clarity about expectations from academic advising. the absence of a systematic appraisal of the academic advising program. students' going to other faculty members for help. and the lack of commitment to academic advis- ing by the university's authorities. WSW WM: As shown in Table 5.22. students and faculty advisers differed significantly in their responses to 3 of the 15 items presented simi- larly to both groups in Part Three of the questionnaires. These items were: The evident absence of a commitment on the part of the univer- sity's authorities toward academic advisement. The absence of a comple- mentary office to cooperate with the adviser in conducting the academic advising. and The purposes and procedures of faculty advising are not clearly understood. For the first item on which students and faculty advisers differed significantly (The evident absence of a commitment on the part of the university's authorities toward academic advisement). students' '112 omu. cu..- N-.m >u_:omm u:_m_>vm u_soumom unnumcouc: mucouaum a_o: ou mNm.m «covaum >u.mco>_c: 0;» >a co_umucu_co mo ucpx >cm mo gun; a oma. an. i om~.m >u_:omm Lom_>vm >5 _a_.m acouaum cmcu cacao ceases >u_:umm 50L» a_oc mc_uuou m mc_m_>vm mam. no. i omn.m >u_:umu u_Eovmum mc_ncmmoc venue: co_umELOLc_ >cm u30no qu.m acouaum xmm ou ou_mmo u_m_uoam a mo cucumnw one—asoo on» m acosom_>uo «zoo. mm.~ mo~.m >u_:umu uheevmum vcmzou mo_u_co;u:m m.>u_mao>_ca ecu mo _wm.m acotsum acme osu co Hausa—esoo e co cucumnm acov_>o och : mom. mm. 1 Num.m >u_:umu muconaum com o_nm__m>m Emcmocn muo.m aconaum mc.m_>vm o_Eovmum oz» uaonm co_umscomc_ mo xumg m «mu. am. m_m.m 3.3muh >u_mco>_c: ecu um Emcmoca m:_m_>um mmm.m ucuvaum o_Eovmue woe—moui—_oz a $0 cucumnm anew—>0 on» N .N.-. mm._i _w:.m >u-aumu mc_m_>vm u_Eevmue . wom.m ucouaum 50cm mco_umuuoaxo on we >u_cm_u co xum. och _ a mo .m_:m_m o:_u>iu coo: cacao so». .02 .mnaoLm :uon Ou >_Lm__s.m newcomoca meow. m. one 0» noncoamoc .mcom_>ve >u_:umm use .mucovaum co mummy-» mo mu_:mo¢ii.-.m o_amh d 113 ._o>o_ mo. one an acau_c_cm_m. . .m amm.m >u.:umu vOOumcocc: >_coe_u no: can «_oo _N mmu.m acouaum mc_m_>vm >u_:omm mo mocavoooca vcm momoacaa ugh m— m . m.. m:>.m >u_:umu Emcmoca mc_m_>um u_Eoumum can a _ _ _i «mm.m ucovaum mo _um_ucoao u_um50um>n a mo oucomnm acct—>0 och :— 5mm. mm. - m_o.m >a_=una mmm.m ucovaum Eoum>m m:_m_>na u_Eoumom tonne—ai__uz a mo xomd m. sea. mm. 1 wnm.m >u_:umu cemm>vm >u_:omm ecu ou team—mmm mo_u___n_mcoomoc ecu cam.m acovaum mc_ucmmoc co_umEcouc_ vouu_sn:m uauicmo_u mo xuma ~— omu. NM. - e.g.m >u_=uma wnm.m ucovaum coo—_ou >2 c. :mocza >c0m_>um cm mo oucomaw on» _— m . . i _mm.m >u_:omu mc_m_>vm u_Eovmom mc_uu:vcou c. com_>vm use ;u_z * 00 _w N mam.m acousum uumconoou ou ou_mmo >cuucoeo_neoo a co oucomau och o— muu. mm. i omm.m >u_=umm cohumcum—mec mo ou_mmo ecu :— :mocaa o:m.m acuvaum >LOm_>vm uo~__mcuceu a mo mucoum_xucoc och m amo. we..- -~.m >a_=uma ms~.m acouaum 500; m.50m_>nm >E ocmnm muoneoe >u_:omm >cmz a .wucme o:_m>iu cue: Quota. sea. .02 .eu==.acou--.-.m «_n.» 114 mean score was 3.561 whereas advisers' mean score was 3.209. indicating that students considered this item more influential than did advisers. This finding can be attributed to three reasons. First. students were more critical of university authorities than were faculty advisers. Second. students were less informed about university authorities' com- mitment to the academic advising program than were faculty advisers. Third. university authorities' commitment to academic-advising-program matters related to students is less than their commitment to such matters related to faculty advisers. For the second item on which students and faculty advisers differed significantly (The absence of a complementary office to coop- erate with the adviser in conducting the academic advising). faculty advisers' mean score was 3.881 whereas students' mean score was 3.548. indicating that advisers considered this item more influential than did students. This finding can be attributed to the following reason. The item concerned the existence of a complementary office that would cooperate with advisers in conducting their advising work. which is really more related to faculty advisers than it is to students. Accordingly. faculty advisers considered the item more influential in limiting their efforts to perform the academic advising role. For the third item on which students and faculty advisers differed significantly (The purposes and procedures of faculty advising are not clearly understood). students' mean score was 3.756 whereas advisers' mean score was 3.394. indicating that students considered this item more influential than did faculty advisers. Perhaps the 115 reason for this discrepancy is that students are less informedabout the purposes and procedures of faculty advising than are the faculty advisers themselves. Hence students considered this item more influ- enti a1 than did faculty advisers in preventing them from benefiting from the academic advising program. WW1: WWW Wain This section is devoted to an analysis of data regarding the effects of some demographic variables on faculty advisers' perceptions of the four major factors (Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. The Combined Items Presented Similarly to Students and Fac- ulty Advisers. and The University and Its Academic Advising Program). The data analyzed in this section relate to Research Question 5: Do faculty members' demographic variables (age. nationality. academic rank. years of advising experience. number of advisees. highest degree held. and college affiliation) affect their perceptions of the factors or problems that limit their performance as academic advisers? Five demographic variables were analyzed to determine if they had any effect on faculty advisers' perceptions of the four major factors. These variables were nationality. academic rank. college affiliation. years of advising experience. and age. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to determine if these demo- graphic variables had any effect on faculty advisers' perceptions of 116 the four major factors. The .05 alpha level was used as a criterion for determining whether differences were statistically significant. EaqutLAdxlseniLNationann Table 5.23 shows the results of testing whether a significant difference existed between Saudi and non-Saudi faculty advisers with respect to their opinions of the four major factors. The multivariate tests showed that the two groups of advisers did not differ signifi- cantly in their opinions of any of the four factors. In other words. the academic advisers' nationality had no effect on their perceptions of the four major factors. Table 5.23.--Resu1ts of multivariate test of significance for faculty advisers' nationality. Test Name F-Value df Significance of F Hilks 1.68594 4.105 .159 However. when a univariate test was applied to each of the four major factors. the two groups (Saudis and non-Saudis) were found to differ significantly on the third major factor (the 15 items presented similarly to both students and faculty advisers). (See Table 5.24.) The means of each group are presented in Table 5.25. It can be seen that Saudi faculty advisers considered the third major factor to be more influential than did the non-Saudi advisers. Table 5.24.--Results of univariate F-test with 1.108 degrees of 117 freedom: faculty advisers' nationality. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .00097 .27570 .00356 .953 demic Advising 2. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .96525 .29832 3.23560 .075 demic Advising 3. Cembined Items Presented Similarly to Students 1.84570 .46086 4.00488 .048* and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising 1.26917 .42946 2.95525 .088 Program Table 5.25.--Means and standard deviations for faculty advisers' nationality regarding their perceptions of the four *Significant at the .05 level. major factors. Factor Category Nationality Mean 5.0. 1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Saudi 3.35268 .58956 Toward Academic Advising non-Saudi 3.34615 .49675 2. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Saudi 3.40625 .58251 TOward Academic Advising non-Saudi 3.20000 .53087 3. Combined Items Presented Similarly Saudi 3.52708 .56069 to Students and Faculty Advisers non-Saudi 3.24188 .72100 4. The University and Its Academic Saudi 3.56490 .62420 Advising Program non-Saudi 3.32840 .66746 118 With A multivariate test was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in the responses of faculty advisers of various academic ranks (instructor. assistant professor. associate professor. and full professor). Test results showed that the four groups of advisers did not differ significantly with respect to their perceptions of the four major factors. In other words. the faculty advisers' academic rank had no effect on their perceptions of the four major factors. (See Table 5.26.) Table 5.26.--Resu1ts of multivariate test of significance for faculty advisers' academic rank. Test Name F-Value df Significance of F Hilks .91473 12.00 .533 When a univariate test was applied to each major factor. fac- ul ty advisers did not differ significantly on the four major factors according to academic rank. (See Table 5.27.) 119 Table 5.27.--Resu1ts of univariate F-test with 1.106 degrees of freedom: faculty advisers' academic rank. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .117 .277 .423 .737 demic Advising 2. Student Attitudes and Behaviors waard Aca- .362 .302 1.198 .314 demic Advising 3. Combined Items Presented Similarly to Students .258 .479 .538 .860 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising .112 .446 .251 .860 Program Table 5.28 shows the means for each of the major factors. according to the faculty advisers' academic ranks. The mean scores for faculty advisers on all four major factors did not differ significantly from each other. 120 Table 5.28.--Means and standard deviations for faculty advisers'. academic rank regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. - Factor Category Academic Rank Mean 5.0. 1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Instructor 3.357 .309 TOward Academic Advisjng Asst. prof. 3.306 .581 Assoc. prof. 3.445 .446 Full prof. 3.348 .472 2. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Instructor 3.416 .552 Toward Academic Advising Asst. prof. 3.320 .551 Assoc. prof. 3 .096 .540 Full prof. 3.231 .560 3. The Combined Items Presented Instructor 3.011 .732 Similarly to Students and Asst. prof. 3.361 .747 Faculty Advisers Assoc. prof. 3.353 .635 Full prof. 3.254 .517 4. The University and Its Academic Instructor 3.448 .625 Advising Program Asst. prof. 3.356 .714 Assoc. prof. 3.488 .701 Full prof. 3.389 .360 W A multivariate test was carried out to test whether there were significant differences in faculty advisers' perceptions of the four major factors. depending on the advisers' college affiliation within Umm Al-Oura University. As Table 5.29 shows. no significant differ- ences existed among faculty advisers from the‘various colleges in terms of their perceptions of the four major factors. In other words. the faculty advisers' college affiliations had no effect on their percep- tions of the four major factors. 121 Table 5.29.--Resu1ts of multivariate test of significance for faculty advisers' college affiliation. Test Name F-Value df Significance of F A univariate test was employed to determine on which of the four major factors faculty advisers differed significantly in terms of college affiliation. The results indicated that faculty advisers from the various colleges did not differ in their perceptions of the four major factors. (See Table 5.30.) Table S.30.--Resu1ts of univariate F-test with 6.103 degrees of freedom: faculty advisers' college affiliation. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .478 .261 1.831 .100 demic Advising 2. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .278 .305 .910 .490 demic Advising 3. Combined Items Presented Similarly to Students .656 .462 1.418 .215 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising .741 .419 1.767 .113 Program 122 Table 5.31 shows the mean scores of faculty advisers for the four major factors. according to advisers' college affiliation. As is apparent from the table. there were no significant differences in these mean scores. In other words. the nonexistence of differences between mean scores for the four major factors supported the results of the multivariate and univari ate tests presented earlier. W: W A multivariate test was carried out to test whether faculty advisers' years of advising experience affected their perceptions of the four major factors. As Table 5.32 shows. there were no significant differences among faculty advisers with different amounts of advising experience concerning their perceptions of the four major factors. That is. the faculty advisers' years of advising experience had no effect on their perceptions of the four major factors. A univariate test was employed to discover on which of the four major factors faculty advisers differed significantly. depending on their years of advising experience. The results of the univariate test reveal ed that faculty advisers with varying amounts of advising experi- ence did not differ in their perceptions of the four major factors. (See Tabl e 5.33.) Table 5.31.--Means and standard deviations for faculty advisers'. 123 college affiliation regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Factor Category College Affiliation Mean 8.0. 1. Faculty Attitudes and Al-Dawa 3.222 .589 Behaviors TOward Al-Shari'a 3.602 .571 Academic Advising Arabic Language 3.233 .476 Social Science 3.333 .450 Educ. in Makkah 3.384 .434 Eng. & Appl. Sci. 3.164 .540 Educ. in Taif 3.219 .465 2. Student Attitudes and Al-Dawa 3.344 .547 Behaviors Toward Al-Shari'a 3.271 .583 Academic Advising Arabic Language 3.236 .474 Social Science 3 .466 .592 Educ. in Makkah 3.069 .478 Eng. 8 Appl. Sci. 3.084 .522 Educ. in Taif 3.338 .642 3. The Combined Items Al-Dawa 3.377 .141 Presented Similarly Al-Shari'a 3.445 .550 to Students and Arabic Language 3.259 .650 Faculty Advisers Social Science 3.640 .627 Educ. in Makkah 2.984 .755 Eng. & Appl. Sci. 3.276 .435 Educ. in Taif 3.148 .745 4. The University and Its Al-Dawa 3.657 .713 Academic Advising Program Al-Shari'a 3.560 .651 Arabic Language 3.336 .648 Social Science 3.599 .690 Educ. in Makka 3.248 .764 Eng. & Appl. Sci. 3.029 .503 Educ. in Taif 3.236 .530 124 Table 5.32.--Results of multivariate test of significance for faculty advisers' years of advising experience. Test Name F-Value df Significance of F Uilks .762 16.312 .728 Table 5.33.--Results of univariate F-test with 4.105 degrees of freedom: faculty advisers' years of advising experience. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .364 .269 1.352 .256 demic Advising 2. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .052 .314 .168 .954 demic Advising 3. Cembined Items Presented Similarly to Students .583 .469 1.243 .297 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising .282 .443 .637 .637 Program Table 5.34 shows the mean scores of faculty advisers for the four factors. according to their years of advising experience. There were no noticeable differences in mean scores according to advisers' length of experience in advising. In other words. the nonexistence of 125 differences between mean scores for the four major factors supported the results of the multivariate and univariate tests discussed earlier. Table 5.34.--Means and standard deviations for faculty advisers' years of advising experience regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Years of Factor Category Advising Experience Mean 8.0. 1. Faculty Attitudes and < 1 year 3.363 .425 Behaviors Toward 1- <3 years 3.184 .532 Academic Advising 3- <6 years 3.387 .472 6- <9 years 3.378 .495 9 years and over 3.529 .644 2. Student Attitudes and < 1 year 3.575 .622 Behaviors Toward 1- <3 years 3.215 .734 Academic Advising 3- <6 years 3.270 .622 6- <9 years 3 .233 .835 9 years and over 3.568 .673 3. The Combined Items < 1 year 3.575 .622 Presented Similarly 1- <3 years 3.215 .734 to Students and 3- <6 years 3.270 .622 Faculty Advisers 6- <9 years 3.233 .835 9 years and over 3.568 .523 4. The University and Its < 1 year 3.335 .622 Academic Advising Program 1- <3 years 3.275 .734 3- <6 years 3.270 .622 6- <9 years 3.233 .835 9 years and over 3.568 .523 We A multivariate test was employed to test whether faculty advis- ers' age affected their perceptions of the four major factors. As 126 Table 5.35 shows. the age of faculty advisers had no effect ontheir perceptions of the four major factors. Table 5.35.--Results of multivariate test of significance for faculty advisers' age. Test Name F-Val ue df Significance of F A univariate test to performed to determine on which of the four major factors the faculty advisers differed significantly. depend- ing on their age. The univariate test results indicated that faculty advisers in the various age groups did not differ in their perceptions of any of the four major factors. (See Table 5.36.) Table 5.37 shows the mean scores of faculty advisors for the four major factors. according to their age. The mean scores of the faculty advisors in the different age groups did not differ noticeably on any of the four major factors. In other words. the nonexistence of any difference in mean scores supported the results of the multivariate and univariate analyses discussed earlier. 127 Table 5.36.--Resu1ts of univariate F-test with 4.105 degrees of freedom: faculty advisers' age. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .365 .268 1.432 .228 demic Advising 2. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .571 .294 1.943 .109 demic Advising 3. Cembined Items Presented Similarly to Students .468 .473 .988 .417 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising .795 .423 1.877 .120 Program W W Wham This section is similar to the preceding one in terms of its purposes and procedures. It contains a discussion of the data analysis regarding the effects of some demographic variables on students' perceptions of four major factors: Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. The Combined Items Presented Similarly to Students and Faculty Advisers. and The University and Its Academic Advising Program. 128 Table 5.37.--Means and standard deviations for faculty advisers'. age regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Factor Category Age Mean 8.0. 1. Faculty Attitudes and 26-35 3.219 .466 Behaviors Toward 36-40 3.239 .541 Academic Advising 41-45 3.474 .596 46-50 3.469 .580 51-55 3.036 .485 2. Student Attitudes and 26-35 3.256 .586 Behaviors Toward 36-40 3.170 .723 Academic Advising 41-45 3.509 .641 46-50 3.384 .487 51-55 3.333 .658 3. The Combined Items 26-35 3.256 .586 Presented Similarly 36-40 3.170 .723 to Students and 41-45 3.509 .641 Faculty Advisers 46-50 3.384 .487 51-55 3.333 .658 4. The University and Its 26-35 3.390 .586 Academic Advising Program 36-40 3.174 .723 41-45 3.500 .641 46-50 3.372 .487 51-55 3.629 .658 The analysis of the data in this section is related to Research Question 6: Do students' demographic variables (age. years in college. college of enrollment. students' nationality. advisers' nationality. and student enrollment status) affect their perceptions of the factors or problems that prevent or discourage them from fulfilling their academic advising need? Five demographic variables were analyzed to discover if they had any effect on students! perceptions of the four major factors 129 mentioned before. These demographic variables were student's age. student's college enrollment. student's nationality. adviser's nation- ality. and years in college. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to determine if these demographic variables had any effects on students' perceptions of the four major factors. The .05 alpha level was used as the criterion in determining whether dif- ferences were statistically significant. mm A multivariate test was employed to determine whether the students' age had an effect on their perceptions of the four major factors. Table 5.38 shows that age had no effect on students' percep- tions of the four major factors. Table 5.38.--Results of multivariate test of significance for students' age. Test Name F-Val ue df Significance of F Milks 2.00 4.878 .092 A univariate test was used to discover whether students dif- fered on any of the four major factors. Results of the univariate test revealed that students in the different age groups did not differ in their perceptions of any of the major factors. (See Table 5.39.) 130 Table 5.39.--Results of univariate F-test with 1.881 degrees of freedom: students' age. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .184 .316 .584 .445 demic Advising 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .127 .495 .256 .613 demic Advising 3. Cembined Items Presented Similarly to Students 1.453 .595 2.440 .117 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising 1.966 .675 2.910 .088 Program Table 5.40 shows the mean scores for the four major factors. according to students' age. Mean scores on each major factor did not differ noticeably depending on the students' age. In other words. the nonexistence of statistically significant differences in mean scores supported the results of both the multivariate and univariate analyses. 131 Table 5.40.--Means and standard deviations for students' age regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Factor Category Age Mean 8.0. 1. Student Attitudes and 17-22 3.151 .555 Behaviors Toward 23 a over 3.122 .572 Academic Advising 2. Faculty Attitudes and 17-22 3.123 .686 Behaviors Toward 23 & over 3.099 .727 Academic Advising 3. The Cembined Items 17-22 3.516 .758 Presented Similarly 23 & over 3.598 .789 to Students and 4. The University and Its 17-22 3.163 .800 Academic Advising Program 23 a over 3.258 .849 MW A multivariate test was carried out to determine whether students' college enrollment (college affiliation) had an effect on their perceptions of the four major factors. Table 5.41 shows that students did differ in their perceptions of the four major factors. depending on their college enrollment. That is. it was apparent that college affiliation had an effect on students' perceptions of the four major factors that prevent or discourage students from benefiting from the academic advising program available at Umm Al-Oura University. 132 Table 5.41.--Results of multivariate test of significance for students' college enrollment. Test Name F-Value df Significance of F Milks 6.922 24.304 .000* *Significant at the .05 level. A univariate test was employed to determine on which of the four major factors students' perceptions differed. This test indicated that students in the various col lege-enrollment categories differed significantly in their perceptions of all four major factors. (See Table 5.42.) Table 5.42.—-Resu1ts of univariate F-test with 6.876 degrees of freedom: students' college enrollment. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- 3.758 .292 12.846 .000* demic Advising 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- 7.031 .450 15.604 .000* demic Advising 3. Combined Items Presented Similarly to Students 1.360 .591 2.300 .030* and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising 5.879 .641 9.168 .000* Program *Slgnlflcant at the .05 level. 133 As shown in Table 5.43. the students' mean scores on the four factors differed significantly. according to college enrollment. Stu- dents enrolled in the College of Education in Makka and the College of Education in Taif perceived the first factor (Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising) as uninfluential in preventing or discouraging students from benefiting from the academic advising pro- gram. The mean scores for students enrolled in these two colleges were 2.991 and 2.788. respectively. On the other hand. students enrolled in the remaining five colleges (College of Al-Dawa. College of Shari'a. College of Social Science. College of Arabic Language. and College of Engineering and Applied Science) perceived this first muor factor as influential. The mean scores for students enrolled in these colleges ranged from 3.022 to 3.306. Students also differed significantly in their perceptions of the second major factor (Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- demic Advising). depending on their college enrollment. Students enrolled in the College of Education in Makka. the College of Engineer- ing and Applied Science. and the College of Education in Taif perceived the second major factor as uninfl uenti al. The mean scores of students enrolled in these colleges were 2.834. 2.981. and 2.646. respectively. On the other hand. students enrolled in the remaining four colleges (College of Al-Dawa. College of Shari'a. College of Arabic Language. and College of Social Science) perceived the second major factor as influential. The mean scores for these four groups of students were 3.306. 3.297. 3.125. and 3.136. respectively. 134 Table 5.43.--Means and standard deviations for students' college enroll- ment regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Factor Category College Affiliation Mean 5.0. 1. Student Attitudes and Al-Dawa 3.306 .530 Behaviors Toward Al-Shari'a 3.297 .568 Academic Advising Arabic Language 3.125 .566 Social Science 3 .136 .559 Educ. in Makkah 2.991 .534 Eng. 8 Appl. Sci. 3.022 .537 Educ. in Taif 2.788 .404 2. Faculty Attitudes and Al-Dawa 3.326 .638 Behaviors TOward Al-Shari'a 3.301 .637 Academic Advising Arabic Language 3.311 .883 Social Science 3.087 .664 Educ. in Makkah 2.834 .711 Eng. & Appl. Sci. 2.981 .705 Educ. in Taif 2.646 .527 3. The Combined Items Al-Dawa 3.473 .773 Presented Similarly Al-Shari'a 3.575 .828 to Students and Arabic Language 3.662 .929 Faculty Advisers Social Science 3.660 .648 Educ. in Makkah 3.403 .801 Eng. a Appl. Sci. 3.573 .740 Educ. in Taif 3.373 .709 4. The University and Its Al-Dawa 3.463 .837 Academic Advising Program Al-Shari'a 3.377 .862 Arabic Language 3.325 .874 Social Science 3.155 .754 Educ. in Makka 2.956 .693 Eng. 8 Appl. Sci. 3.041 .780 Educ. in Taif 2.839 .729 As shown in Table 5.43. students' mean scores for the third major factor (The Combined Items Presented Similarly to Both Students and Faculty Advisers) ranged from 3.373 to 3.662. depending on the college enrollment. Students in all seven colleges perceived this 135 major factor as influential in preventing students from benefiting from the academic advising program available at the university. whereas students enrolled in all seven colleges perceived this factor as influ- enti a1. mean scores for students in the various colleges differed. The mean scores of students enrolled in the College of Dawa. the College of Education in Makka. and the College of Education in Taif were 3.473. 3.403. and 3.373. respectively. The mean scores of students enrolled in the College of Arabic Language. the College of Social Science. the College of Shari'a. and the College of Engineering and Applied Science were 3.662. 3.660. 3.575. and 3.573. respectively. Students also differed in their perceptions of the fourth major factor (The University and Its Academic Advising Program). depending on their college enrollment. Students enrolled in the College of Dawa. the College of Shari'a. the College of Arabic Language. the College of Social Science. and the College of Engineering and Applied Science perceived this factor as influential in preventing students from bene- fiting from the academic advising program. The mean scores for stu- dents in these colleges were 3.463. 3.377. 3.325. 3.155. and 3.041. respectively. On the other hand. students enrolled in the College of Education in Makka and the College of Education in Taif perceived the fourth major factor as uninfluential. These groups' mean scores were 2.956 and 2.839. respectively. 136 Win A multivariate test was employed to discover whether students' nationality had an effect on their perceptions of the four major fac- tors. Table 5.44 shows that students' nationality had no effect on their perceptions of these factors. Table 5.44.--Resu1 ts of multivariate test of significance for students' nationality. Test Name F-Val ue df Significance of F Nilks 1.272 4.855 .279 A univariate test was run to find out on which of the four major factors. if any. students differed. The test results indicated that students did not differ significantly in their perceptions of the major factors considered separately. depending on nationality. (See Table 5.45.) The mean scores of the students according to their nationality for the four major factors are shown in Table 5.46. Mean scores did not differ noticeably as a result of nationality. The lack of a di f- ference in mean scores supported the results of the multivariate and univari ate analyses. 137 Table 5.45.--Results of univariate F-test with 1.858 degrees of freedom: students' nationality. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .404 .318 .000 .997 demic Advising 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .050 .500 .101 .750 demic Advising 3. Cbmbined Items Presented Similarly to Students .726 .595 1.219 .270 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising 1.868 .679 2.747 .098 Program Table 5.46.-Means and standard deviations for students' nationality regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Factor Category Nationality Mean 8.0. 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Saudi 3.137 .571 Toward Academic Advising non-Saudi 3.137 .507 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Saudi 3.116 .717 Toward Academic Advising non-Saudi 3.092 .631 3. The Combined Items Presented Saudi 3.543 .778 Similarly to Students and non-Saudi 3.633 .717 Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Saudi 3.191 .818 Academic Advising Program non-Saudi 3.335 .868 138 W A multivariate test was employed to test whether students' perceptions of the four major factors were affected by the nationality of their advisers. Table 5.47 shows that students did differ in their perceptions of the four major factors as a result of the adviser's nationality. In other words. students' advisers' nationality did affect their perceptions of the four factors. Table 5.47.--Resu1ts of multivariate test of significance for students' advisers' nationality. Test Name F-Val ue df Significance of F Ni1ks 2.302 8.157 .019" *Significant at the .05 level. A univariate test was applied to determine on which of the four major factors. if any. students differed in their perceptions. The test results indicated that students did not differ in their percep- tions of the four major factors individually. depending on their advis- ers' nationality. (See Table 5.48.) Table 5.49 shows the mean scores of students according to their advisers' nationality for the four major factors. No noticeable dif- ferences existed in the mean scores for the first. third. and fourth major factors. However. the mean scores did differ on the second factor. Students whose advisers were Saudi and Egyptian perceived the 139 second major factor as influential. in preventing students from bene- fiting from the academic adVising program available at the university. Students whose advisers were of nationalities other than Saudi and Egyptian perceived the second major factor as uninfl uenti a1. Their mean score was 2.986. Table 5.48.--Results of univariate F-test with 2.790 degrees of freedom: students' advisers' nationality. _fi Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .655 .312 2.097 .123 demic Advising 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- 1.360 .511 2.658 .071 demic Advising 3. Cembined Items Presented Similarly to Students .752 .594 1.266 .282 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising .849 .684 1.240 .290 Program Table 5.49.--Means and standard deviations for students' advisers' 140 nationality regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Adviser's Factor Category Nationality Mean 8.0. 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Saudi 3.171 .568 waard Academic Advising Egyptian 3.125 .571 Others 3.047 .498 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Saudi 3.164 .771 Toward Academic Advising Egyptian 3.090 .700 Others 2.986 .668 3. The Combined Items Presented Saudi 3.500 .753 Similarly to Students and Egyptian 3.557 .799 Faculty Advisers Others 3.633 .668 4. The University and Its Saudi 3.244 .837 Academic Advising Program Egyptian 3.213 .839 Others 3.106 .767 W A multivariate test was employed to determine whether students' years in college had any effect on their perceptions of the four major factors. As shown in Table 5.50. students did differ significantly in their perceptions of the four major factors. according to their years in college. That is. the number of years students had spent in college affected their perceptions of the four major factors. 141 Table 5.50.--Resu1ts of multivariate test of significance for students' years in college. Test Name F-Val ue df Significance of F Milks 3 .958 8.175 .000* *Significant at the .05 level. A univariate test was run to determine on which of the four major factors students differed in their perceptions. The test results indicated that students differed significantly (.05 level) in their perceptions of the second. third. and fourth major factors. Students did not differ in their perceptions of the first major factor. (See Table 5.51.) Table 5.52 demonstrates the mean scores of students according to the years they had spent in college. for each of the four major factors. Mean scores on the first major factor did not differ notice- ably according to students' years in college. In contrast. students' mean scores did differ on the remaining three factors. The differences in mean scores were most apparent for factors two and four: students who had spent less than one year in college perceived these factors as uninfluential in preventing students from benefiting from the academic 142 advising program. Students who had spent one year and above in college perceived these factors as influential. Table S.51.--Resu1ts of univariate F-test with 2.879 degrees of freedom: students' years in college. Hypothesis Error Signif. Factor Category Mean Mean F of F Square Square 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- .194 .316 .615 .540 demic Advising 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Aca- 2.461 .491 5.009 .007* demic Advising 3. Cambined Items Presented Similarly to Students 7.192 .582 12.351 .0008 and Faculty Advisers 4. The University and Its Academic Advising 5.543 .666 8.316 .000* Program *Significant at the .05 level. 143 Table 5.52.-Means and standard deviations for students' years in~ college regarding their perceptions of the four major factors. Factor Category Years in College Mean 8.0. 1. Student Attitudes and Behaviors < 1 year 3.104 .506 Toward Academic Advising 1 to <3 years 3.136 .561 3 and above 3.162 .590 2. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors < 1 year 2.959 .660 Toward Academic Advising 1 to <3 years 3.141 .693 3 and above 3.157 .729 3. The Canbined Items Presented < 1 year 3.33 .754 Similarly to Students and l to <3 years 3.537 .755 Faculty Advisers 3 and above 3.682 .775 4. The University and Its < 1 year 2.977 .734 Academic Advising Program 1 to <3 years 3.33 .814 3 and above 3.284 .857 WWW Walton: In Part Four of the faculty advisers' questionnaire. advisers were asked to comment on the following three questions: responded to Question 2. and 63 responded to Question 3. 1. The academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University? (a comment was requested) 2. What other factors or problems not mentioned in the ques- tionnaire do you think limit your efforts in performing your functions as an academic adviser? 3. What are the three most important factors you-think help you in performing your functions as an academic adviser? Out of 110 faculty advisers. 30 responded to Question 1. 50 The faculty 144 advisers' responses to the three questions are discussed in the fol- 1 owing paragraphs. WW3: 194W Faculty advisers were asked to comment on the academic advising program at Umm Al—Qura University. Thirty out of 110 faculty advisers (about 27.5%) responded to that request. Faculty advisers' responses to this question were categorized as follows: (1) comments rating the academic advising program as excellent. (2) comments rating the aca- demic advising program as good. (3) comments rating the academic advis- ing program as acceptable. and (4) comments rating the academic advising program as bad. Twelve of the 30 faculty advisers considered the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University bad. Following is a trans- lation of two of the comments of advisers who considered the academic advising program bad: It is an off-handed program. basically providing students with signatures during registration time without any good follow-up and wel l-planned program provided to students by their advisers. Stu- dents may seek signatures from different persons each semester. Moreover. most departments at the university do not assist students with planning their programs from the time they enroll to the time they graduate. Hence. students do not understand how to plan their programs until they spend two or three semesters at the university. Another problem in the program. and it is a very important problem and an undeniable one. is that a number of the faculty members do not understand fully the academic advising process. and the only thing they understand about it is just the signature they provide to students. while there are many things they should know about academic advising. The current academic advising program at the university is not adequate and does not fulfill its purposes. Students rarely take their adviser's advice seriously. and students' main concern is to 145 get a signature from their advisers. despite those who take the adviser's advice seriously. However. because the academic advising program is not clear in general for the faculty advisers. their work as academic advisers merely concerns a few things about advis- ing. such as knowing only the credit hours students have earned. Ten faculty advisers out of 30 who commented on the first open- ended question considered the current academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University an acceptable one. The following are translations of two comments chosen from those by advisers who considered the aca- demic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University acceptable: The current program is acceptable. But some of the shortcomings have to eliminated. and consultations with departments and advisers are requested to achieve that elimination. The current program is acceptable. and it can be more effective if the following suggestions are taken into consideration: (1) a continuous in-service training for advisers must be established. (2) meetings must be established to receive feedback from those who practice advising. and (3) the performance of those who practice advising must be recognized. Five out of 30 faculty advisers considered the current academic advising program at the university a good program. Finally. three faculty advisers out of 30 considered the current program an excellent one. W W Fifty faculty advisers (45.5%) responded to the second ques- tion. Their responses typically concerned the following factors or problens: 1. Some faculty members do not understand the advising system because they have had no previous experience with it. 146 2. Lack of understanding of the academic advising program on the part of students. 3. The existence of many shortcomings in the drop-add proce- dures. 4. The leniency in the university's pol icy of allowing stu- dents easily to change to another department or college. 5. Some students add and drop their courses without telling their advisers. 6. The frequent changes in courses. course numbers. and credit hours of courses. 7. Advisers assigning students who are not in the adviser's major field. 8. Unavailability of advisers during the registration period. 9. The department does not keep files for students' records. 'HL Nonexistence of a computer terminal to help advisers obtain the needed information about courses that are offered. those that have been canceled. and those that are closed. 11. The delay in providing advisers with reports of students' standings after each term. 12. Giving advisers so much paperwork that they cannot perform their advising function properly. 13. Inaccuracy of statements provided to advisers by the office of registration. 1 47 1". Nonexistence of an office at the office of registration to correct inaccurate statements. hummus: .tiLtheJhJLdJuesmn Sixty-three faculty advisers (57.3%) responded to the third open-ended question: What are the three most important factors you think help you in performing your functions as an academic adviser? The faculty advisers' responses to this question were varied. Hence. the responses were categorized as follows: 1. Factors related to students 2. Factors related to the office of registration 3. Factors related to the university and its academic advising systen 4. Factors related to departments WHIS- Following are the factors that faculty advisers said helped them perform their functions as academic advisers. These factors are rank ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned. 1. Students have to establish direct contact with their advis- ers and strengthen the relationship with their advisers through fre- quent formal and informal meetings. 2. Students should be aware of academic advising and its advan- tages for their life as students. 3. Students should be in their advisers' offices at the sched- ul ed time. 148 4. Students should respect the advisers' advice and should take them seriously. 5. Students should clearly present and state their problems to help their advisers understand and find solutions to their problems. Winn. Following are the factors that faculty advisers said help them perform their advisory functions. The statements are listed in rank order according to their frequency of mention. 1. Reports of students' standings should be provided to advis- ers as soon as possible following the end of the semester. 2. Registration procedures and regulations should be stable and should not be changed frequently. 3. The registration office should provide students with infor- mation regarding university requirements. 4. The registration office should increase the number of alter- native courses. which would give students more flexibility in choosing ‘their courses. 5. Advisers should be provided adequate time for advising before the registration time. 6. The registration office should limit the number of students in each course because overburdening faculty with large numbers of students in their courses may preclude their advising effectively. 7. Cooperation is needed between the office of registration and the computer center to help advisers quickly receive accurate informa- tion about advisees. 149 WWW. Following are the factors that faculty advisers said help them perform their advisory function. The responses are rank ordered according to their frequency of mention. 1. A room should be provided for each faculty adviser. 2. Academic advising should be a well-defined process. 3. In-service training should be provided for new faculty advisers. 4. Academic advising should be considered part of the faculty‘s duties. Hence. such advising should be taken into consideration in the total workload of the faculty adviser. 5. An office should be established at the university. to which faculty advisers could refer if they needed answers regarding academic advising. 6. Each college within the university should inform new stu- dents about the different majors. different departments. and the requirements of each major. 7. Clear-cut authority should be established for faculty advis- ers. regarding academic advising. 8. Academic advising should be replanned and reorganized at the university. WWW Three open-ended questions were presented in Part Four of the students' questionnaire. Students were asked to comment on the follow- ing questions: 150 l. The academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University? (a cement was requested) 2. What other factors or problems not mentioned in the ques- tionnaire do you think prevent or discourage you from ful- filling your academic advising needs? 3. What are the three most important factors that you think have encouraged you to benefit from the academic advising program? Out of 883 students. 410 responded to the first question. 312 responded to the second question. and 325 answered the third question. The following paragraphs discuss the students' responses to the three open- ended questions. Wm Wu Students were asked to comment on the current academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. Out of 883 students. 410 (46.4%) responded to the first question. The discussion of students' responses to the first open-ended question is similar to the discussion of fac- ulty advisers' responses. Students' responses were categorized accord- ing to the following scale: (1) comments rating the academic advising program excellent. (2) comments rating the academic advising program good. (3) comments rating the academic advising program acceptable. and (4) comments rating the academic advising program bad. Of the 410 students responding to this question. 173 considered the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University bad. Following is a translation of three of those comments. The program is not adequate. Usually. the academic adviser asks the students to choose the courses. and the only thing he does is 151 sign the course sheets with serious discussion about the suita- bility of the courses to the student. Moreover. during the add and drop period. the academic adviser's only concern with signing the sheets is being aware about what courses the student added or dropped. Generally speaking. it can be said that the only thing the academic adviser is performing is the signature on the stu- dent's registration papers. while he is supposed to be more effec- tive as an academic adviser. The current academic advising program is totally inadequate. The relationship between the student and his academic adviser is non- existent. Most advisers don't know the importance of academic advising. and they don't know most of its procedures. Usually advisers depend on the students to solve their academic and nonaca- demic problems by themselves. The current program has no positive effects on students. The student doesn't know his advisor because of the absence of an adequate relationship between the student and his adviser. More- over. both the academic adviser and the student look at academic advising as an unimportant function. Generally speaking. the aca- demic advising program seems to be unclear and ill-defined. Of the 410 respondents. 175 rated the current academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University acceptable. Following is a transla- tion of two of those comments. The current academic advising program is unclear. It needs a lot of effort from the university's authorities. the academic advisers. and the academic departments to clarify the process of academic advising for students in order to help them understand the program and overcome many problems stemming from a lack of student under- standing of the advising process. The current academic advising program [lacks] professional persons in academic advising. They should be available at the university. Adequate rooms should be available for them. The students' and the professional advisers' relationship should be established through a weekly or monthly meeting. Assistance for these advisers is a necessity. Of the 410 students who responded to the first question. 48 rated the current academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University as good. Finally. 14 of the 410 respondents to the first question rated the current advising program an excellent one. 152 W W Of-the 883 students. 312 (35.3%) responded to the second open- ended question: What other factors or problems not mentioned in the questionnaire do you think prevent or discourage you from fulfilling your academic advising needs? Their responses were typical of the following factors or problems: 1. Informing student of his academic adviser. 2. Each faculty adviser should have his own room. 3. Students should be free to choose their advisers. 4. Cooperation should exist between students and advisers. 5. Improving the performance of the«computer center. which provides information to advisers. 6n Setting a time when advisers will be available in their offices. 7. An assistant to the adviser should be available to help students when their adviser is not available. 8. Establishing periodic meetings between advisees and faculty advisers. 9. Increasing faculty advisers' authority regarding registra- tion procedures. 10. Failure to involve students in the advising process. despite their importance as a part of that process. 11. Faculty advisers are overloaded. Hence they care less about advising. 1 53 12. Lack of cooperation between the academic advisers and. other offices within the university. especially the office of registration. 13. Lack of follow-up by departments to the advising process. 14. Frequent changes in the schedule. the courses. and the times of the courses. 15. Lack of cooperation by department chairpersons with stu- dents when a problem exists between a student and his adviser. 16. The frequent changes in academic advisers. 17. Course offerings are limited. which increases academic advising problems. 18. Some advisers are unfamiliar with the credit-hour system. Hence they lack experience in academic advising. 19. The office of registration's provision of a report of students' standings is delayed each semester. which precludes advisers from performing their work. W W Of the 883 students. 325 (36.8%) responded to the third open- ended question: What are the three most important important factors that you think have encouraged you to benefit from the academic advis- ing program? Students gave a variety of answers to this question. For this reason. factors were categorized as follows: 1. Factors related to the faculty adviser 2. Factor related to the office of registration 154 3. Factors related to the university 4. Factors related to the department .EnQI9Ls_Ia1aIad_tn_th§_£n§n11¥_nd¥1§er. Following are the fac- tors that students said had encouraged them to benefit from the aca- demic advising program available at Umm Al-Qura University. They are presented in rank order according to their frequency of mention. 1. The good understanding. cooperation. and brotherhood rela- tionship between faculty advisers and students. 2. The availability of the adviser in his office. 3. Encouragement. advice. and solving students' problems (aca- demic and nonacademic) by the adviser. 4. Advisers' knowledge (experience) about registration proce- dures. academic advising. the credit-hour system. and what is going on at the university. 5. Advisers' morality and their treatment of students. 6. Advisers' assistance to students in registration. planning the program. and overcoming some'problems. 7. Advisers' curiosity to follow students' progress. 8. Advisers' positive belief in advising. 9. Advisers' awareness of students' interests. 10. Cooperation among advisers to share information about advising. 155 W. Following are the factors that students said encouraged them to benefit from Umm Al- Qura University's academic advising program. The factors are listed in rank order according to their frequency of mention. 1. The reorganization of registration procedures. 2. The existence of an advising office in the office of regis- tration. staffed by professional academic advisers. 3. Cooperation between the registration office and the aca- demic advisers. 4. Provision of information that would help students under- stand the registration procedures. 5. The availability of academic advisers during the registra- tion period. WW. Following are the factors that students said encouraged them to benefit from the academic advis- ing program available at the university. These factors are listed in rank order according to the frequency with which they were mentioned. 1. Provision of a private room for each adviser. 2. Definition of the academic advising program. its goals and procedures. 3. Existence of an office for academic advising. occupied by persons who are professional academic advisers. 4. Informing the students about the importance of academic advising and its relationship to their lives. 5. Provision of in-service training for academic advisers. 156 6. Provision of information needed by advisers concerning academic advising. 7. Commitment on the part of the university's authorities to improve the academic advising progrann 8. Provision of an orientation program for high school seniors who plan to enroll in the university. Went. Following are the depart- mental factors that students said encourage them to benefit from the academic advising program available at the university. ‘They are listed in rank order according to frequency of mention. 1. Arranging a specific time for the faculty adviser and the student to meet. (Students suggested a day each week. three times each semester. once a month. or at the beginning of each year as a time to meet with their advisersJ 2. Limiting the number of students assigned to each adviser. (Students suggested 15 students for each adviserJ 3. Allowing students to choose their courses by themselves. 4. Assigning the student to an adviser for the entire college experience. 5. Limiting the load assigned to faculty advisers so they can perform their advising responsibilities adequately. 6. Having academic-advising professionals at the departmental level. 7. Increasing advisers' authority in matters related to aca- demic advising. 157 8. Maintaining files and records at the departmental level. regarding students' progress. 9. Involving the department chairman in the academic advising process. 10. Making facilities and assistance available for faculty advisers that would help them conduct academic advising appropriately. 11. Using college department seniors in the advising process. Sum This chapter contained an analysis of the data collected through the academic advisers' and students' questionnaires. Ten sec- tions were included in the chapter. The first one dealt with the presentation of demographic data concerning the respondents (academic advisers and students). The second section was devoted to a discussion of faculty advisers' responses to the second part of their question- naire (the 16 academic advising functions); this section was related to Research Question 1 stated in Chapter I. The third section discussed the students' responses to the second part of their questionnaire (the 16 academic advising functions): this section concerned Research Ques- ti on 2. The fourth section discussed faculty advisers' responses to Part Three of their questionnaire (factors or problems that limit the faculty advisers' efforts to perform their work as academic advisers): this section dealt with Research Question 3. The fifth section dis— cussed students' respoonses to Part Three of their questionnaire (fac- tors or problems that prevent or discourage students from benefiting from the academic advising program available at Umm Al-Qura 158 University): this section was related to Research Question 4. The sixth section discussed the comparison of faculty advisers' and stu- dents' perceptions of the 15 items presented similarly to both groups in their questionnaires. The seventh section was devoted to a discus- sion of the effect of some independent variables on faculty perceptions of the four major factors included as individual items in Part Three of the faculty questionnaire. This section related to Research Question 5. The eighth section discussed the effects of some independent vari- ables on students' perceptions of the four major factors included as individual items in Part Three of the student questionnaire: this section related to Research Question 6. Finally. the last two sections included in the chapter dealt with an analysis of the three open-ended questions posed in the fourth part of the faculty advisers' and stu- dents' questionnaires. CHAPTER VI SUWIARY. FINDIMS. CWCLUSIWS. AND RECOMMENDATIWS W Burma: The study had three main purposes: (a) to investigate the perception of undergraduate faculty advisers and undergraduate students at Umm Al-Qura University regarding students' academic advising needs. (b) to determine the factors or problems that prevent or limit the fulfillment of academic advising as perceived by undergraduate students and faculty advisers. and (c) to contribute to a higher quality of undergraduate academic advising at Umm Al-Qura University. Winn: This study was guided by the following seven researcn questions: 1. What are the academic advising needs of undergraduate students as perceived by the faculty advisers? 2. What are the academic adviSIng needs of undergraduate students as perceived by the students themselves? 3. What do faculty members perceive as factors or problems that limit their performance as academic advisers? 159 160 4. What do students perceive as factors or problems that prevent or discourage them from fulfilling their academic advising needs? 5. Do faculty members' demographic variables (age. national- ity. academic rank. years of advising experience. number of advisees. highest degree held. and college affiliation) affect their perceptions of the factors or problems that limit their performance as academic advisers? 6. Do students' demographic variables (age. years in college. college enrollment. students' nationality. advisers' nationality. and students' enrollment status) affect their perception of the factors or problems that prevent or discourage them from fulfilling their academic advising needs? 7. Do faculty and students differ in their perceptions of the following aspects of academic advisement: (a) the possible outcomes expected from the academic advisement process. (b) the accepted defini- tion of the program and related information needs. (c) the commitment of university authorities to academic advising. (d) the establishment of a complementary or centralized advisory bureau. (e) the advisement responsibilities assigned to faculty members. (f) the academic advising program's purposes and procedures. and (g) the evaluation of faculty advising. Methadone: All undergraduate male faculty advisers and all undergraduate male students at Umm Al-Qura University were the target population of 161 this study. The total sample selected from the target population was 186 faculty advisers out of 606 or about 30%. One hundred ten faculty advisers responded to the questionnaire distributed to them. They represented 59% of the total number of the sample. These faculty advisers were from the seven colleges at Umm Al-Qura University (Col- lege of Shari'a. College of Dawa. College of Arabic Language. College of Social Science. College of Education in Makka. College of Engineer- ing and Applied Science. and College of Education in TaifL The total number of undergraduate male students selected for the sample was 1.815 out of a target population of 5.185. or about 35%. Eight hundred eighty-three undergraduate males (49% of the sample) responded to the questionnaire distributed to them. Those students were from the seven colleges at Umm Al-Qura University. Two questionnaires were distributed to both the faculty advis- ers and the students. Each questionnaire comprised four parts. The first part of the faculty advisers' questionnaire sought demographic information from the respondents. The second part consisted of 16 academic advising functions. Faculty advisers were asked to respond to the 16 functions. taking into account their own perceptions of (a) the extent to which a faculty adviser should fulfill each function and (b) the extent to which each function was being fulfilled at the time of the study through the academic advising system at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity. The second part of the faculty advisers' questionnaire was related to Research Question 1. 162 Part Three of the faculty advisers' questionnaire consisted of 45 factors or problems identified in the literature as major factors that limit a faculty adviser's efforts to perform his duties as an aca- demic adviser. Thirty of the 45 factors or problems were organized in three categories: (a) factors related to the faculty adviser's atti- tudes or behaviors toward academic advising. (b) factors related to students' attitudes or behaviors toward academic advising. and (c) factors or problems related to the university and its academic advising program. These categories do not represent discrete and separate factors or problems and did not appear as individual items in the questionnaire. Rather. they were used to facilitate the data analysis. This part of the faculty advisers' questionnaire related to Research Question 3. Fifteen of the 45 factors or problems were presented similarly in Part Three of the students' and faculty advisers' ques- tionnaires. Part Four of the faculty advisers' questionnaire contained three open-ended questions. The first asked about the current status of the academic advising program conducted at Umm Al-Qura University as perceived by the faculty advisers. The second question asked respond- ents to list additional factors or problems that limit faculty advis- ers' efforts to perform their duties as academic advisers. The third question asked faculty advisers to name the three most important fac- tors they thought would help them in performing their functions as academic advisers. Answering the open-ended questions was optional. 163 The students' questionnaire. like the faculty advisers'. ques- tionnaire. consisted of four parts. ‘The first part included items designed to elicit demographic information about the students who participated in the study. Part Two of the students' questionnaire comprised the same~16 academic advising functions stated in Part Two of the faculty advisers' questionnaire. Students were asked to respond to these functions. taking into account their own perceptions of (a) the extent to which a faculty adviser should fulfill each function and (b) the extent to which each function was being fulfilled at the time of the study through the academic advising system at Umm Al-Qura Uni- versity. This part of the questionnaire was related to Research Ques- tion 2. Part Three of the students' questionnaire comprised 46 factors or problems identified in the literature as major factors that prevent or discourage students from benefiting from the academic advising progranu Thirty-one of the 46 factors were grouped in one of three categories: (a) factors related to the students' attitudes or behav- iors toward academic advising. (b) problems related to the faculty advisers' attitudes and behaviors toward academic advising. and (c) factors or problems related to the university and its academic advising program. These three categories do not represent discrete and separate factors or problems and did not appear in the questionnaire itself. They were identified only for data-analysis purposes. Fifteen of the 46 items were also included in the faculty advisers' questionnaire. in order to obtain information related to Research Question 7. 164 Finally. Part Four of the students' questionnaire consisted of three open-ended questions similar to theTones used in the faculty advisers' questionnaire. These questions were posed for the same reasons the open-ended questions were used in the faculty advisers' questionnaire. Several statistical methods were used in analyzing the data to answer the research questions. Descriptive statistics such as fre- quency distributions. means. standard deviations. and rank ordering were used to define each variable in the study. Specifically. mean scores. trtests. and rank ordering were used to answer Research Ques- tions 1 and 2. Rank ordering and mean scores were used to answer Research Questions 3 and 4. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test and a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) test were applied to answer Research Questions 5 and 6. Tatests were also per- formed to answer Research Question 7. In analyzing the responses to the open-ended questions con- tained in Part Four of both questionnaires. the questions were treated as follows: The first question asked about the academic advising program at Umm Al-Qura University. Responses were categorized as 1 = bad. 2 = acceptable. 3 = good. and 4 = excellent. A frequency di stri- bution was used to visualize the division of responses according to the above-mentioned categorization. The second question asked about other factors or problems not mentioned in Part Three of the questionnaires. A frequency distribution was calculated for the responses to this question. The third open-ended question asked what factors the 165 students and faculty advisers thought would provide more assistance in benefiting from the academic advising program. A frequency distribu- tion for all responses was calculated to identify the factors mentioned most often as providing assistance in benefiting from the academic advising program at Umm Al-Oura University. WW9: A discussion of the major findings is presented in the follow- ing paragraphs. In general. the discussion includes the major findings concerning (a) the faculty advisers' and students' perceptions of the students' academic advising needs. (b) the faculty advisers' and stu- dents' perceptions of the factors or problems that prevent or discour- age students from benefiting from the academic advising program and limit faculty advisers' efforts to perform the advising function. (c) students' and facul ty advisers' perceptions of the items presented similarly to both groups in the third part of the questionnaires. (d) findings regarding the effects of some of the demographic variables on faculty advisers' and students' perceptions of the four major fac- tors. and (e) faculty advisers' and students' responses to the open- ended questions. Wants: WW Wished: Sixteen academic advising functions were presented to the fac- ulty advisers and students in the second part of their respective questionnaires. They were asked to respond to these 16 academic 166 advising functions in terms of (a) the extent to which these 16. func- tions should be fulfilled and (b) the extent to which these functions are now being fulfilled. Faculty advisers and students both indicated that all 16 academic advising functions should be fulfilled to various extents. Faculty advisers' and students' perceptions of the extent to which the 16 functions should be fulfilled were identical regarding some functions. In other words. the rank ordering of the responses of faculty advisers and students concerning the extent to which the 16 functions should be fulfilled indicated that the nine functions ranked high by the two groups were the same. but with different rank orders (except for the first four functions. which were ranked similarly by both groups). These nine academic advising functions were (a) provide students with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improve- ment. (b) assist students with course registration procedures. (c) explain university academic regulations and requirements to students. (d) assist students in planning their academic program of study. (e) encourage students to overcome their academic problems. (f) assist students in selecting a major. (9) help students to find ways to make their college experiences more interesting and intellectually stimul at- ing. (h) help students explore possi ble graduate/professional school study. and (i) help students with problems they encounter with other faculty. The faculty advisers' and students' responses regarding the extent to which the 16 functions should be fulfilled indicated that both groups ranked the functions related to academic and administrative 167 concerns within the nine highest-ranked functions that should be ful- filled. On the other hand. faculty advisers' and students' responses indicated that some of those functions related to personal and career/ vocational concerns were ranked within the lowestrranked functions that should be fulfilled. However. it was apparent that faculty advisers' and students' ratings of these functions indicated that both groups considered the functions related to academic and administrative con— cerns as ones that should be fulfilled by the academic adviser. whereas functions related to personal and career/vocational concerns were con- sidered functions that should be fulfilled by the adviser. but not of as high a priority as those related to academic and administrative concerns. This finding is partially consistent with Burke's (1982) findings (which were also consistent with other studies--Kramer a Gardner. Albel. Hellberg. Biggs. Brodie and Barnhart. and Landy). which suggested that faculty advisors should not be expected to counsel students concerning personal (nonacademic) concerns. In contrast to some of Burke's findings. faculty advisers and students considered those functions related to administrative concerns as high-priority functions in addition to those related to academic concerns. Burke's findings indicated that functions related to career/ vocational concerns were considered high-priority functions in addition to those related toracademic concerns. This difference between the two studies"findings can be attributed to the different backgrounds of respondents in the two studies. Whereas Burke's study was conducted in the United States. the present study was carried out in Saudi Arabia. 168 and this influential factor cannot be ignored in considering any dif- ferences between the findings of the two studies. Faculty advisers and students differed significantly in their perceptions of the priorities of the 16 functions as students' academic advisi ng needs. The eight functions ranked highest as needs. according to the students' responses. were those related to personal. academic. and administrative concerns. Two of the functions related to personal concerns were the ones ranked highest by students as a need. Those two functions were (a) help students with problems they encounter with other faculty and (b) help students with problems they encounter with university administrators. Four of the six functions related to aca- demic concerns were among the eight functions ranked highest by stu- dents as a need. These functions were. in order. (a) help students explore possible graduate/professional school study. (b) encourage students to overcome their academic problems. (c) help students find ways to make their college experiences more interesting and intellec- tually stimulating. and (d) assist students in selecting a major. In addition. two of the four functions related to administrative concerns were perceived by students as being among the eight functions ranked highest as a need. Even though two functions related to personal concerns were ranked highest as a need. two functions related to personal concerns were among the five functions students ranked lowest in terms of need. These functions were (a) serve as a student's personal reference for prospective graduate schools and (b) assist students with personal 169 (nonacademic) concerns. e.g.. family disputes. This means that per- sonal concerns directly related to the student's study environment were rated high as a need. whereas those personal concerns not directly related to the academic environment were rated low as a need. This finding reflects the conservative way of life in Saudi Arabia. where personal concerns that are not directly related to the student's aca- demic.endeavors are rarely considered a need within the university environment. Two out of the three functions ranked lowest by students as a need were related to administrative concerns. These two functions were (a) provide students with information concerning extracurricular oppor- tunities at the university and (b) assist students with course regis- trati on procedures. However. the latter function was considered by students as the highest-ranked function that should be fulfilled. whereas as a need students rated it lowestramong the 16 functions. Therefore the students considered this function high in priority as a function that should be fulfilled. but low in priority as a need. In contrast to the students' perceptions. the eight functions ranked highest as a need by faculty advisers were related to all the areas of concern. In other words. the eight functions ranked highest by faculty advisers as a need were related to personal. academic. vocational. and administrative concerns. 'Two functions were related to personal concerns. two were related to academic concerns. two to career/vocational concerns. and two to administrative concerns. Four of the six functions related to academic concerns were scattered 170 throughout the middle of the rank order of the 16 functions. Two of the four functions related to administrative concerns were among the three functions rated lowest as needs by the faculty advisers. How- ever. these two functions rated low as a need were considered high in priority as functions that should be fulfilled. Comparing the faculty advisers' and students' ratings of the 16 functions in terms of need. the following findings emerged. Students perceived the functions related to personal concerns within the study environment as high-priority needs (problems they encounter with other faculty members and university administratorsh. In contrast. faculty advisers perceived the function that related to personal concerns that were not associated with the students' study environment as a high- priority need (assist students with personal [nonacademic] concerns. e.g.. family disputes). Moreover. while students ranked those func- tions related to career/vocational concerns ([a] assist students with career/vocational planning and [b] assist students in obtaining part- time work experiences [paid or unpaid] which complement their career and/or educational goals) as rather low-priority functions (ranked ninth and eleventh as needs). faculty advisers considered these same two functions as somewhat high-priority ones (ranked third and seventh as needs). This finding indicates that the faculty advisers were more aware of academic advising functions related to career/vocational con- cerns. which may reflect their maturity and experience. Further comparing faculty advisers' and students' responses. it was apparent that students rated those functions that related to their 171 direct study environment as high priority in terms of need (academic. direct personal concern to their study. and direct administrative concern to their study). In contrast. the faculty advisers considered those functions related indirectly to the students' study environment as being of high priority (nonacademic problems. finding ways to make students' college experiences more interesting and intellectually stim- ul ating. helping students obtain part-time work experiences. helping students explore possible graduate/professional school study. providing students with information concerning extracurricular opportunities and up-to-date information about other sources of assistance on campus. assisting them with course/vocational planning. and helping students with problems they encounter with university administrators). More- over. comparing the faculty advisers' and students' perceptions of students' academic advising needs. the responses indicated that both groups considered the function of assisting students with course regis- tration procedures to be the lowest in priority as a need. Finally. despite the differences in faculty advisers' and stu- dents' perceptions of the 16 functions as students' academic advising needs. the two groups perceived all 16 functions as a need. W25. In general. fac- ulty advisers' responses to 30 items pertaining to factors or problems that limit their efforts to perform their role as academic advisers 172 indicated that 4 of the 30 items were considered uninfl uential. ”These items were: (a) advising is not considered part of my work. (b) students show no need for help. (c) students show no belief in advising. and (d) advising functions occupy a low status in the depart- ment. Faculty advisers considered one of the 30 items entirely unin- fl uenti al in limiting their efforts to perform their advising work. This item was: Academic advising is largely clerical in nature and not worthy of faculty members' time. The mean score for this item was 1.973. The 30 items were categorized into three major factors (Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. and The University and Its Academic Advising Program). Faculty advisers' responses indicated that this group considered all three major factors influential. even though 5 of the 30 items constituting the three major factors were considered uninfluenti a1 or very influential in limiting advisers' efforts to perform their role. The mean scores for these three major factors were. respectively. 3.348. 3.280. and 3.432. The findings of this study regarding faculty advisers' percep- tions of factors or problems that limit their efforts to perform the advising function were consistent with the findings of some previous investigations. In this study it was found that faculty advisers considered 25 of 30 items very influential or influential in limiting their efforts to perform the advising role. These 25 items constituted the three major factors (Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic 173 Advising. Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. and The University and Its Academic Advising Program). Regarding the first major factor (Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising). five of the seven items constituting this major factor were considered as very influential or influential. These factors were (a) academic advising requires per- sonal contact with students. (b) academic advising requires enthusiasm to perform. (c) conducting academic advising requires a certain kind of ability. (d) academic advising requires personal involvement. and (9) academic advising takes time from those activities believed to be the rightful preoccupation of faculty members. Crocket (in Seppanen. 1981) stated that "The advisor needs to have a positive attitude toward his/her role especially in relation to the educational mission. Advisors must develop an appreciation of all those involved in the educational process as well as their own personal domain" (pp. 19-20). The Committee on the Future of Michigan State University in 1957 defined the essentials for an effective faculty adviser as follows: "To carry out the functions. the academic adviser should be interested and effective in his role as defined by institu- tional policy" (DeLisle. 1965. p. 115). Similarly. Hallberg (1964) stated. "If we attempt to revitalize the advising programs in our large colleges and universities it is necessary that faculty regard the advising function as an important phase of higher education. as they did in the past" (p. 117). 174 Faculty advisers considered eight of the ten items constituting the second major factor (Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising) as influential in limiting their ability to perform the advising function. These items were (a) students show no willingness to seek help for nonacademic problems. (b) the evident absence of encouragement on the part of students to come for help. (c) students come only for assigning courses. (d) students seem to seek help from their peers. (e) students seek help from their parents regarding non- academic problems. (f) students go to offices other than mine to solve their nonacademic problems. (9) students prefer to solve their problems by themselves. and (h) students go to offices other than mine to solve their academic problems. Crockett (in Seppanen. 1981) stated. ”Since the student is the primary beneficiary of the advising process. it is important that the advisee perceive advising in a positive way" (p. 19). Concerning the third major factor (The University and Its Academic Advising Program). faculty advisers considered all 11 items constituting this factor as influential in limiting their efforts to perform the advising function. These factors were (a) advising has no relation to professional life (as research does. for example). (b) frequent changes in adviser. (c) the failure to provide the academic adviser with the necessary time for advising. (d) the failure to pro- vide the academic adviser with the necessary space for advising. (e) lack of privacy with advisee. (f) the absence of in-service training programs. (9) lack of clarity on the part of whom advisers are 175 responsible to in discharging their duties. (h) the absence of finan- ci a1 compensation for advising. (i) the heavy work load. (j) advising has no relevant role in the adviser's professional development (e.g.. promotion). and (k) the failure to provide advisers with the necessary materials and information about curriculum and students for adequate advising. DeLisle (1965) indicated in his study that the most frequently mentioned criticisms causing faculty dissatisfaction related to (l) the assignment of large numbers of advisees. as extra responsibilities. without regard to the full load previously assigned: (2) the failure to provide the academic adviser with the necessary time. space. materials and information about curricula and about students necessary for adequate advising; (3) the lack of clarity as to the expectations from academic advising. On the other hand. the number of advisees assigned. the time allowed. and the materials provided preclude anything but minimal functions to be carried out: (4) related to the latter. the functions that are possible are largely clerical in nature and not worthy of the faculty member's time: and (5) the absence of either incentives or rewards available to faculty for excellence in academic advising: rather. according to faculty members. the advising function occupies the lowest status in the department. (p. 99) However. Larsen (1983). Poslaph and Moor (1980). Tegue and Grites (1980). Borgard. Hornbuckle and Mahony (1977). Dresel (1974). Morris (1973). and Hardee (1970) all indicated that such factors as an adequate incentive and reward system. availability of in-service train- ing. recognition and support. professional and personal advancement. knowing to whom the adviser is responsible. and provision of adequate information are important factors in making the adviser able to»conduct his work and in making the academic advising program successful and effective. 176 Wants. Students' responses to the 31 items that prevent or discourage them from benefiting from the academic advising program available at Umm Al-Qura University indicated that 9 of the 31 items were considered uninfl uenti a1 factors. Four items were related to the first major factor (Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising). four were related to the second major factor (Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising). and one was related to the third major factor (The University and Its Academic Advising Program). These items. successively. were (a) go to offices other than my adviser's to solve my academic problems. (b) lack of good relationship with my advisor. (c) a signature for my schedule is the only thing I need from my adviser. (d) I am comfortable in going to my adviser for help. (e) the evident absence of a clear understand- ing of the academic advising process on the part of my adviser. (f) the evident absence of knowledge about my major from my adviser. (g) the evident absence of adequate personal appearance on the part of my advisor. (h) the evident absence of belief on the part of my academic adviser in the task of advising. and (i) frequency changes in advisers assigned to me. Students considered all three major factors (Student Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Academic Advising. Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. and The University and Its Academic Advising Program) influential in preventing or discouraging them from benefiting from the academic advising program. even though they considered 9 of 177 the 31 items uninfluential. The mean scores for the three major fac- tors were 3.245. 3.13. and 3.212. respectively. The findings of this study regarding students' perceptions of the factors or problems preventing them from benefiting from the aca- demic advising program were consistent with the findings of other investigations. Students in the present study considered 22 of the 31 items influential in preventing or discouraging them from benefiting from the academic advising program. These 22 items were distributed among the three major factors (Student Attitudes and Behavior TOward Academic Advising. Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising. and The University and Its Academic Advising Program). Students considered six of the seven items constituting the first major factor (Student Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising) to be influential. These factors were (a) solving problems on my own. (b) getting help from my parents regarding nonacademic problems. (c) go to offices other than my academic adviser's to solve my nonacademic problems. (d) I am not aware of the various aspects of the academic advising program at.the university. (e) advising program seems worthless in solving my academic problems. and (f) getting help from peers to solve my problems. These findings are consistent with Crockett's (in Seppanen. 1981) statement that "since the student is the primary beneficiary of the advising process. it is important that the advisee perceive advising in a positive way" (pp. 19-20). Also. Winston et a1. (1982). in discussing the potential of achieving a good academic advising program. stated. "This potentially potent process can 178 be actualized through a unified effort on the part of faculty members. students. student affairs staffinembers. and other institutional admin- istrators." I Students considered 13 of the 17 items constituting the second major factor (Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Toward Academic Advising) as influential. These items were (a) adviser seems to be helpless in solving students' nonacademic problems. (b) lack of availability of adviser» (c) adviser shows n0 ill 3 I!) U From the above example, it is apparent that the choice was (strongly agree) Code (A) which means that the respondent thought or believed strongly that this factor is limiting his academic advising needs. Let us suppose the following. 1. 2. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Agree) code (H). This means that you still think or believe it is a factor in preventing or discouraging you from fulfilling your academic advising needs. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Undecided) code (M). This means that you are not sure whether or not it is a factor in preventing you from fulfilling your advising needs. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Disagree) code (E). This would mean that you did not think or believe that this factor is preventing you from fulfilling your academic advising needs. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Strongly Disagree) code (D). This would mean that you do not think or believe that this factor prevents or discourages you from fulfilling your academic advising needs. Directions (1) Rate every item according to your understanding of how much it prevents or discourages you from fulfilling your academic advising needs. (2) Please drag_gng_girglg_only for each item you choose. (3) Please respond to every factor or problem (item). 210 (4) If after you have chosen an answer for one item, you change your mind, please draw an x on the first answer, and draw a circle around the new code. Q) d.) L O) < '0 >5 (D Q) >54) r- 'U a) FIG, 03 .,. i... 01‘. C O) U O) :0) O Q) 0 cu on L L U U) Lin «H U) c - «HW- W m < = a mo l-Go to offices other than my A H M E D academic adviser to solve my academic problems. 2-Go to offices other than my A H M E academic adviser to solve my non-academic problems. 3-A signature for my schedule is the A H M E only thing I need from my adviser. 4-I am not aware of the various A H M E aspects of the academic advising program at the university. S-Getting help from my peers to A H M E solve my problems. 6-Solving problems on my own. A. H M E 7-I am comfortable in going to my A H M E adviser for help. 8-Getting help from my parents A H M E regarding the non-academic problems 9-Lack of good relation with my A H N E adviser. lO-Advising program seems worthless A H M E in solving my academic problems. ll-Adviser shows no enthusiasm for A H M E academic advising. lZ-Performance of his academic A H M E advising is inadequate. 21I Q) d) L O) O) O «I L U) o: ., < D ‘U >, d) C) >5 '— U Q, 0- U) W'- L U) c d) U O) c O O) a.) «I o L L U in L W 3.? .2 S a 3. 13-My adviser seems to be helpless A H N E D in solving my academic problems. l4-My adviser seems to be helpless A H N E D in solving my non-academic problems. lS-Lack of availability of my A H M E D adviser. lG-The evident 3.35.2... belief on the A a M r 1) part of my academic adviser in the task of advising. 17-Lack of accessibility in meeting A H H E D my adviser. lB-The evident absence of personal A H M E D knowledge on the part of my academic adviser regarding the academic matters. 19-The evident absence of organi- A H M E D zation on the part of my academic adviser's performance. 20-Lack of easiness to get along with. A H M E D 2l-The evident absence of adequate A H N E D personal appearance on the part of my adviser. 22-The evident absence of encourage- A H M E D ment toward self-reliance on the part of my adviser's work. 212 W Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree 23-The evident absence of personal interest on the part of the academic adviser in the task of advising. 3' U 24-Lack of concern about the (non-academic) problems on the part of my adviser. 25-The evident absence of knowledge about my major from my adviser. 26—The evident absence of clear understanding of the academic advising process on the part of my adviser's performance. 27-Frequent changes in adviser assigned to me. 28-Lack of privacy with adviser when is available. 29-Lack of knowledge on the part of the adviser regarding the offering at the university. 30-The lack of clarity as to expectations from academic advising 31-The evident absence of a well defined academic advising program by the university. 32-Lack of information about the academic advising program available for students. 33-The evident absence of a commitment on the part of the university's A authorities toward academic advisement. 213 Eactg; o; Egoblem Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree 34-The complete absence of a specific office to ask about any information needed regarding academic advising. a. U 35-Getting help from faculty member other than my adviser. 36-Lack of any kind of orientation by the university to help students understanding the academic advising. 37-Nany faculty members share my adviser's room. 38-There is no opportunity to change advisers. 39-The evident absence of professional people for conducting the academic advising. 40-The inexistence of a centralized Advisory Bureau in the office of registration. 41-The absence of a complementary office to cooperate with the adviser in conducting the academic advising. 42-The absence of a centralized Advisory Bureau in my college. 43-Lack of clear-cut submitted information regarding the respons- ibilities assigned to the faculty adviser. 2111 d) O L 0 Oi Q) a L in a» ., < C: U >. o o >. l- U 0 0- 0) 0r- L. U! C d) U U) C O d.) d) 00 O L L U in L «H 05 C '0- H W "’ “ 3 ‘3 "’ 44-A lack of a well—planned academic A H M E D advising system. 45-The evident absence of a systematic A H M E D appraisal for the academic advising program. 46-The purposes and procedures of A H M E D faculty advising is not clearly understood: Eart_lyi__§essral_§2mmest§ Please make additional comments concerning the following three points: (1) The academic advising program at Umm AL-Qura University. (2) What other factors or problems not mentioned in the questionnaire do you think prevent or discourage you from fulfilling your academic advising-needs. (3) What are the three most important factors you think encouraged you to benefit from academic advising programs. Thank you for your cooperation. 215 FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Faculty: Academic advising is considered one of the vital functions the University must fulfill in order to meet the students' needs and to help them during their university experience. The purpose of this study is to investigate the current academic advising program available to undergraduate students at Umm AL-Qura University. You will be asked to respond to items which will generate data that will be helpful in completing this study. The questionnaire's parts, which you will be asked to respond to, are concerned with: first the academic advising needs of students as perceived by you as a faculty member and second, the identification of the factors and/or problems which limit your efforts in performing the function of an academic adviser. The researcher would like to obtain your answers for all of the items on the questionnaire. Your answers will be valuable to the completion of this study, and each answer will be an important component reflecting the real data which is relevant to this study. Consequently, the researcher requests and hopes that you will take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire. Since your responses will be completely confidential, it will not be necessary to write your name on the questionnaire. In addition, if you would be interested in the results of this study, please enclose your name and address on a separate sheet of paper and upon completion of the study, I will send the results to you. Finally, the writer would welcome any comments that you may have concerning both (1) the current academic advising program of Umm-Al-Qura University, and (2) any factors or problems you think relevantly limit your efforts in fulfilling the function of an adviser. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, 216 Part I: Demographic Data Please indicate your answer for each item by checking (/) the line or filling in the blank that is most appropriate. 1. Age: 25-29 30-35 36-40 41—45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61 and Over 2. Nationality: a. Saudi b. Non-Saudi (please specify) 3. Academic Rank: a. Instructor b. Assistant Professor“ c. Associate Professor" d. Professor 4. Years of advising experience: a. Less than 1 year b. From 1 year to less than 3 c. From 3 years to less than 6' d. From 6 years to less than 9 e. From 9 years to less than 12 f. From 12 years to less than 15 9. From 15 years and above 5. Number of advisees assigned to you: 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17 and over 6. Highest degree held: a. B.A. or 3.5. (or equivalent) b. M.S. or M.S. c. Ph.D. d. Other (please indicate) 217 7. College and department where you advise students: a. College b. Department c. Major W Iptrggugtigni This part is designed to obtain information about academic advising functions which you think or believe are now being fulfilled through the academic advising system at Umm AL-Qura University, in order to determine the advising needs for undergraduate students at Umm AL-Qura University. WW Please read the following example carefully before starting to answer the items in this part. Eirgt; The following codes are given to help you answer items in this part: Extent of Fulfillment O - Not at all 1 - To a very little extent 2 - To some extent 3 - To a great extent Sgggggil Answer each item by circling the code that best fits your opinion. See the following example: Should be Advising is now being fulfilled Functions fulfilled O 1 ® 3 1. Keep relationship with O 1 2 @ student after graduation. In this example, it is apparent that the choice for the column to the left of the item (should be fulfilled), was code number (2) representing the choice (to some extent). The choice for the column to the right of the item (is now being fulfilled) was code number (3) representing the code for (to a great extent). mm The following are some selected statements about academic advising functions. Please indicate: (1) On the left margin, the extent to which a faculty 218 adviser Should Fulfill this function. (2) On the right margin, the extent to which this function Is Now Being Fulfilled, through the academic advising system at Umm AL-Qura University. Please use the following codes and giggle the nghfil at the left and right margins that best describe your answer (choice): should be fulfilled O l 2 3 O l 2 3 O l 2 3 0 l 2 3 O 1 2 3 O l 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 O l 2 3 2. 3. S. 6. Not at all To a very little extent To some extent To a great extent WNi-‘O IIII Advising Functions Assist student in selecting a major Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students Assist student with career vocational training Assist students with personal (non-academic) concerns e.g. family disputes Assist students with course registration procedures Helps students to find ways to make their college experience more interesting and intellectually stimulating Assist students in planning their academic program of study Help students explore possible graduate/professional school study Provide students with up-to- date information about other sources of assistance on campus is now being fulfilled O l 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 O l 2 3 O 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 l 2 3 should be fulfilled O l 2 3 O l 2 3 0 l 2 3 O l 2 3 O 1 2 3 O l 2 3 O l 2 3 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 219 Extent of Fulfillment O--Not at all l--To a very little extent 2--To some extent 3--To a great extent Advising Functions Assist students in obtaining part-time work experiences (paid or unpaid) which complement their career and/or educational goals Provide students with information concerning extra- curricular opportunities at the university Provide students with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement Help students with problems the student encounters with other faculty Help students with problems the student encounters with university administrators Serve as a student's personal reference for prospective graduate schools Encourage students to overcome their academic problems is now being fulfilled O 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 O l 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 l 2 3 0 1 2 3 O l 2 3 2a;;_111;. Factors or problems which limit faculty's (your) efforts to perform their functions as academic advisers. Intrggggtigg‘ This part is concerned with collecting data about the factors or problems which you think or believe limit your efforts to perform your functions as an academic adviser. W The following is an example showing you the way to answer items in this part. 220 d.) ’ d) L Q) Oi Q) (B L in U) 0!- < D U >, Q) 4) >5 '— ‘U a) 0-- OT 00- L. U") c d.) U U) c O Q) Q) «l O L L U in £- 44 2 c g ‘4}; U) D 2191213211115.ch l-Absence of an orientation program A H M E D for students From the above example, it is apparent that the choice was (strongly agree) Code (A) which means that the respondent thought or believed strongly that this factor is limiting his efforts to perform his function as an academic adviser. Let us suppose the following. 1. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Agree) code (H). This means that you still think or believe it is a factor in limiting your efforts perform your functions as an academic adviser, but your feelings are not strong. 2. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Undecided) code (M). This means that you are not sure whether or not it is a factor in limiting your efforts to perform your functions as an academic adviser. 3. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Disagree) code (E). This would mean that you did not think or believe that this factor is limiting your efforts to perform your functions as an academic adviser. 4. Suppose that your choice was not (Strongly Agree) code (A), but (Strongly Disagree) code (D). This would mean that you strongly think or believe that this factor does not limit your efforts to perform your functions as an academic adviser. Directing (1) Rate every item according to your understanding of how much it limits your efforts to perform your functions as an academic adviser. (2)' Please d;ag_ggg_gi;glg for each item you choose. (3) Please respond to every factor or problem (item). 221 (4) If after you have chosen an answer for one item, you change your mind, please draw an X answer, and draw a gigglg around the new code. on the first personal contact with students. O) O) L d) D) d.) m L U) 0') 'l- < D U >, cu d.) >. r- U Q) P U) w- L U! c Q) U U) C: O O.) O) Cu O L L U U) L 4.4 O) C °l"' 1H W in < = c: m l-Work load is too heavy to conduct A H M E D advising. 2-Advising is not considered part of A H M E D my work. 3-Advising functions occupy a low A H M E D status in the department. 4-Lack of privacy with advisees when A H M E D they come for advising. S-Academic advising is largely A H M E D clerical in nature and not worthy of a faculty member's time. 6-There is a failure to provide the A H M E D academic adviser with the necessary time for adequate advising. 7-There is a failure to provide the A H M E D academic adviser with the necessary space for adequate advising. 8-There is a failure to provide the A H M E D academic adviser with the necessary materials and information about curriculum and about the student for adequate advising. , 9-Academic advising requires A H M E D personal involvement with students. lO-Academic advising requires A H M E D 222 O) O) L Q) U) 0 to L in U) 'f" < a U >5 a) 0 >5 '— ‘U C1 '— 0') or- L 0" r: d.) U U) C O O) (D 06 O L L U in L +3 0‘ C 0r- H w W < = D “’ 23-Students prefer to solve their A H M E D problems by themselves. 24-Students seem to seek help from A H M E D their parents regarding their non-academic problems. 25-Academic advising requires A H M E D enthusiasm to perform. ~ 26-Frequent changes in advisees which A H M E D prohibits any continuity of relation. 27-Lack of clarity as to expectations A H M E D from academic advising. 28-The evident absence of a well- A H M E D defined academic advising program by the university. 29-Lack of information about the A H M E D academic advising program available for students. 30-The evident absence of commitment A H M E D on the part of the university's authorities towards academic advising. 31-The complete absence of a specific A H M E D office to ask about any information needed regarding academic advising. 32-Students seek help from A H M E D faculty members other than me. 33-Lack of any kind of orientation A H M E D by the university to help students understand academic advising. 223 E§2£2£_2£_2L2212mll StronglyIAgree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree ll-Conducting academic advising requires a certain kind of ability. 9 =3 Agree 3 1‘3! U lZ-Students show no need for help. w 133 U l3-Students show no belief in advising. l4-Students show no willingness todiss- cuss non-academic problems. lS-The evident absence of encourage- ment on the part of students to to come for help. lG-The absence of financial compensation for conducting advising work. l7-Advising has no relevant role on the advisers professional life (as research does for example). lS-Students come only for signing courses. l9-Advising has no relation to professional development (e.g. promotion). 20-Students go to offices other than mine to solve their academic problems. 21-Students go to offices other than mine to solve their (non-academic problems). 22-Students seem to seek help from their peers. 22A W 34-Many faculty members share a room with me. Strongly Disagree m kgree 3 Undecided m Disagree U 35-Academic advising takes time- from those activities believed to be the rightful preoccupation of faculty members. 3’ 3' ftrongly Agree U 36-The nonexistence of a centralized advisory Bureau in office registration. 37-The absence of a complementary office to cooperate with the advisors in conducting the academic advising. 38-The absence of a centralized Advisory Bureau in my college. 39-Lack of clear-cut, submitted information regarding the responsibilities assigned to the faculty adviser. 40-Lack of a well-planned academic advising system. 4l-Lack of clarity on the part of whom I am responsible to in discharging my duties (who is my boss). 42-Lack of appropriate selection system for the faculty members as faculty advisers. 225 d) d.) L C) O) 0 06 L in e. .- < D U >. w e :> 0- U 0 r— O’i 0!- L U, C O U U) C O O) 0 i6 0 L L U in L +3 U) c w- 4-1 b m < :3 c: m 43-The absence of an in-service A H M E D training program for academic advisers. 44-The purposes and procedures of A H M E D academic advising is not clearly understood. D 45-The evident absence of a systematic A H M E appraisal for the academic advising program. W Please make additional comments concerning the following three points: (1) The academic advising program at Umm AL-Qura University. (2) What other factors or problems not mentioned in the questionnaire do you think limit your efforts in performing your functions as an academic adviser. (3) What are the three most important factors you think help you in performing your function as an academic adviser. APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE 226 227 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA (LEI/19,1313 ,1?) ,J. ywdiwi '; dU'pUJW‘}: Ail-IIAId-ul-i Inf”? 0' mm EDUCACHON mm 88'“ 3mm Inna ALm'xAnnAMAn Ears—(JARS. FACULTY OF EDUCATION é/fllgéy "—35"?— xi‘\\ a." ll! ‘§ Q "\ I\Q 61-9131 on: 651.1" on”! Us...” PWI, vaLJIuWZaLu u A” ‘36” ll“ b” Mex-J1 .3; a. ..a” “wanna... i... when... a. inuei [Hut-1.11m a... JIM—5.45 .15.." fighfifimfliflfll col—_anaJIceau “Le. 9931-‘19 91.}. 5145,... H WOLKL. , zfi—flémfiwdi-xfl‘ ' “asylum. u. web’ii .u,~1ie.i.,,' ._.... up...“ an 55,919.1de me... u.- e...i..,..,1i.u . Jl___..‘ll cu... ~ .51»:st 5L2. «Lyme-wows...» . f .e/ ’ / ”a M7 O ( 1 gig) . r.o.nox 8711 (3,12. n??.’o'n(thjl,g_ < \‘V\\ .1935» mmrmuom Inn- ”"4. .LWMHW... as. ‘5’"! ,3 L4, L3... “mummy b.1934, uuu “can: . 9) “'2' éfi—‘J'w' JU‘pLLfJW‘}: KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA ”HWY 00' “NINE. IDIMfACTIlIN m na-qm HNWW wanna amuxnwiininw furifliiufi. FACULTY OI" EDUCATION grg/Jigx W (NS-\\ 9:: . an m. \° \ \\ w. gk’ul (M1 cpl-319L5AJI, “grill“ width t._.... a. ...” “cumming” 1.... when)... ..- muei éLerAJIH “Li why. 6’1"}. h1g3 ,afi H eh...- at“... :‘---—Jrém “am 61-3 ..‘-1' .2... up..." .131 $3,131 ..'..c... ..‘ em... ,.,1 Lu . JL._._....‘II (J). ' a» . uéLaJLPN» 1.1.2.3 4' \.i’- " "..’ C—aAo-H LL‘H‘J 429‘ WJ\DJV .‘ . \ ’Q.Q»\’>"’ --.‘..( . ”..‘, . I' . aCflVL/IJ'A ”Moi-i Avwc") J‘v LLPP’ “.4 ”LUV” ’{vdj '\ A-.J"\ 'J/(Stk‘u va‘ su-\ ' a}. v‘: hush": % 0 PAM! rm (5,5;\.,.v-omxu.4\,a.. WHWW mmrmu-m mu m‘ ”_mmmw, a. will ..‘ Int, 53,, unusual-nu 1.49:4, “mucus...“ 232 é)”u' gym—«6" KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA W! or mm lama-Ion GU‘FCSJ‘D‘J') Inn-mm Afllgimh Inna ALIIUIAIIAHAI “A‘m FACULTY or EDUCATION a gym? — : 5 C13“ \ vb" um \ ‘ 0"!" “nun "' ”I...” I—‘O‘J' ALL" 4...... “3.3L...- ‘ I u 4...,68” d." 9,,“in ..‘; 0. ga” ..Lg!..-.I..L.0_., I... wuss”... c, mum ,4._.J|'...iJ|¢..-:.. “-4- J's-#5.} “1“" @hfl'thfi-J‘ GLQM'eo-fip “Li Q‘Ag 9qu bur-5 H 44.1... QUIL- ‘ :‘——-9-3m “méL-su‘“ 3,319“; as was: ..u,~1te.b,,' o mU‘éwwéLM' 0.3.3945; QU‘IY‘ A... we...” .11! 5;, £491...." ..'...c... as A3451... 3) Lu . .JL_...‘1| c"... a. a._.;.J! «quwd'u 4...; .L‘__._,.$ lJpq. in... a In. ”I 8711 (5#\-)-V-OM\t.th‘J:.;_ W“ a”. 5.93.. mammalian-m Ian“ M. ”_mmmu." lawn! 91.4... 9,, 233 gal, j :- QJMJLE’MIW' ~ A dwrimmu; Amman. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA my or noun nucacnon mun-mm IAIKAI Alum-anu- 3,, - ‘1‘ 1 -.‘ Arabic Language Institute WIT-0"»; Ha" B! . wt]! m. to HAY 1985 an", al.. ,m I This letter 1a to certify that the encloaed two questionnaire. were translated from English to Arabic language by a team of profeaaors who have good content! of both languagea. Theae queationnairea were developed by Sultan S. Haqaood for his Ph.D. Concerning "The Undergraduate Academic Adviaing Program at Um Al-Qura University". The tranalation from Engliah to Arabic ia authentic and well written. A -c ~ ALK’S‘AL u Dr. Ahmed Abu—Shanab, Ph.D., Univ. f Hinneaota, Univ. of Southern California. Departnent of Curriculum. Defiartlent of Paychology. AM. $9.12): W Dr. Abdul Hakim ladi. Dr. Abdullah A. Al-Abadi, Ph.D., Cairo Univ. Dean, Arabic Language Inatitute. Department of Arabic to aux am V (-v ( ”\IW' )-J'fi- w“ .9, .1...- ca-nnlaarman-Iuaalann m:._m mw,tx..t,tg,, mun-mal aka. “mung-..‘: 23h awaxmw; Ali-"nii-ML} 2; | LS; Lyn-w ”w L45 glam an: r" KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA m N nun Ducamu III“ Ill-m mmw mun ALMUKARRAIAH con-go oi Social 3cm noun—n u m H." w ous.-.1: This is to certify that the two questionnaires developed in English by Sultan S. Magsood concerning "The Undergraduate Academic Advising Program at Umm Al-Qura University" was reviewed and translated into Arabic by several staff members of the Department pf English at Umm Al—Qura University. Those staff members have a good command of English / Arabic languages and have teaching experience at the Department of English. AAM" ( Dr. JAMAL A. SKESHSHA ) Chairman, Department of English College of Social Sciences V . V\° .0 J3“ v.0. no: 115 uvuu “JAB .2: cannula" mm Al. - auaa mu 1 “VI“! 1 as. a)" p but, u), “mammal h"! 553;?“ _ Inter—l, ll'-l\ge.fiu‘h 235 January 31. 1985 Vice-President for Academic.A£fairs UHH Al-Qura university Saudi Arabia Dear Sir: This letter will certify that on January 31, 1985 Sultan Magsood presented his dissertation proposal to his doctoral guidance committee for their review. The Guidance committee approved his proposal. The dissertation will be entitled "A Study of the Undergraduate Academic Advising Program at UHM Al—Qurn University as Perceived by Students and Faculty Advisors." Any assistance you can provide him in the completion of his research will be appreciated. , f// .f’ Sincerely you . ,f' l/,/ f (A’-’ “" .I'V'4”. Eldon R. Nonnamaker Professor USUo's - Mahdi-s WW tum-m. 236 A’J’Jl era’s—11%| KINGDOMOF SAUDIARABIA m our noses noun-Ion AU‘MWJBJ mas-quantum Afllgimh IAIIAI AmmaaAIIAa , Zip—‘1' NJ." ' FACULTY OF EDUCATION gym?” ,3 ) \(ve \\ #2" an - en 'K'c \ \ \Q on m... \ ‘ W. ‘ an)...“ a...” J..__.:m, 4,»! “an... ,_...s 0. 4,, mutating, t... was”... a. mum [ea—..J‘FJJ‘A-np a... J‘s—5.35 efiJ‘ Linfil‘LK-yiefl‘ splat”. ..L. ..t... 91.). tun. .,_.a. i... am... . :‘-——‘r"m “Mfl‘ '5fiJlf‘uuLs u" WAK‘J‘ 4U) W at)... . mL-J‘aLE use—'s‘eerJ‘ 04;?th “in,“ a....i we..." on L35,_-.L,.L..Ji an... ..a' cad...- ,.,l m .' J1_..n‘1\ cit. (.5 u “swab '45:, .._.,S.J! this-93‘” A.» . ’ ”V r I” Lt———-‘-‘ J» “o J #fi/Yl Y}. o < ’ .l' U/ \ \ b 7.0. ”I fill “ \.,.w-om'va!,:.;_ W“ 45,3... camswsurmn-m manna a”... “_mum.__. maul past, ‘9.» mus-sums: 1.4.3.1, "Hugues-‘5 APPENDIX C BURKE'S PERMISSION LETTER, BURKE'S QUESTIONNAIRE, AND HIS CATEGORIZATION OF THE 15 ACADEMIC ADVISING FUNCTIONS 237 238 January 18, 1985 Thomas H. Burke 16 Norman Road Fletcher , NC 28732 Mr. Sultan Magoosod 19014 Belle Chase Apt. 308 Lansing, Michigan l$8910 Dear Mr. Magoosod: Thank you for your call today concerning the questionnaire I developed when writing nw dissertation. If the instrument will be helpful to you, please feel free to use it for your study. Good luck to you. Sincerely, ‘—-—1r‘::a-adfit§k.‘EZ§»..Q§L._. Thomas H. Burke 239 Burke's Questionnaire Extent of Fulfillment 0 a Not at all I = To a very little extent 2 - To some extent 3 = To a great extent Should Be . . Is Now Being Fulfilled Adv's‘"9 F“"°t'°" Fulfilled 0 l 2 3 l. Assist students in selecting a O l 2 3 major 0 l 2 3 2. Explain university academic regu- 0 l 2 3 lations and requirements to students 0 l 2 3 3. Advise students with career/ 0 l 2 3 vocational planning 0 l 2 3 h. Be a person with whom students can 0 l 2 3 discuss personal (nonacademic) concerns 0 l 2 3 5. Assist students with course 0 l 2 3 registration procedures 0 l 2 3 6. inform student of the employment 0 l 2 3 opportunities in the student's intended field of study 0 l 2 3 7. Refer students to the appropriate 0 l 2 3 sources of information for loans, scholarships, financial aid, or other methods of financing a student's education 0 l 2 3 8. Help students find ways to make 0 l 2 3 their college experience more interesting and intellectually stimulating 2&0 Should Be . . is Now Being Fulfilled Adv's'“9 F“"°t‘°" Fulfilled O l 2 3 9. Assist students in planning their 0 l 2 3 academic program of study 0 l 2 3 l0. Help students explore possible 0 l 2 3 graduate/professional school study 0 l 2 3 ll. Provide students with up-to-date 0 l 2 3 information about other sources of assistance on campus 0 l 2 3 12. Serve as a student's personal ref— 0 l 2 3 erence for prospective employers and/or graduate schools 0 l 2 3 l3. Assist students in obtaining part- 0 l 2 3 time work experiences (paid-unpaid) which complement their career and/or educational goals 0 l 2 3 l4. Provide students with information 0 l 2 3 concerning extracurricular opportu- nities at the university 0 l 2 3 l5. Provide students with academic 0 l 2 3 advice and suggestions for scholas' tic improvement 2h] Burke's Advising Functions by Category_Type Category Type Advising Function l. Inform students of the employment opportu- nities in the student's intended field VOCATIONAL/CAREER* 2. Assist students with career/vocational planning 3. Assist students in obtaining part-time work experiences (paid or unpaid) which complement their career and/or educational 1 goals \ l. Assist students in planning their academic program of study 2. Provide students with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement ACADEMIC 3. Help students explore possible graduate/ professional school study A. Help students find ways to make their college experience more interesting and intellectually stimulating l. Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students 2. Provide students with up-to-date infor- mation about other sources of assistance ADMINISTRATIVE °” campus *3. Refer students to the appropriate sources of information for loans, scholarships, financial aid, or other methods of financ- ing a student's education 2A2 Category Type Advising Function ADMINISTRATIVE 4. Provide students with information cons (Continued) cerning extracurricular opportunities at the university 5. Assist students with course registration procedures I. Be a person with whom students can discuss personal (nonacademic) concerns PERSONAL 2. Serve as a student's personal reference for prOSpective employers and/or graduate schools APPENDIX D CATEGORIZATION OF THE AS ITEMS PRESENTED IN THE THIRD PART OF THE FACULTY ADVISER QUESTIONNAIRE INTO THREE MAJOR FACTORS CATEGORIZATION OF THE A6 ITEMS PRESENTED IN THE THIRD PART OF THE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE INTO THREE MAJOR FACTORS THE l5 ITEMS PRESENTED SIMILARLY TO FACULTY ADVISERS AND STUDENTS IN THE THIRD PART OF THEIR QUESTIONNAIRES 2A3 2AA Cate orization of the A5 Items Presented in the Third Part of the Facultr Adxjser Questionnaire Tnto Three Major Factors Major Factor Item FACULTY ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR TOWARD ACADEMIC ADVISING Academic advising requires personal contact with students Academic advising requires enthusiasm to perform Conducting academic advising requires a certain kind of ability Academic advising requires personal involvement Academic advising takes time from those activities believed to be the rightful preoccupation of faculty members Advising is not considered part of my work Academic advising is largely clerical in nature and not worthy of faculty members' time STUDENT ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR TOWARD ACADEMIC ADVISING Students show no willingness to seek help for nonacademic problems The evident absence of encouragement on the part of students to come for help Students come only for assigning courses Students seem to seek help from their peers Students seek help from their parents regarding nonacademic problems Students go to offices other than mine to solve their nonacademic problems 2A5 Major Factor Item STUDENT ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR TOWARD ACADEMIC ADVISING (Continued) Students prefer to solve their problems by themselves Students go to offices other than mine to solve their academic problems Students show no need for help Students show no belief in advising THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS ACADEMIC ADVISING PROGRAM Advising has no relation to professional life (as research does, for example) Frequent changes in adviser prohibit any continuity of relationship There is a failure to provide the aca- demic adviser with the necessary time for advising There is a failure to provide the aca- demic adviser with the necessary space for advising Lack of privacy with advisees when they come for advising The absence of in-service training pro- grams for academic advisers Lack of clarity on the part of whom I am responsible to in discharging my duties (who is my boss) The absence of financial compensation for conducting advising work workload too heavy to conduct advising Advising has no relevant role in the adviser's professional development (6.9., promotion) 2A6 Major Factor Item THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS ACADEMIC ADVISING PROGRAM (Continued) There is a failure to provide the academic adviser with the necessary materials and information about cur- riculum and about students for adequate advising Lack of an appropriate selection system of the faculty member as a faculty adviser Advising functions occupy a low status in the department 2A7 Cate orization of the A6 Items Presented in the ThIrdPart of the Student Questionnaire Into Three Major Factors Major Factor Item Solving problems on my own Getting help from my parents regarding nonacademic problems 60 to offices other than my academic adviser to solve my nonacademic problems I am not aware of the various aspects of the academic advising program at the university STUDENT ATTITUDES Advising program seems worthless in AND BEHAVIOR TOWARD solving my academic problems ACADEMIC ADVISING Getting help from my peers to solve my problems Go to offices other than my adviser to solve my academic problems Lack of good relationship with my adviser A signature for my schedule is the only thing I need from my adviser I am comfortable in going to my adviser for help My adviser seems to be helpless in solving my nonacademic problems Lack of availability of my adviser FACULTY ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR TOWARD My adviser shows no enthusiasm for ACADEMIC ADVISING academic advising Performance of his academic advising is inadequate 248 Major Factor Item FACULTY ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR TOWARD ACADEMIC ADVISING (Continued) Lack of accessibility in meeting my adviser Lack of concern about nonacademic problems on the part of my adviser My adviser seems to be helpless in solving my academic problems Lack of easiness to get along with The evident absence of organization on the part of my academic adviser's per- formance The evident absence of personal interest on the part of the academic adviser in the task of advising The evident absence of personal knowledge on the part of my academic adviser regarding academic matters The evident absence of encouragement toward self-reliance on the part of my adviser Lack of knowledge on the part of adviser regarding the offerings at the university The evident absence of clear understand— ing of the academic advising process on the part of my adviser's performance The evident absence of knowledge about my major from my adviser The evident absence of adequate personal appearance on the part of my adviser The evident absence of belief on the part of my academic adviser in the task of advising 2A9 Major Factor .Item . THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS ACADEMIC ADVISING PROGRAM The evident absence of professional people for conducting the academic advising Lack of privacy with adviser when he is available There is no opportunity to change advisers Frequent changes in advisers assigned , to me ' l. 250 The l5 Items Presented Similarl to Facult Advisers anngtudents'in'the‘Third'Part of Their Questionnaires Item The complete absence of a specific office to ask about any information regarding academic advising The purposes and procedures of advising are not clearly understood Lack of information about the academic advising program available to students Lack of any kind of orientation by the university to help students understand the academic advising The evident absence of a systematic appraisal for the academic advis- ing program The absence of a centralized advisory bureau in my college The evident absence of a commitment on the part of the university‘s authorities toward academic advisement I The evident absence of a well-defined advising program by the university Lack of a well-planned academic advising system The absence of a complementary office to cooperate with the advisers in conducting the academic advising The nonexistence of a centralized advisory bureau in the office of registration Lack of clear-cut submitted information regarding the responsibilities assigned to the faculty adviser Lack of clarity as to the expectations from academic advising Many faculty members share my adviser's room Getting help from faculty member other than my adviser APPENDIX E CATEGORIZATION OF THE I6 ACADEMIC ADVISING FUNCTIONS PRESENTED IN PART TWO OF THE FACULTY ADVISER AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES 25l 252 Category Type Advising Function VOCATIONAL/CAREER IO. Assist students with career/vocational planning Assist students in obtaining part'time work experience (paid or unpaid) which complements their career and/or educa- tional goals ACADEMIC l2. l6. Assist students in planning their academic program of study Provide students with academic advice and suggestions for scholastic improvement Help students explore possible graduate/ professional school study Assist students in selecting a major Help students to find ways to make their college experiences more interesting and intellectually stimulating Encourage students to overcome their academic problems ADMINISTRATIVE ll. Explain university academic regulations and requirements to students Provide students with up-to-date infor- mation about other sources of assistance on campus Provide students with information concern- ing extracurricular opportunities at the university Assist students with course registration procedures 253 Category Type Advising Function PERSONAL l5. l3. IA. Assist students with personal (nonacademic) concerns, e.g., family disputes Serve as a student's personal reference for possible graduate school Help students with problems the students encounter with other faculty Assist students with problems the students encounter with university administrators BIBLIOGRAPHY 25h BIBLIOGRAPHY "About the Academic Advising Program at Umm Al-Oura University." Makka. Saudi Arabia: Umm Al-Oura University. n.d. (In Arabic) Ageel. Hamza Abdullah. "Job Satisfaction of Staff Members of Umm Al-Oura University In Makkah. Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. Umm Al-Oura University. 1982. All. Said I. "Studies on Education In Saudi Arabia." Cairo: Dar Al- Thagafah Publishing 00.. 1979. (In Arabic) Al-Mallees. SaaIeed Mohammed. "A Comparative Study of the Collegiate Success of Graduates of Comprehensive Secondary Schools and Traditional Secondary Schools In Selected Regions of Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University. 1980. .Alzfladua Newspaper (Makka. Saudi Arabia). September 22. 1985. (In Arabic) Aschenbrenner. A. J. "The Role of Upperclass Students as Academic Advisers for College Freshmen." lhe Journal of College Student .Egnsgnnel 4 (March l963): 184-86. Backer. Abdulkader Saleh. ”Analysis and Recommendations for Restruc- turing the Administrative Configuration of King Abdul Aziz Uni- versity. Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. Oklahoma State University. l982. Bonar. John R. "Developing and Implementing a Systems-Design Training Program for Academic Advisers." Journal _Qf 99.11399 Student Eecsonnel 17 (May 1976): 190-92. . "Review of an Operating Program Model Using Paraprofes- sionals." Journal of College Student Bensonnel 17 (September 1967): 400-404. Borg. Walter. and Gall. Meredith. .Educatignal Research. 3rd ed. New York: Longman. 1979. Borgard. John H.. and others. "Faculty Perceptions of Academic Advising.” HASEA loumal I4 (l977): 4-10. 255 256 Bostaph. Charles Paul. "A Study of Student Attitudes Towards Three Different Academic Advising Systems Currently Used In Three Different Undergraduate Schools at the University of Pittsburgh." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. 1976. . and Moor. Marti. "Training Academic Advisors: A Developmental Strategy." .Ihe.leuznal.e£.Qellege.Studen1 ‘Eezsgnnel 21 (January 1980): 45-49. Brown. Coke R.. and Myers. Rosemary. "Student vs. Faculty Advising." Journal efficllegeStudentEemznnel 16 (May 1975): 227-31. Burke. Thomas Harold. ”Student and Faculty Perceptions of Students' Academic Advising Needs at The Florida State University." Ph.D. dissertation. The Florida State University. 1981. Chathaparampil. Joseph. "Students' Perceptions of Their Academic Advisement Needs." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State Univer- sity. 1970. Computer Center. Umm Al-Qura University. Makka. Saudi Arabia. 1985. (In Arabic) Crookston. Burns B. "A Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching." JeuLnal er Sellede Student fensdnnel 13 (January 1972): 12-17. Dameron. Joseph 0.. and Wolf. John C. "Academic Advisement in Higher Education: A New Model." lduLnal ef 99.1.1999 Student Eemnnel 15 (November 1974): 470-73. DeLisle. H. Frances. "A Study of Academic Advising of Undergraduate Students." Unpublished study. Michigan State University. May 1965. Dilley. Josiah S. ”StudentrFaculty Noncommunication." ,Ihe.19unnal .91 .Qollede Student Renewal 8 (September 1967): 282-85. Donk. Leonard J.. and Getting. Eugene P. "Student Faculty Relations and the Faculty Advising System. .Ihe lgunnal gt Cgllege .Sjudenj.flensgnnel 9 (November 1968): 400-403. Dressel. Fred B. "The Faculty Adviser." .lmpnoxlng.§ellege.and W leaching 22 (1974): 57-58. Ghawanni. Monsour A. "The Factors Influencing Male Secondary School Students' Choice of Educational Track in Saudi Arabia: Science Versus the Arts." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State Univer- sity. 1985. 257 Grites. J. Thomas. "Academic Advising: Getting Us Through the Eighties." The Academic Association of Higher Education. ReSearch Report No. 7. 1979. . "Techniques and Tools for Improving Advising." NAQAQA .Jgunnal 4 (October 1984): 55-74. Hallberg. Edmond C. "Realism in Academic Advising." .Ine.19unna1 .91.§Qllfigfi.§Infl§nI.ESLSanel 5 (December 1964): 114-17. Hardee. Melvene 0. "Counseling and Advising in a New Junior College." Junie: College lduLnal 31 (1961): 370-77. . "Faculty Advising in Colleges and Universities." Personnel Series No. 9. American College Personnel Association. 1970. Haughey. E. J. "A Study of the Academic Advising System of Bridgewater State College." LeaLand Ibeou and W (Spring 1976). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 921) Hofman. Morton. "Academic Advising in Higher Education.” .Ihe ldumel ef. .Cellede Student Eensennel 15 (December 1974) . . "Academic Advising in Higher Education." Ph.D. disserta- tion. University of Northern Colorado. 1974. Hornbuckle. Phyllis A.. and others. "A Structural Analysis of Student Perception of Faculty Advising." JeuLna1.ef.9911ege Eemnnfl 20 (July 1979): 296-300. Jan. Najmudein Abdul Gafour. "Between Islamic and Western Education: A Case Study of Umm Al-Oura University. Makka. Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1983. Juola. Arvo E.. and others. "Computer-Assisted Academic Advising." Eemnnel and fiujdanee JeuLnal 47 (October 1968): 146-50. Khuthaila. Hend MaJid. "Developing a Plan for Saudi Arabian Women's Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation. Syracuse University. 1981. Kramer. Howard C.. and Gardener. Robert E. Adyising by Enculty. Washington. 0.0.: National Education Association. 1977. Larson. Max 0. ”Rewards for Academic Advising: An Evaluation." .NAQAQA‘JguLnal 3 (October 1983): 53-60. . and Brown. Bonnie. "Student and Faculty Expectations of Academic Advising." .NAQAQA.19nLna1 3 (March 1983): 31-37. 258 Mayer. Alice N.. and McConatha. S. ”Surveying Student Needs: A Means of Evaluating Student Services." .leunnal.ef.flellege Student Eecsdnnel 23 (November 1982): 473-76. Ministry of Higher Education. Saudi Arabia. .Edugetienal.E911§x.1n .Ih9.51ngd9m.ef.§eud1.Anahin Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: Ministry of Higher Education. 1978. Moor. Kathryn M. "Faculty Advising: Panacea or Placebo." .ldunnal.n£ .QQllfiQB.SIUQQDI.E§£snnnel 17 (September 1976): 371-75. Morehead. Charles G.. and Johnson. Clyde J. "Some Effects of a Faculty Advising Program." .Eensonnel,and.Gu1dence,1gunna1 43 (October 1964): 139-44. Moris. Charles G. "Academic Advising and Counseling." Ann Arbor: College of Literature. Science. and Arts. The University of Michigan. May 1973. (Mimeographed.) Nabti. Farid George. "Manpower. Education and Economic Development In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University. 1980. Nonnamaker. Eldon Ray. "The Role of the Enrollment Officer at Michigan State University." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1959. O'Banion. Terry. "An Academic Advising Model." lunler.£ellege .lgunnal 42 (1972): 66-69. Packwood. T. William. CalledeStudentsfiensennelSemdes. Springfield. 111.: Charles C. Thanas Publisher. 1977. Palmer. Linda. and others. "Survey of Undergraduate Academic Advising Services Available at the University of California. Los Angeles. 1980." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 215 596) Palson. Cheryl Jean. and Jurich. Anthony P. "The Departmental Academic Advising Center: An Alternative to Faculty Advising." .lgunna1.ef Selleoe Student Eensdnnel 20 (May 1979): 249-52- W en Saudi Anab1a. ' Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia. Washington. D.C.. September 1980. mammmmmmmmm .Ien.1ea:s.,1210:1280, Ministry of Higher Education. 1980. Rossman. Jack E. "Released Time for Faculty Advising: The Impact Upon Freshmen." .Eensgnnel.nnd.Gu1dance.lguLnal 47 (December 1968): 358-63. 259 Sadda Al-Jamia (Um Al-Oura University. Saudi Arabia). lst ed. Jummad-Al-Awal. 1985. p. 4. (In Arabic) Sagaria. Morry 0.. and others. "Perceived Needs of Entering Freshmen: The Primacy of Academic Issues." .leurnal.QI.QQllege.§tudent .Eeregnnel 21 (May 1980): 243-47. Scheaffer. L. Richard. and others. Elementary SurreySamfllnd. 2nd ed. Belmont. Ca1if.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.. 1979. Seppanen. Linda Mary. "Faculty and Students' Attitudes Toward Academic Advising." Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Alabama. 1981. Smith. H. Thomas. "Integration of College Students' Perceived Needs at Michigan State University." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1974. Stickle. Fred. "Faculty and Students' Perceptions of Faculty Advising Effectiveness. " leurnal et fellege Student Bersennel 23 (May 1982): 262-65. Teague. Gerald V. "Community College Student Satisfaction With Four Types of Academic Advisement." 'Jgurnal.91.lelege.§tudent Eersgnnel 18 (July 1977): 281-85. . and Grites. Thomas J. "Faculty Contracts and Academic Advising." Journal 2: 991.1999 Student Bersennel 21 (January 1980): 40-44. Umm Al-Oura University. .Student.§u1de Makka. Saudi Arabia: Dar A1-Funoon Printing Press. 1984-85. (In Arabic) Upcraft. Lee M. "Undergraduate Students as Academic Advisers." Eersennel and Guidance Journal 49 (June 1971): 827-31. Wharton. William. and others. "Student Assistants for Faculty Advisers." Ibe Sellede .91 99.1.1399 Student Eersennel 8 (January 1966): 37-42. Wilder. Jerry R. "A Successful Academic Advising Program: Essential Ingredients.” Jeurnal at .Qellede Student Bersennel 22 (November 1981): 488-92. Winston. Roger 8.. and others. .Qeyelnnmental Apprgacnes tn Academic .Auxlslng. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. 1982. 260 Zink. Mary S. ”Freshman Student Perceptions of Academic Program and Academic advising." Report No. 1 and 2. March 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 039 542) Zuhowski. Walter H.. and Catron. David W. ”Students as Curriculun Advisers: Reinterpreted." Jeurnal .91 99.1.1999 Student Eereennel 17 (May 1976): 199-204. I‘ll! \\ b‘: A..]! ‘1' \\ ':\: II. .1111. a\\\. . I‘ll!)