, D .F. F. _ . _ _ Em u _ ww. . ..-N..__R. hiqu... m V. .0 . 0.. mm W... M .m. .._r: mm . ,_ E. M 0 We . ,D... T M M mm mm P 1 OFCigruARi W 0 W ..... m, m. . T. .m mun mm mm mm . S N . . M. c . C A, m An .m m N. N m. , U . .-,..;......._.; 2. .3 .. .L..._.-........:H..:H....2_,..,..........»...w_,f . 3:3....unrr.«.......,.... I, .,.... x .. .2...! . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL- THESIS 04574 5405 I LIBR Rz‘lRY I Mic )3: 1 State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE EMERGENCE AND FUNCTIONING OF ACADEMIC ADVISING CENTERS WITHIN ACADEMIC UNITS OF MAJOR UNIVERSITIES presented by Richard Philip Baxter has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for L degree in _Edu.ca_LLQn 351M... Z/%Wf.z,¢. Major professor Date September IS, I970 0-169 % “IN-£3 U 0 1);” ‘ . "I z {a r- . i- r u. J ', w h .‘ -'-!. - (w- (a 4 ”‘7- we!» MAG! C 2 a. r 1 s ‘ ‘ I ‘ , I "I :3 -\ I \4. \o \r‘ " JAN 1 4 I999 “ © 1971 RICHARD PHILIP BAXTER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED :mvav A U.V~O fl“\ , b...“ “”9- - '1‘. UV ‘ o .g}. A: A v..- -..5 .. ‘ c G P‘ - . J. yin-so 3L9...“ ‘ . . a-fi «A-.. ~- - _ .5": 3.3.6...._ ‘ ‘ "‘ AD- I n, A I? '."V\‘ a. vV‘ose U. ’ . ‘ . v- . “ ...... 0. Ma - l“- o - 4 ‘F-“‘ F‘ vor“-‘ ‘. . . ‘ ..‘ ‘ .uIVneng ar.‘ " O “ G‘-‘ i Q - E-..“‘S are “‘~: I -. “-3 s .. ':J:._.A ‘ ‘ N‘\§.‘V., : ‘n “-e T‘r-b “V . k. U ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE EMBRGENCE AND FUNCTIONING OF ACADEMIC ADVISING CENTERS WITHIN ACADEMIC UNITS OF MAJOR UNIVERSITIES BY Richard Philip Baxter The purpose of this study was to determine the factors responsible for the emergence of centralized academic advising agencies within academic units of certain major universities, and to determine the nature and scope of such agencies' operations. For the purpose of this research a central- ized academic advising center was defined as: an office or group of offices which function to assist students with questions on academic curriculum or coursework planning. The offices are staffed with advisers whose total or major responsibility within the institution is to work in the capacity of academic advising for a certain group or classification of students and all advising is done within the center. These advising agencies are considered to be a specialized approach to the functions of advising students on academic coursework programs and are a contrast to the traditional form of academic advising performed by teaching faculty members. The population of the centralized advising centers was determined by a pro-runner survey conducted for Commission XIV of the American College Personnel Association. The directors of the advising centers within these academic units served as the respondents to the survey questionnaire. Five basic areas of development for the 62 question instrument were identified. They were: (1) the beginning or history of advising centers, 1 I2) the prese ‘ I 2333 cures an .. .- p'O-g vlfiu§c .‘D ‘lo the 71 "7 T“e direno. J5 use - . ‘ severed asze: on... V. "'1“ “ .. ~‘fie PV‘A ‘ v s‘.‘ .B ‘n _ ~ - =-Q:¢ ‘ ~~ - ‘--': l . $.‘o _. . Q~ N-‘ \ -. ‘h‘w. "7. ‘ ‘ 2- W‘ h” u‘ s '- s.. ' 2.“ ‘— t..- ‘s—‘n‘ \ ‘ ‘ C ~.\.- A. Q ‘-‘- - I ‘. ‘ - .- Q.‘ z“; ‘N‘ R Q‘ \ ‘ ‘x s ‘ " £ - “:‘-. ~“ -- ‘ . ‘ m . ‘Q‘ A 'b is: “-_. ‘~ ~ ‘ Richard Philip Baxter (2) the present organization, (3) authority and responsibility, (u) procedures and functions, and (5) special or miscellaneous topics. Among the 71 identified centralized academic advising centers, 51 or 72 per cent of the directors completed a nine—page questionnaire which extensively covered aspects of the advising center, its staff and functioning. Findings from the study indicate that the concept of centralized advising centers has broad applications to nearly all types of academic units of varying disciplines. During the last five years there has been a strong movement of educational systems and academic units to remedy some of the existing problems in advising students. Enrollment increases within the academic units have played a strong part in this movement. The majority of directors believed that advising centers were estab— lished because of certain pressures operating within the academic unit and on the teaching faculty, not because of a concern for students and their educational, vocational and personal problems. There is little staffing in the professional positions of the advising centers with personnel who have academic preparation in the field of college student personnel work. The dean's support within the academic unit is judged to be the most critical factor in the establishment and development of an effective cen- tralized advising program. In nearly all cases the centralized student advising centers studied appear to have developed programs which complement and supplement the in- structional programs of their respective academic units. The advising programs of the centralized advising centers were broad and well-coordinated, bringing many tasks and appropriate_functions to aid students in their academic and personal development. A total of 34 con- clusions regarding the nature and functioning of centralized advising centers were presented from the survey. A STUDY OF THE EMERGENCE AND FUNCTIONING OF ACADEMIC ADVISING CENTERS WITHIN ACADEMIC UNITS OF MAJOR UNIVERSITIES By Richard Philip Baxter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 A. n . .-' v':d‘“6"5 ~‘ Copyright by RICHARD PHILIP BAXTER 1970 -3 H1 0"..- . _ ‘ hie a_.II-.‘ . , . """.- oh. .' '- we L..-s 5: - UP .A, j - ”be e“- ‘ raze- \— n H A. ‘ ny- - . ‘Q- 6.: A- vv-.:-v "U.‘ 9. c ‘3‘ w i o‘. ‘ ‘ ‘5 o t. .“- ’s 9-... s U R: H' e F u p“ a b-.‘=.. ‘ s.; . ‘E e- ~‘ee A“ V‘ \- Lz‘! ‘ "' ‘.‘ V.- we ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses his sincere appreciation to his Guidance Committee, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. Richard C. Featherstone and Dr. Edgar A. Schuler, and especially to the Chairman of his Committee, Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald, for her constructive criticisims and suggestions during this study. He also wishes to thank Miss Dorothy E. Culver for her encouragement and assistance. He is grateful to the following people at The University of Tennessee for their assistance and suggestions in the development and completion of the research: Dean Arthur E. Warner, Dr. John M. Larsen, Jr., Dr. Suzanne Larsen, and Dr. Lawrence M. DeRidder. Special thankS* are extended to Mrs. Barbara Romeieh for her encouragement and assistance early in the research and to Nancy Bittner for her assistance in the final completion. To his wife, Jane, and children Beth, Jo Ellen and Richard Jr., whose constant encouragement and understanding, and real assistance made the completion of this study possible, he expresses his deepest gratitude. ii "'IW --' ’ inn... .— OK—giya ‘."r\- T _A \‘ .' "WU-"u. -y.‘ y - Q,‘ A} I v. ' p CI .§ P \ A \~~‘ 5" “‘ “ ‘ -. V’\‘_. .‘g- :- ‘ .C ~‘ C... - TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION. . . . Background Information . . . . . . . . Focus of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . - Definition of Academic Advising. . . Importance of a Study of Academic Advising . - Objectives of Academic Advising. . "Academic AdVising Problems . . . . . Centralized Student Advising . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . Design of the Study. . . . . . The Population . . . . . . . . . . . Commission XIV Study . . . . Construction of the Instrument for the Survey and Study . . . . . . . . . iii Principal PAGE 10 11 ll 12 1‘4 17 21 25 27 27 27 27 29 n n-.- r-dv P: y"... o~.\ ' d-- on '39. A! ‘ \-.‘ ' to-‘--. .28 ‘. .. (‘3 (I) [h 'r1 4.) iv CHAPTER IV. Administration of the Instrument . . Results of Responses . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . The Emergence and Background . . . . Categories of Academic Units . . . Name of Advising Center. . . . . . Year Established . . . . . . . . . Enrollment Growth. . . . . . . . . Circumstances of Establishment . . Background of Academic Units . . . Aims and Objectives. . . . . . . . History of Advising Center . . . . Organization and Structure . . . . . Advising Center Staff Size . . . . Advising Center Hours. . . . . . . Physical Location and Arrangement. Group of Students Served . . . . . Academic Counselor Turnover Rate . Directors' Titles. . . . . . . . . Directors' Faculty Ranks . . . . . Directors' Academic Fields; Highest Degrees. Directors' Supervisor. . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibilities of the Director . . . . . . PAGE 32 32 33 35 35 35 35 38 38 39 #1 H2 nu U5 H6 H6 “8 #9 51 su 57 57 60 61 61 CHAPTER PAGE Student Academic Counselors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Highest Degree of Academic Counselors. . . . . . . . . . 65 Required Qualifications of Job Applicants. . . . . . . . 66 Faculty Rank of Academic Counselors. . . . . . . . . . . 68 Committee Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Characteristics of Academic Counselors . . . . . . . . . 70 Involvement with Teaching Faculty. . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Other ReSponsibilities for Academic Counselors . . . . . 7n Authority and Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Authority of Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Working with Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Disciplinary Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Procedures and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Functions of Academic Counselors . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Advance Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Procedures with "No-Preference" Student. . . . . . . . . 83 Freshmen Orientation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Academic Counselor Assignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Contacts with Freshmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Communication of Curriculum Information. . . . . . . . . 90 Registration Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Scheduling Student Contacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9n Student Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Confidential Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Group Advising Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 CHAPTER vi Advising Appointments. . . . . . . . . Special Assistance . . . . . . . . . . Academic Probationary Status . . . . . Special Handouts . . . . . . . . . . . Relationships Between Faculty and the Advising Involvement with Other Campus Agencies Educational-Occupational Information . In-Service Training. . . . . . . . . . Special and Miscellaneous Areas. . . . . Cooperation with Other Campus Agencies Recognition of Student Problems. . . Use of Information Derived from Advising ResearCh I I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Published Literature . . . . . . . . . Student Organizations. . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Advising Center. . . . . Recommended Modifications. . . . . . . Priority of Concern for Students . . . References on Academic Advising. . . . Program Integration of Services of Advising Center and Instructional Programs . . . . . . . Special Aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . Costs of Centralized Advising Program. Sum ary O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Center. PAGE 100 102 103 10A 105 105 107 108 109 109 110 111 112 113 113 114 115 118 119 121 122 127 128 a.-- .11.“ can . no 7 cw- I U A Kn-w 5" on..- u at...“ ' I -._-.‘ I‘V—‘,-.‘| It'- I t .~.~.~~.‘. .‘ I .““\" ‘e- O h--- u ‘~._J"-‘i u I‘O-s .‘..' Ib,,“ A “0.-..-- h ‘i l.-.- . .-~.I‘-"l ‘ so. -‘~§l| . n l--?"‘ ‘v' '- A '-.|_ p vii CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem. . . . . . . . Design and Procedures of the Implications . . . . . . . . . Limitations in Interpretation. Suggestions for Further Study. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX F I O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 PAGE 131 131 131 132 132 138 139 190 142 luv. 148 199 158 160 -l"h A en.-.- - v- 5 2 sup, 3 bu.“ “I .‘IN 'V‘G v.‘_ I D u. b 'E ,r .J ~§o§ e‘"_ A ”-3 r.-. a... v A 5 ’3 Q‘s-, - °§J ':‘, I.‘.l . .‘ “.‘Q 7'9 ‘uv' ‘ ‘h 0 '~‘ u e..- ‘- 5‘ . .4 A “vs ‘ 9““ f‘ A CV5 TABLE “.10 ”.11 H.12 4.13 u.1u LIST OF TABLES Categories of Academic Units . . . . . . . Enrollment Growth 196u-1969. . . . . . . . Students Per Full Time Academic Counselor. Directors' Titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . Directors' Faculty Rank. . . . . . . . . . Reaponsibilities of the Director . . . . . Functions of Academic Counselors . . . . . Contacts with Freshmen . . . . . . . . . . Student Records Kept . . . . . . . . . . . Advising Appointments. . . . . . . . . . . Involvement with Other Campus Agencies . . In-Service Training. . . . . . . . . . . . Most Helpful References on Academic Advising Costs of Centralized Advising Program. . . viii PAGE 37 40 55 58 59 64 80 91 97 101 106 109 120 127 .IIE p.12; far the eterg: attain major sac}. agencies‘ the teaming that (3) an: I: I5) Spe:i ms rese Xi‘an “113‘ng I‘n :‘ ~ .~.xv‘..le’ ar‘: W'3 A 'I “hrs a Of A. to One Q -GA$. ‘ no GSH'; -; a INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to determine the factors responsible for the emergence of centralized academic advising agencies within certain major universities, and to determine the nature and scope of such agencies' Operations. The scope of the study will include: (1) the beginning or history of advising centers, (2) the present organiza- tion, (3) authority and responsibility, (u) procedures and functions, and (5) Special and miscellaneous topics. This researcher is presently a director of an academic advising program within the College of Business, at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and is a member of Commission XIV, "Academic Affairs Adminis- ’ trators", of American Personnel and Guidance Association, and is interested in the aspects of this innovative approach of academic advising for students. ‘ .-.. fi__.._ -0 g. :1 n- “ u , fl ’“~-~ V' -.:'.....B, . PC._..‘.' _ ”an“ _ V .V‘n‘v- ; 5252:. in ‘ e I "True tfiPl'v 1 '5‘...‘ D ‘ . 1“... ‘ N a"‘.. ‘Ql‘. .‘ ‘ . .5..~ " "“6 -.. . b A- A- u. ~‘v‘. I .V“‘. '“Y. ‘.._‘ ! ‘BH CHAPTER I THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION Background Information In many higher education institutions today the pressures of teaching, research, and service place strong commitments on the faculty. A faculty member's field of study advances with new technology and new research findings, and he carries the responsibility to keep abreast. "The technological age has touched the educator. He has become less of an ambling, shaggy—dog 'do-gooder' and more of 'an organization man'." (Hardee, 1959, p. 3) The burgeoning enrollments of new students at most colleges and universities have added further pressures to the faculty member's responsibility for teaching and academic advising. There are many "over-reaching consequences for the unusual accelerated growth of a university's undergraduate enrollment." (DeLisle, 1965, p. nu) An institution's demands for research and publishing, and its demands on the faculty for programs and course development for new or expanding graduate programs may have restricted many well-intentioned professors from devoting an appropriate amount of time to undergraduates for academic advising. (Ciardi, 1965) There is also the general belief among the faculty that there does not exist proper evaluation and pro- motion recognition for the effort made in academically counseling undergraduates. (Robertson, 1958) (DeLisle, 1965) ‘ . . :4. . . . .‘n.“. e I"? F chur- V... U e [99.33" :5: I-o.’ n 4:..3: .S 1“ \ - “in. c .l.’ _ 3 Resultantly, the traditional system of academic advising by teaching faculty members suffers when less time is available to academically counsel students. (Robertson, 1958) "No one, you may be sure, ever made a scholarly reputation by sitting around to talk things over with confused undergraduates." (Ciardi, 1965, p. 13) Further, the involved administrative procedures of class registration and a growing number of campus agencies necessary to coordinate the academic curriculum program of any student may try the patience of the most well-informed adviser. Many faculty in DeLisle's study (1965) voiced their dis- satisfactions with having to academically advise students when record keeping becomes burdensome and accurate and complete curriculum infor- mation is unknown to them. In general, the advising programs at such major universities have in common a tenuous, uneven involvement of faculty and a central core of administrative specialists whose advising duties are narrowly conceived. Frequently, many members of the faculty do 'advising', it is true, but usually in a superficial temporary, clerical capacity. (Robertson, 1958, p. 230) Academic advising should not be viewed solely from the position of faculty involvement, or lack of, but also must be viewed from a concern for students and their problems. Universities have admitted this obligation to students: Once a student is admitted, the University accepts certain responsibilities for his guidance and place- ment in order that he may secure the greatest benefit from his university work. (University of Tennessee gkRecord, 1968, p. 22) and the University's significant functions of: perceiving each student as an individual with his own particular capacities, abilities, aspirations, Q" be: I he. n p VIII I) n .vvdc. db - I n luv-p ‘F ".U .h raga: :e: I 49.... ‘ F. o', ' “‘ '0‘. Ce“; u .“E: cw: a. FI‘ ‘F.’ ‘an. V'. “-53.3; '1 I... 4. ‘i‘e s» . u and problems, so that all students may receive the maximum benefits from their study at The University of Tennessee by being offered personal counsel, advice and encouragement. (University of Tennessee Record, 1968, p. 92) Students may need a special orientation to a university, including advice in three major areas: (1) specific information about academic requirements and regulations; (2) advice or counsel about curricula, majors, career opportunities and a discussion of general intellectual matters; and (3) some personal relationship with members of the faculty that will contribute to their sense of belonging and being acknowledged as a person in the academic community. (Academic Senate, University of California, Berkeley, 1966) The accomplishment of these meaningful advising experiences are further complicated by "the admission of individual differences, the varying rates of maturation in youth, and the search on the part of each young person for identity and adjust— ment in these times." (DeLisle, 1965, p. v) Students require sufficient information and encouragement about curricula and related Opportunities to be able to make educational * ),J "KO , Tthy ~‘\,(_ decisions for themselves and to become more self-reliant and responsible regarding their education. (Kirk, 1961) Those students who are not able to receive proper academic advising because their faculty adviser is unavailable or has too many advisees and too little time scheduled to work adequately with his advisees may sometimes grope inadequately for themselves in planning their academic program. The American college curriculum, in even small insti- -) tutions, presents an enormous array of courses, programs, and subjects. College catalogs provide some guidance, especially about graduation requirements, but they rarely give enough information either about the content of specific courses or about the professors who teach them to provide students with a reasonable basis for decision. ) his acaiec. AVIS atte- assis:a:.:e . -‘ sue I ' . ‘7‘ ._. '_ ‘su “‘Eue. ‘ F .‘fi A. :._ 3. ~. e G C e.‘ - . a . FF.,.“ mavlc“ele ‘ v V...‘ ‘ he:h‘c:“~‘ .- as An. ‘- huut‘ ‘SH‘ L‘s - “‘¥' u‘rn. gr": ‘§ 5 Students are thus led by caprice, convenience, or campus reputation to select courses. The result is frequently a poor selection of courses that detour students from reasonable progress toward a degree or completion of program requirements. (Mayhew in Hardee and Maynew, 1970, p. u) - (“in (L;¢h "The aspect of adjustment to college which most immediately affects students' feeling of success or failure is that of academic performance." (Kirk, 1961, p. 11a) The initial academic advising which a student receives as he starts his college career may be of major importance to his academic performance. Advice regarding course selection and academic hours attempted coupled with informal reassurance, comment, and other assistance extended by a faculty member can be very important. The procedures, principles and experience with academic advising in higher education have been the point of much discussion and criticism, and of some critical writing in recent years. Some institutions, recog- nizing the difficulties inherent with the traditional adviser system and realizing the continually increasing pressures on teaching faculty, have sought to alleviate some of the problems through a general restructuring of advising responsibilities. The formation of centralized academic advising centers has been an innovative response in some situations to the problems inherent in tradional academic advising. These advising centers quite often have been formed within academic sub-divisions, i.e. colleges, schools or departments of universities. Little, however, is known of the emergence or the structure and functioning of centralized advising centers. .— "' -_ . . . ‘ \ h .GQ"V 5' .‘-'..‘ e ‘I‘ can a H"' ‘ea. . \. V- O u. ‘e A.“ ‘n-_‘I .3 “.~ ‘. ‘ n ‘ , s ‘1'": T- ‘g. x 6 Focus of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the factors responsible for the emergence of centralized academic advising agencies within certain major universities, and to determine the nature and scope of such agencies' operations. The organization and formal structure of a centralized agency as well as the authority and responsibility that each maintains will be studied. The established policies and procedures used by each advising agency will be studied and this analysis will help to describe how centralized academic advising agencies can be utilized to meet the needs of students, faculty, college or academic sub-divisions, and a university. Procedure The research approach utilized a listing of academic sub-units within major educational institutions which had indicated that they maintained academic advising centers. This list was obtained by means of a survey conducted by this researcher to obtain information for Commission XIV, "Academic Affairs Administrators", of the American College Personnel Association, and in conjunction with this researcher's present responsibilities at the University of Tennessee. The survey for Commission XIV had the purpose of determining the incidence of centralized academic advising agencies in the major educa- tional institutions in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey selected the two largest institutions within each of the El geographical areas on the basis of total full-time student enrollment, and contacted the third largest institution in each area if its student enrollment exceeded 15,000 students. frgxes pt; P313. M or majar acl L‘fimative l ized atadef were event;I au'v'iSiIZg 5}} n adil '35 asked 2 :enter, Th: +"JQ Sb“j beck“ The selection by enrollment was completed by assessment of enrollment figures published within Higher Education, Education Directory 1968-1969, Part 3. An inquiry was mailed to each of 789 deans of a college, school or major academic unit within the selected institutions to obtain an affirmative or negative response regarding the existence of a central- ized academic advising agency. From this survey, 71 academic units were eventually identified as operating with a centralized academic advising system. In addition, each dean or director who responded affirmatively was asked to designate the director or person in charge of the advising center, The individuals identified from this Commission XIV pro-runner study became the sample population contacted for the research of this principal study. An extensive questionnaire dealing with the history, organization, authority and functioning of their center was sent to each person within the sample group to obtain data from which some of the critical elements of the emergence and functioning of advising centers might be determined. By the nature of the data obtained, analysis was limited to frequency counts and summary descriptions. Definition of Terms The following is a definition of terms referred to in this study. Academic unit - This designates an academic unit of a specific academic discipline, such as a college or specialized school or department of one of the major institutions included in the study. Where noted, it may refer to the higher education institution if such an institution has an overall academic advising center. I u ( o o I (3 1h p.. . V‘s. Q...” | 'On...,.. cu)...‘.- . flanlzg ‘V‘ vum.-.-'. .‘ .V' ”A 5-way a. ‘ . .T‘ ‘5’. ' in“.-. P:..6V‘ v. ~5..,_. . :1 'A . F)— ..v Q“ (S A‘ is- x 'V‘ \‘n “V a.‘--‘ s e “‘44,- I‘ ‘.E ‘|“ ‘ ._. ‘ 3'" a. .- Q ~ “ A h __“‘ - s‘. Q o ...e fin ‘ ‘I “‘e ‘S‘; t. . ‘ ~“‘ ‘. ”r. I ." -. ~“.. “"=‘ ~ ~M'5 .‘A . I, ‘ . " § .— \V ‘ )- .‘PA 8 Centralized academic advising center - This is an office or group of offices which function to assist students with questions on academic curriculum or course-work planning. The offices are staffed with professional advisers whose total or major responsibility within the institution is to work in the capacity of academic adviser or academic counselor. This office handles all the academic advising for a certain group or classification of students and all advising is done within the center. Director of advising center — This is the person designated to be supervisor of the personnel and operations of an academic advising center. He may have additional duties as stated in a specific job description or inherent in other responsibilities delegated to him. Student Academic Counselor - This is a professional staff member who works in the capacity of a curriculum adviser or academic program counselor to students within a specified academic advising office. Limitations of the Study Limitations of this study regarding centralized academic advising are imposed by the following: first, a rigid definition of centralized academic advising Utilizing special student academic counselors; second, the sample of institutions which constitutes the study group; and third, the method of obtaining the informaticn for this survey. The reStrictions placed upon the specified form of academic advising, advising done in a centralized program, defines the person who is designated to perform the advising more than it defines the process or procedure of academic advising that takes place. The 1T academic cc} Iajor respc: office as 5. academic a5:I Has centrali performed t: Cf tasks a:.: The se:I selected to Commission 3. .civerShieg fiese iv- cdsti‘ 5121‘, an OPE! lit: ~T ‘5‘58 ceq smey' The lei, t7 quest 9 academic counselor, as specified in the definition, has his total or major responsibilities with the institution in a centralized advising office as distinguished from classroom teaching. Variations on academic advising between students and faculty who are on a released time basis from teaching or research were not considered to qualify under the definition. Additionally, it was defined that the advising was centralized in one office or group of offices wherein advisers. performed their responsibilities, thus permitting some coordination of tasks among those involved. The second limitation of-the study is the sample of institutions selected to be included in the study group. The original survey for Commission XIV was concerned with only the two or three largest universities or colleges in each state based upon their enrollment. The sample for this principal study included all academic units within these institutions that replied affirmatively stating that they had such an operating center. Because of this-procedure only centralized advising centers in large enrollment institutions were included in the survey. The_method used for obtaining the information for thesurvey was. by questionnaire mailed to each director or supervisor who is in charge of an advising center within the sample. The questionnaire used was considered to be quite lengthy. Therefore, to minimize the.time, involved for people to give responses, and in an attempt to personalize the questionnaire since no personal interview procedure was used, an audio tape reel was enclosed with each questionnaire. The respondent was asked to record his comments to the questions on the audio tape. 10 Overview In Chapter II, the pertinent literature is reviewed. Emphasis is placed on (1) a definition of academic advisement, (2) the importance of a study of academic advising, (3) objectives of academic advising, (u) academic advising problems, and (5) centralized student advising. In Chapter III the methodology and procedures concerning the population, and the construction and administration of the instrument are discussed. Chapter IV contains the findings of the research, some in tabular form, and an analysis of the data. In Chapter V, the summary and conclusions of the study are presented. General information concerning academic advising will be discussed in the next chapter before reviewing the available literature on central- ized academic advising programs. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A search revealed that only a small amount of literature was available specifically related to centralized academic advising centers. However, certain studies referring to the general area of academic advising and felt to be pertinent to the background of this research will be reviewed. First, a definition of counseling and the related field of academic advising will be given. Objectives of academic advising for under- graduate students as represented in the literature will be discussed followed by certain problems found in academic advising. Finally, the literature available on centralized advising centers will be reviewed. Definition of Academic AdVising_ In his book, Student Personnel Work in College, C. Gilbert Wrenn (1951) defines that: Counseling in a broad sense includes all those personal contacts with students by individuals who are consciously attempting to understand and assist them by the specific procedures utilized in personal interviewing. Counseling even in a broad sense, however, must be more specific than mere conversations. There must be a felt need on the part of the student, whether expressed or not, and some intent to help on the part of the counselor. (p. 69) Hardee (1970) focuses on the responsibilities of the faculty member in her definition of advising: ll 12 Faculty advising is a tridimensional actiVity, con— sisting of (a) discerning the purposes of the institution in its teaching-learning mission, (b) perceiving the purposes of the student learner, and (c) promoting these possibilities in conference with the student learner. The faculty adviser is here considered to be a coordinator of learning experiences for the students. (p. 9) DeLisle in her 1955 study prOposed a definition of academic advising which represented extended and related discussions of a counseling nature, but did note distinctions of content, purpose, extensiveness of contacts and specialized training of the counselor to be made between faculty ad- vising and psychological counseling.. She concluded: Academic advising, as an educational experience repre- sents both a dynamic, continuing process and a relationship. Thereby, a student and interested capable members of the staff and faculty are engaged in common 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) Importance of a Study of Academic Advisigg The importance and necessity for additional study and concern about academic advising in general and centralized advising programs specifi- cally is pointed up by research and several studies in higher education. Nonnamaker (1959) in his study indicated that the role of the faculty adviser and his responsibilities and functioning is not clearly defined and therefore leads to conflict situations in the functioning of academic advising systems. In a study of traditional advising systems using teaching faculty members, Robertson (1958) found no evidence of purposeful direction in terms of educational soundness in the advising programs he studied. These studies appeared to point up the need for further informa- tion on a definition of the role of an adviser and the educational purposes vof programs of academic advising. V .‘l - \ Is :94 .u~I-; an. v...‘ v 9- I- 'V v;- nun. .5'.~ ‘ I ..A ! n-.,‘~ «4- ....,,e V e...'A ""12: 13 In the recent publication of Hardee's Faculty Advising in Colleges and Universities, 1970, she states: the decision needs to be made, or reiterated, as to what the advisingprogram is. Is it a single- direction activity that begins and ends with schedule making? Is it an information-giving and information-receiving action? -Is it more of records and registration than of values and goal setting? Is it teaching in an individualized setting? What type of interaction is advising? With whom? Where? Under what conditions? With what results? (p. 31) DeLisle (1965) proposes several alternatives to meet the needs of undergraduate students for advising but says each will have to be studied and judged within a context of the current situation in a complex inSti- tution of higher education. The following alternatives merit evaluation for applicability to the solution of the pressing problems, though each will have its advantages and disadvantages. . . . Eventual choices of alternatives will improve the weighing of a number of factors, including the practical ones of time, personnel and finances. 1., 2., 3. Provide an advisory service to be administered through each college for lower division students and special students. (p. 195) And finally, from the study Improving Undergraduate Education at Michigan State University the committee found: That academic advising is not uniformly well provided for in all of the colleges and departments of the University is abundantly clear. In addition to the evidence supplied by recent studies, the Committee has been told time and time again, in open and closed hearings and through a questionnaire sent to members of the faculty, that there are serious deficiencies in our present advising methods. The Michigan State committee stated that upper division junior and senior students should be advised in the departments of their declared .unv- “" . s .. ..., du- zca: 5-..}: 5..-E T.“ V ~- :"g.a ) :Fa -..'\ ir- in“ i 1“,.“ C. A“, .__ fi'? -- u V9 Auvva_-'e -\ N.‘ e v ‘§ Q ‘$ ‘ ':K VA: -. a ‘s D ‘, s .‘ J {—- a complementary system for the first two years would . . . have to be provided, of course. In considering the alternatives open to the University, the Committee is convinced that the most promising model is to be found in the 'college advisement q center' idea now variously employed in a few colleges here and in other universities as well. (p. 107) Properly conceived and staffed by competent academic counselors: the advisement center can play an important role in improving the quality of academic counsel available to undergraduate students. Among the largest higher education institutions there have been no broad studies on the procedures and functioning of centralized advising programs and, other than one unpublished research study, little is known of centralized academic advising programs. Research on the innovative concept of centralized advising centers should help to provide information for academic administrators to study and judge the appropriateness of programs of this nature to their respective academic situations. Objectives of Academic Advising "With rare exception, colleges and universiti s have given little thought to the overall purpose and pattern of advising programs." (Robertson, 1958, p. 234) Though Robertson came to this conclusion in his Study of academic advising, he felt that institutions did hold a common, though narrow, View 0; a principle of adVising: that the adviser should provide authoritative informatior about educational programs so that each student may make accurate decisions by himself. It was his feeling, however, that the nazure of advising should go further. l5 t’ . . e The emphasis in the advising relationship rests not on problem solving by the adviser, but in helping the student to clarify the issues, gain perspective on his difficulty, get the facts straight, and to work out alternative courses of action, but not in handing him ready made answers. §(p. 23H) In approaching the objectives or purposes of academic advising Hardee (1959) and Robertson (1958) stated that consideration must be given to the specific aims of the educational program in the local institution. The special circumstances of the size and quality of the student body, the housing arrangements, and the physical location related to both the geographical and environmental conditions should be considered. There are, however, some generally held objectives for advising programs. Woolf (1953) emphasizes the counseling responsibilities of the academic adviser in his assessment of the objectives of the advising programs. He feels the student should not only receive information concerning the curricula of the school, but the adviser should also further aid the student in comparing his potential with the opportu— nities offered by the institution. He feels the academic adviser should extend to a student individual help in understanding himself, defining his goals, and making progress toward them. The objective of having the students work with faculty members outside of the classroom will accomplish the double benefits of having both the student and the faculty member increase their understanding of each other, according to Woolf. Additionally, he feels conscientious advising will help the student become more self directive and acquaint the faculty and the student with services available to students in the institution. Finally, he feels that the exchanges between the faculty member and the student 15 will facilitate the early identification of a student's problems by an adviser and permit and encourage, if necessary, the referral of the student to a psychological counseling center. DeLisle (1965), in viewing the advising process as an educational experience, feels that academic advising should help the student in: (1) learning more about his abilities, interests and aspirations (2) acquiring accurate information about courses, curriculums, regulations, and procedures with their supporting rationale (3) understanding the nature and goals of undergraduate education, both liberal and professional (u) integrating his educational experiences (5) develOping a long-range program involving both courses and other relevant experiences, in such a way as to reflect unity, coherence and relatedness to life plans; as well as with sensitivity to the modern world and its significant issues (6) exploring the range of possibilities and planning a career (7) identifying and selecting additional resources of the univer- sity which through consultation will help the student in reaching his goals (8) providing him with materials and aids to facilitate the process (p. 170) In a sub-report of her major study, DeLisle (1965) gave the reactions of a sample of some residence hall student personnel workers to academic advising. The majority viewed the purpose of academic advising to be the same as the objectives listed above; however, they expressed moderate support for the additional objectives of helping students grow in under- standing themselves and the various alternatives Open to them consistent with their abilities. Associated with this is the objective of assisting in the student's development of judgement-forming, decision-making and problem-solving abilities. The student personnel workers, while not 17 directly involved with course selection processes, felt that an academic adviser should assist the student with a poor academic record to find the causes for his poor grades and to find possible ways to improve. Hardee (1970) discusses objectives of an advising system in relation to an evaluation of such a program and its advisers. She states the objectives in behavioral terms by having the adviser discuss the program of general or liberal education and assist a student schedule his courses for the academic term. In completing the task oriented responsibilities of advising, she feels the adviser should initiate a program of explora- tion into a curriculum field for the student. Finally, the last objective of an advising program she states is to have the adviser act as a faculty friend. The opportunity for academic advising to serve as a unique educa- tional situation is recognized in the role objectives of the academic adviser. (Berdie, 1949) Academic advising should offer the opportunity for the student to develop a responsible relationship with a respected adult, his academic adviser. Behaviorally, advising should offer the opportunity for a student to recognize his goals and verbalize the processes which resulted in their selection. In reflecting on the objectives of academic advising programs, regardless of the educational program at an institution, DeLisle (1965) states.that academic advising at its highest level should provide a student with a meaningful, enriching, and educational experience. Academic Advising Problems Problems inherent in academic advising may or may not be reflected in an inability to attain the objectives of an advising program. The I l I seen-9n- Ha vvvo' C ‘ I ’I O 9. "ea. i. fin .xeraLLf o .“flnwt- s'hibhs: '. I 'f'u 5" .SerS as Ra" "' u.<"- ‘u Q'F‘v" ",9 ‘ V,» ‘I {’"e “V.“ .g. ‘ 18 objectives of advising may be so limited by its institutional conception that it may not represent the needs of the students. Also, even the most liberally defined objectives cannot satisfy all the concerns expressed by students and faculty. Then too, problems expressed by students or faculty advisers may point up a lack of institutional concern and support for making stated advising objectives attainable.l Included in DeLisle's (1965) study on advising was a review of student academic records. It revealed certain facts which appeared to be related to academic advising. "In a high percentage of cases, glaring inadequacies were revealed which could be attributed to the quality of academic advising received by the student." (p. 68) In the same study, students were asked to express what they felt were the problems they had encountered in academic advising. While some problems pointed to the administration and procedures of the advising system, others reflected directly upon the academic adviser and the action or inaction that he took. \The students specifically noted that the dis- continuity of advisers, being assigned and reassigned, was of major concern, as well as the unavailability of the adviser when the student had a problem to discuss. Students felt that for the most part advisers are dis-interested in working with students and show little interest in students' programsia It was felt advisers should be responsible for knowing current cur- riculum information relevant to the student's major. Students also expressed the problem of few advisers being aware of the resources of the institution and the manner in which resources could aid the student. Many students ‘wanted an adviser who would suggest ways for the student to improve his academic record. I: n- e ffio‘._.l:‘ 5V“.-.“- . . ‘hs § ‘ "-5- the: ‘L n ' e "‘5 c.1225 .- A- ’L U‘ hue n: O fly... “at? w 19 When the students had the opportunity to suggest improvements, they stated a need for more academic advising of a counseling nature. They wanted more help in understanding their own interests, abilities and goals, and in comprehending the goals of undergraduate education. Expla- nation of the rationale for the required courses in their particular major was desired. Because students felt that their advisers could suggest career possibilities in their major area, the students wanted more opportunity to discuss career ideas with an adviser. Hardee (1959) discussed complaints voiced by students which often prevent an honest relationship from developing between a student and an adviser. She states that frequent changes in advisers prohibit any continuity of relationship. In many cases student complaints stated that there was an evident absence of personal interest on the part of the adviser, and similarly, a lack of knowledge regarding the offerings of the university. Students also mentioned that there was a lack of privacy when the adviser is available. Hardee drew additional attention to the importance of having adequate physical facilities for an advising program. The morale of the students and faculty can be greatly affected when rooms are shared and communication becomes restricted. Concern for adequate physical facilities "deserves more consideration than it often receives". (p. 116) r“Students with advising problems seek out a "bootleg" adviser (Donk and Getting, 1968, p. #02) when they do not want to talk to their assigned adviser because they feel he is not interested in them or is too busy to talk} 20 Students and advisers often agree that a lack of time is a chief deterrent to a more effective advising service. (Cameron, 1952) Cameron identified one of the problems in advising as the need for a more effective group of publications on curriculum and advising matters for both students and faculty. Further, she argues that there is the problem of lack of coordination among the advisory programs and the professional services within a univerisity. While students face problems in obtaining adequate advising, they are only one party to the adviser-advises relationship. Faculty, too, face dissatisfactions with current academic advising programs. DeLisle (1965) identified several in her survey from interviewing faculty advisers. They feel that there are often excessive numbers of advisees assigned and that the distribution of advisees is not equitable. With their other commitments of teaching, writing and researching, a faculty member is quite pressed and therefore lacks sufficient time to adequately work with advisees. The respondents in DeLisle's survey represented that there was a lack of challenge in certain advising procedures, a lack of complete personal records for advisees and a lack of clerical assistance to prepare such records. There is a widespread belief among faculty members that effort put into advising is not rewarded to the same extent as teaching and research. (DeLisle, 1965) {Faculty regard advising as an unrewarded intrusion which ‘ may contribute to the faculty member's lack of concern for students.) While advising is regarded generally as a two—party relationship, Hardee (1959) points up that because of problems within an entire educa- tional program of a student, other parties enter into significance at times. __ ,7— _...~_ Tnese are t \ ‘5"... q. eta,“ .er C. a S TJLCQS. - Q w “-ly‘.41 k. A; ‘\. u a nil . no... 4.,- ‘e b c‘ s ‘Q .- ~-.:S :- ‘ 5‘ 21 These are the parents. Expectations of parents concerning a son or daughter are factors not to be overlooked in providing adequate advising services. Centralized Student Advising_ Mayhew (Hardee and Mayhew, 1970) comments: The contemporary college, whether junior, liberal arts, or technical, is a complex institution in which definite organization is necessary if the needs of youth are to be met and if the institution's objectives are to be achieved. . . . There are some problems that perplex the 17 to 21 year old which are relevant to the purposes of collegiate educa- tion and in the solution of which faculty advising can contribute. (p. 1) In her book Hardee (1959) approaches the general area of centralization of advising through a discussion of the coordination of services of an aca- demic advising nature. She answers questions raised on the rationale of unification of information, decision, and action for advising by saying that coordination has the purpose: of utilizing the whole institution for the whole student. Certain relationships are built in order to facilitate this operation. The central design is that pattern invisioned by the institutional planners for accomplishing this wholeness of operation. (p. 151) Hardee states that coordination of advising services has several fur- ther advantages. It should promote and maintain a spirit of unity or one- ness for students and faculty. Bringing together the many services of an institution can better inform the faculty and build understanding between the instructional staff and the professional psychological counselors, she feels. If effective, coordinated advising should decrease or eliminate dupdication of effort among the various offices in the institution. Finally, Hardee states that another advantage is improved communication between indi- ~viduals and groups working together on common tasks for the good of students. 22 The major survey conducted by DeLisle in 1965 included an evaluation of the centralized advising centers on the Michigan State University cam- pus. The following generalizations were made by DeLisle regarding the experimental aspects of this innovation in academic advising coordination. Faculty and students favorably view centralized advising as an effort to alleviate problems generally associated with academic advising. She felt none of the several systems of centralized advising studied were developed from a primary concern and recognition for the needs of students. Other pressures and concerns operating within the respective college or insti- tution were primarily responsible for the initial establishment of central- ized agencies to coordinate or perform the academic advising,for students. She concluded from the evaluation results that within these systems of centralized advising the magnitude of effort needed to achieve the proper objectives for academic advising has not been realized. More support will be necessary she felt. The Colleges or academic areas have made an invest- ment of personnel, time and Operational support, but an attitude of respect toward the advising task should be more strongly fostered and supported within these same units. DeLisle stated that the chief virtue of a central- ized advising and enrolling office was that it provided a student with an academic counselor who is competent in his field and whose advising task is clearly recognized by a university. This counselor can provide a real measure of continuity within the educational development of the student. The only reference on academic advising found by this researcher which included a study on the operation of centralized advising centers was an unpublished study by Frazee in 1967. Her extensive study included all forms of academic advising from the traditional concept utilizing teaching faculty to centralized academic advising administered by full-time professional 23 academic counselors. The study was principally conducted among insti- tutions with full-time enrollments ranging from 3,000 to 7,000 students, with some institutions included that had up to 12,000 students because of their unique organization of an advising program. The various forms of centralized academic advising studied ranged from freshmen programs, in some cases carrying responsibility for freshmen orientation, and university college academic units administering the advis- ing program, to other centralized university-wide programs where a four-year advising program is organized and promoted through one office. In its most refined state, Frazee found centralized advising performed entirely by full-time professional academic counselors in a program that emphasized "continuity, reliability and efficiency" (p. 164) in completing combined curricular-registration advising functions. The movement toward a centralized academic advising pro- gram structure for freshmen is perhaps the single most important major trend in academic advising as modifications are made from traditional, decentralized departmental advis- ing programs. (Frazee, 1967, p. 92) The philosophy of centralized advising agencies, Frazee states, empha- sizes the personalization of education with the advising process being considered a cooperative effort between a student and his academic counselor. Because the student is expected to assume some re8ponsibility for planning his own program the advising relationship and process supports the continued educational development of the student. The main advantages which Frazee concludes may be found in programs of centralized academic advising are the following: (1) specialized advis- ing is possible for freshmen or other students during periods of adjustment, (2) flexibility may be afforded the student who desires to postpone the selection of a major field of study, (3) continuity, as well as accuracy ___l-—__»4—-—‘ ! F Aile- 1 ie~ Shane; e a .n u , A. F ‘ye ~ V“ ‘nne-‘ - P I ~ :3! 17.8 3'. e lie I I «133% r. . n U {M‘ ”Our '"fivnoe “‘V'r -. (A ~e..€“. \ . A... -~=~S are .. ~ .‘Fn --vua- Pre ‘ u- 's.\"“— ~ O ”V e . Q‘- ‘~ ‘ F-“ 5 ~ “~. ‘2‘ ~ K 3*:s a “ c g‘ \ h,“ -‘ ~2»- 2‘ ‘V~ _ “A“ A ‘_ \r ‘ :-‘ ‘\"" ‘ : ‘C x ‘C 2n and reliability of information is available in advising relationship, (u) needs for advising may be distributed over a period of time, (5) personnel who act as academic counselors may be carefully selected based on their interests in advising and students, (6) specific recognition for the advising function is given, (7) areas of specialization in advising roles are possible, (8) definite organization of tasks and structure is possible under the coordination of a director, with con— current (or inherent) benefits arising from same, (9) balanced advising loads are obtainable, (10) teaching faculty have more time for instruc— tional preparation and assisting students with problems related to course work, (11) vested interests of faculty in specialized areas are removed, and (12) a centralized advising structure is adaptable to expansion. The major disadvantages or problems of centralized programs of academic advising cited by Frazee are that (l) the programs are expensive to Operate because a new administrative unit must be created and staffed with Special personnel, (2) ratios of academic counselors to students are often difficult to maintain at desirable levels; the staff may become overburdened with student demands for services within their available time, (3) communication with various other college and university agencies may be difficult to main- tain, (u) departmental resources, the teaching faculty, may be ignored within a centralized advising program. Also, (5) teaching faculty may not become adequately aware of student needs and coursework scheduling problems and therefore may not move to correct them, and (6) the monotony and vol- ume of advising may become problems for the full-time academic counselor. This may affect the morale of the professional counselor. Frazee does not give an over-all recommendation or conclusion for a program of centralized advising. She evaluates the entire range of academic advising programs and comes up with recommendations for an advising program .- .1 ‘i H; ”- 25 designed for a specific eastern college. Summary In this chapter, the definitions of academic advising represented it as an educational relationship between a faculty or academic counselor and student so that the student might be aided or guided in his educa- tional and personal development. Many advising systems, however, have not achieved these educational benefits for students and have failed to evidence any purposeful educational direction (Robertson, 1958). Certain studies (Robertson, 1958) (DeLisle, 1965) (Committee on Undergraduate Education, Michigan State University, 1967) have pointed up a need to study and improve academic advising systems. Some have specifically recommended the development of "centralized advisement centers". Various objectives for academic advising systems were discussed in Chapter II, as were some of the problems revealed by recent studies on advising (Frazee, 1967). Primary among these problems appeared to be (1) lack of continuity of assignment to advisers, (2) the non-availability of an adviser when needed, (3) disinterest indicated by an adviser's attitude, and (4) lack of information or knowledge of academic programs and regulations by the adviser. Research on centralized advising programs has been limited. DeLisle (1965) studied the results of the functioning programs at Michigan State University; she did not feel that the centralized programs were developed from any primary concern for the needs of students, but did feel that both faculty and students viewed favorably the efforts in this type of 26 program. She stated the chief virtue of a centralized advising program as providing a student with an adviser competent in his field and whose advising task was clearly recognized by a university. Frazee (1967) conducted the only major research found which studied the operation of centralized advising centers. She investigated several centralized programs, one responsible for an entire university under- graduate enrollment, which emphasized "continuity, reliability, and efficiency". Frazee stated that the movement toward centralized academic advising programs for freshmen was the single most important trend in academic advising. In Chapter III, the design of this study and a description of the procedures used in conducting the study will be presented. a! 'v 5.. I- l -: \ i CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Design of the Study The purpose‘of this study is to determine the factors responsible for the emergence of centralized academic advising agencies within certain major universities, and to determine the nature and sc0pe of such agencies' operations. The Population The population identified for this survey was the directors of centralized advising centers of academic sub-units within major higher education institutions. The population was determined by an earlier survey conducted for Commission XIV of the American College Personnel Association by this researcher. See Appendix A for copy of s;rvey letter. Commission XIV Study, In this earlier survey, which will be referred to as the pro-runner survey, the two largest institutions based on total student enrollment in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia were contacted with an inquiry to each dean of a college, school, or major academic unit within these selected institutions. The third largest institution by size of student enrollment, figured by full and part-time graduate and undergraduate students, was selected if its enrollment exceeded 15,000 27 28 students. This figure was arbitrarily chosen as representing a large institution with a wide diversity of academic majors. After the enrollment figure was established, final selection was made by an assessment of enrollment figures published in Higher Education, Education Directory 1968—69, Part 3. Enrollment figures within this publication are based on the total number of full and part-time, graduate and undergraduate students at each institution. A total of 789 inquiries was mailed in the pro-runner survey to obtain an affirmative or negative response regarding the existence of a centralized academic advising agency within each respective academic sub-unit. A total of 583 replies was received, with 567 returning the completed survey form and an additional 16 responding by letter. This initial survey and responses received are summarized by state and insti- tution in Appendix B. A total'of 73.9 pervcent returned the survey. Within the pro-runner survey, each dean or director who responded affirmatively that his respective academic unit had a centralized advising center was asked to designate the name of the director or person in charge of the advising center. A total of 201 affirmative responses was received. Short comments explaining the advising system often accompanied a dean's~ affirmative reply of having a centralized advising system within the respective academic unit. In many cases, the comments indicated that there was a miSvinterpretation of the definition of what constituted a centralized advising center. Therefore, in order to more accurately determine the incidence of advising centers, a survey letter was sent to each designated director. The second survey letter of the pro-runner survey stated the intended definition of an advising center: "This office :a In I e! In N ., n q 4 ( handles all the academic advising for a certain group or classification of students and all advising is done within the center. No further assignment of students is made to a teaching faculty member who acts as an adviser." A c0py of the letter and the enclosed reply post card can be seen in Appendix C. 0f the 201 letters sent to individual directors in the pro-runner survey, 17a responses (87 per cent) were returned. Non-respondents were sent a duplicate letter after 30 days. Three additional responses resulted, increasing the total number of returns to 177. From the total of 177 responses of the Commission XIV pro-runner study, 79 directors (“5 per cent) stated affirmatively that their academic sub-unit had a centralized academic advising center. The individuals identified in this manner became the sample popula- tion contacted for the research of this paper's principal study. Construction of the Instrument for the Principal Survey and Study Content for items for the principal survey instrument was obtained through use of four sources: (1) personal experience of the researcher, gained from the development and coordination of an academic advising program, (2) discussions and intervieWs regarding academic advising with faculty members, counselors, administrators and students, (3) professional papers and panel discussions of academic counselors at professional meetings and conventions, and (4) a survey of the literature on academic advising. From the experience gained in the development and coordination of a Program of centralized academic advising for the College of Business 30 Administration, University of Tennessee, it was possible to identify and gather general questions regarding elements of academic advising and centralized advising work. The ideas and advising concepts judged to be generally applicable and appropriate to the study were included within the survey, which was then refined and pretested for clarity and utility. 'A series of interviews with more than 30 administrators, faculty members, and psychological counselors and numerous students were held on the campus of the University of Tennessee. Out of these interviews, additional item content was identified. During the period of time the survey instrument for this principal study was being considered and developed, the researcher took advantage of several opportunities to attend regional and national conferences. Work with Commission XIV of American College Personnel Association, organizationally referred to as Academic Affairs Administrators, pro- vided assistance in reviewing concepts and proposed practices for centralized advising systems. Papers and panel presentations at these professional conferences proved helpful in identifying additional item content for use in the survey. Invaluable suggestions were obtained from personal contacts with the academic counselors and administrators attend- ing these conferences. Some of these people and their respective institutions: Dr. Melvene D. Hardee, Florida State University; Dr. Raymond Williams, University of Illinois, Urbana; Dr. John N. Winburne, Michigan State University; Dr. Arvo Juola, Michigan State University; Dr. Lewis Magill, Washington State University. Such contacts provided useful inputs regarding systems of academic advising at other academic institutions and enabled the inclusion of items in critical areas of concern within the survey. ‘1 '. §\v \p. 31 Over 100 items were originally identified for consideration for the survey instrument. These items were submitted to four people in the fields of educational psychology, organizational psychology and college student personnel work for their comments and revisions. Utilizing the suggestions made, similarities between items were iden- tified and eliminated, and 62 items were selected. The questions required mixed types of responses such as yes, no, short answer and checklist. Many questions were open ended and permitted the respondent to select the manner and length of reply that best suited him, and which was useful in describing that centralized advising center. Many questions had two or three parts and others as many as 12 different items on a checklist. Five basic areas of development for the instrument were identified and selected after discussions with a professor of organizational psy- chology and personnel management at the University of Tennessee, Dr. John M. Larsen, Jr. They were the following: (1) the beginning or history of advising centers at the respective institutions; (2) the present organization structure; (3) breadth and limits of authority and respon- sibility; (u) details of procedures and functions; and (5) special or miscellaneous topics not otherwise classified. The instrument consiSted of 62 questions separated into the five sections. The final draft of the questionnaire was submitted to two people, one in educational psychology and one in college student personnel work at the University of Tennessee, for them to suggest areas for clari- fication and sequential arrangement of items. After a review of their suggestions, the instrument was developed into its final form. A copy 5m en..' Q V .I‘ q to \J of this questionnaire may be found in Appendix IL Administration of the Instrument The instrument for this principal study was sent to the 79 directors of centralized academic advising centers identified by means of the Com- mission XIV pro—runner study. A letter accompanied each questionnaire for this prinicpal survey. A copy is included in Appendix E. In addition to the letter and survey instrument, each recipient received a seven (7) inch audio recording tape reel and blank tape. It was suggested that if the director or respondent did not care to write his answer to the questions that might require a long response, he could use the recording tape to reply. The instrument was mailed the second week of December, 1969 with a letter of communication dated December 12. Respondents were asked to return the completed instrument and recording tape by January 7, 1970. Results of Responses Of the 79 directors who received the questionnaire for the principal study, 65 responses.were received back. Of this number 51 directors returned completed instruments. A total of 18 respondents (35 per cent) within this group of 51 used the recording tape for all or part of their reply, with an additional two people sending their responses on dictation equipment recording materials. 0f the 1“ people who responded, but who did not return a completed instrument, eight now stated that their program did not qualify under the definition of a centralized advising system and that the questionnaire 33 was not appropriate to their advising program; one director sent materials used in advising but not a completed questionnaire. The dean of another college wrote that their advising director had suddenly died and at that time no one else was available to complete the questionnaire. Four directors responded that they chose not to participate in the survey or supply the necessary information. No reSponse was received from lu centralized advising centers. A follow-up letter containing another copy of the questionnaire was sent on February 15, 1970. No additional responses were obtained. Survey results and findings were therefore based on the reSponses of the 51 directors who returned completed questionnaires. This represents a 72 per cent completion ratio among the 71 identified centralized academic advising programs. Compiling the various reSponses on work sheets began as the completed survey instruments were returned. Summary The purpose of the study was presented in this chapter. It is to determine the-factors responsible for the emergence of centralized aca- demic advising agencies within major universities, and to determine the nature and scope of such agencies operations. The population for this principle study was determined from a pro-runner survey for Commission XIV of the American Personnel Association. The construction of the instrument for the principle study and the administration of the instrument were discussed in this chapter. Results from the survey were 51 completed questionnaires from directors of 34 centralized academic advising agencies. The findings from these responses are analyzed and reported in Chapter IV. .- ‘h be: I.'n’ “a CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Introduction This chapter consists of the presentation and analysis of the data gathered from the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was mailed to a pOpulation of directors of academic advising centers to assess the factors responsible for the emergence and functioning of centralized academic advising centers. Completed questionnaires and responses were received from-51 direCtorS'and served as the basis for the findings of this research. The Emergence and Background Categories of Academingnits The centralized student academic advising centers which participated in the survey represented a wide range of academic disciplines within colleges and schools of higher education institutions. The highest fre- quency of any one type of college is found in the field of education, where a total of 10 colleges or schools were included in the survey. This represented 20 per cent of the total replies to the survey. The field of business was represented by nine responses or approximately 18 per cent. Liberal Arts, a broad category including the general humanities, arts and sciences, was represented by eight replies or approximately 16 per cent. 35 36 The next largest group where centralized advising centers were found was in a "university college" or "general college" category. Generally these colleges consist of the enrollment of the freshmen and sophomore students within the institution. There was a total of seven or 19 per cent of the study in this "university college" category. One advising center had the reSponsibility for an entire institution with a four year program, and an additional two centers were found in junior or community colleges which had the responsibility for advising students in all two-year programs. Other types of academic units represented within the survey were the following: nursing - three advising centers or 6 per cent of the total replies; engineering - two, a per cent; social work - two, u per cent; fine arts - music - two, 4 per cent; home economics - two, 4 per cent; pharmacy - one, 2 per cent; physical education and health - one, 2 per cent; public communications - one, 2 per cent; and architecture - one, 2 per cent. One rather unique hybrid was found in the survey. Sophomores within a college of liberal arts who were planning on transferring into the college of education at the university were advised in their pre-professional program of education by academic counselors in an advising center in the college of education. Many of the colleges represented a wide range of majors within their respective fields - 38 per cent of the advising centers had more than 10 majors in which they advised students. The highest frequency for the number of majors, however, was found in those academic units that advised for only one to five majors in their resPective college. Nineteen or approximately H1 per cent of the advising centers fell into this category. 37 The remaining centers, 22 per cent, had a range of from six through 10 majors in which they advised. A summary of this information may be found in Table u.1. TABLE 9.1 CATEGORIES OF ACADEMIC UNITS W ' Frequency of Academic Units Responses Per Cent Education 10 20 Business 9 18 Liberal Arts 8 16 University College 7 14 University-Wide 1 2 Junior College 2 u Nursing 3 ' 6 Engineering 2 4 Social Work 2 u Fine Arts, Music 2 n Home Economics 2 a Pharmacy 1 2 Physical Education, Health 1 2 Public Communications 1 2 Architecture 1 2 38 Name of Advising Center In all cases, with one exception, the student advising center was given a name within its academic unit. The nomenclature used either indicated the services offered to students or it represented the office from which the advising center functioned. The largest number of centers were found to carry the word "advising" or "advisement office" in their title. FOPIYffOUP per cent of the centers had such names as Office of Curricular Advising, Academic Advisement Office or Academic Advisers Office; 18 per cent of the offices carried the title of Counseling Office or Academic Counseling Office. The same percentage (18 per cent) of advising centers were located in the dean's office or associate or the assistant dean's office of the college or academic unit, and carried such titles as Office of Student Affairs, or simply Dean's Office. Several of the centers involved the concept of student services in their name and were noted as Student Personnel Services Office or Undergraduate Office of Student Services. This group represented 1n per cent of the centers. The remaining four advising centers or 8 per cent had titles specifically stating that they were the Student Affairs Office. Xgar Established The earliest reported student academic advising office was estab- lished in about the year 1900, in‘a college of engineering. Only two additionalscentralized offices were.establishedlprior'to'thexend of World War II. The vast majority of centralized advising centers, no or 81 per cent, were all formed during the period of 1959-1969. The remaining 12 per cent of the advising centers were established during the period of 1948-1956. 39 Over half of the 51 advising centers were established during the years of 1965 through 1968, with the year of 1968 having the highest incidence of new centers being formed, eight or 16 per cent of the total advising centers in the survey. Enrollment Growth Enrollment growth of students within the respective colleges was surveyed for the period of 196” through 1969. During this time some colleges and academic units had grown tremendously. In certain colleges where freshmen and sophomores were no longer included in the academic unit, data regarding the drop in enrollment of that unit was disregarded. Calculations were made on the enrollment growth from the period of 1964 through the fall of 1969. The largest enrollment growth for a single academic unit surveyed was over 6100 students. Several colleges or aca- demic units had growths of over 2000 to 2500 students. The largest per- centage of increase in enrollment was 330 per cent, with another unit having growth of over 300 per cent. Considering all academic units in the survey, only two schools were found to have decreases in enrollment during the period of time from 196a through the fall of 1969. One was a college of business and the other a school of nursing. No information was given that these decreases were caused by reorganization among the classification of students served. In the remaining academic units approximately 23 per cent had enrollment increases in the l - 25 per cent range, and 27 per cent of the academic units fell into the 26 - 50 per cent increase category. An additional 21 per cent of the units with centralized advising programs had between 51 and 75 per cent increase. Therefore, 73 per cent of those units surveyed had increases up to 75 per cent in their enrollment. Within 40 the remaining ranges of enrollment increase 7 per cent of the units had increases from 76 through 100 per cent, 5 per cent had increases from 100 through 125 per cent, 2 per cent had increases from 126 through 150 per.cent, 2 per cent from 151 through 175 per cent, 5 per cent had increases from 176 through 200 per cent and finally, 5 per cent had increases above 200 per cent. Therefore, within the colleges and academic units surveyed approximately 19 per cent had enrollment in- creases of more than 100 per cent during the period studied. A summary of this information may be found in Table u.2.' TABLE 4.2 ENROLLMENT GROWTH 1969-1969 m Frequency of Enrollment Growth Response Per Cent 1 - 25 per cent 11 25 26 - 50 per cent 12 27 51 — 75 per cent 9 21 76 - 100 per cent 3 7 100 - 125 per cent 2 5 126 - 150 per cent 1 2 151 - 175 per cent 1 2 176 - 200 per cent 2 5 above 200 per cent 2 5 '41 Circumstances of Establishment: The directors of the advising centers were asked to briefly discuss some of the circumstances under which their respective advising centers were established. The statements generally represented concern regarding problems in the former advising program or within their specific academic- units. However, the problems were of a general nature regarding the needs for advising and for establishing this new type of student services pro- gram. A comment occuring frequently from the directors was that the centra- lized advising approach was required because of the enrollment increase of the students within the academic unit. Many times this was associated with the demands that the enrollment increase had placed on the teaching faculty. Also, several commented that professional interpretation of university rules was required to assist the student in their academic- programming and also to aid the students in meeting the graduation requirements for the respective academic unit and institution. In some instances academic advising centers were established after the college or academic unit had-surveyed their undergraduate student body and student dissatisfaction was indicated with the existing academic. advising program in that college. Centralized student advising centers were also established when the faculty recognized that many students had no place to go for help on academic questions because many faculty knew only their own respective area and could not properly assist the Students with questions over the broad curricula area. Several responses indicated that the dean of the college originated the idea and moved to establish a centralized advising center. In two H2 cases, new deans formed advising centers very shortly after assuming their administrative positions. Some responses from the student advising directors pointed out that the centralized program was established to free the faculty of this responsibility so they could teach full-time or devote more time to other responsibilities. One director stated that the centralized advising program had been started when a new graduate program was devel- oped within the academic unit. Generally the responses indicated concern for the student, his academic problems outside the classroom and the availability of infor- mation for the students on academic and curricula questions. However, the majority of the responses from the directors did indicate that the basic need for the establishment of their centralized advising program- came from an acknowledgement and concern of faculty problems or academic~ problems not directly related to the undergraduates or undergraduate academic programs. One director indicated that the academic unit-estab- lished the centralized academic advising program in order to meet the standards required-by a professional organization. Bagkggound of Academic Units The directors were asked to briefly discuss or characterize their academic unit within the university. Generally, they reSponded by stating that their academic unit was a certain fractional percentage of the total university enrollment. In the case of three advising centers surveyed that served the entire institution, the responsibilrc ities of the centers include the enrollment of the entire student body. The largest of these had an enrollment somewhat in excess of 16,000 as students and served all the curriculums within the institution. The other advising centers were found in community colleges. Other advising centers had the re8ponsibility to advise all "undecided" or "no prefer- ence" students within the entire university. Certain colleges or schools indicated that their advising center was part of an overall academic program for the professional develOpment of their students. In most cases this was found in colleges or schools of home economics, engineering, pharmacy, or social work. In the case of one advising center found within a university college which was reaponsible for the freshmen and sophomore enrollment, half of the enrollment of the entire institution was advised in their central- ized program. During the two year period of time a student used the services of the advising center, he was not required to declare any academic major but was encouraged to seek out courses of study from which he could select a major. A junior college responded that its "open door policy" with no selective admissions brought about a heterogeneous student body resulting in a wide diversity of study program and individual student academic problems. In another specific college which had the responsibility within the institution for the vast majority of students on a provisional registration status approximately 10 per cent of the entire university enrollment was advised through their center. The advising center had the responsibility of working with these students in sophomore, junior and senior academic classifications. Freshmen students were also seen who could not find their regular academic adviser to answer specific questions regarding their registration and academic program. an Two of the academic advising centers mentioned that a large per- centage of their academic advising, and in one case their total respon- sibility for advising, rested with students who were not as yet enrolled in that own specific college or academic unit. All students were directed to use their advising center who intended to major in one of the several curriculums of that academic unit. In both cases the college or school was for upper division junior and senior students. Aims and Objectives The directors were queried whether the aims and objectives of the academic advising program and advising center had ever been specified or formally written. Thirty-one, or approximately 63 per cent, of the directors of the advising centers responded that no formal statement of aims and objectives had ever been established. Eighteen, or 37 per cent, of the centers in some way stated the aims and objectives of their ad- vising program as served through a centralized advising office. In the largest number of advising centers with stated aims*and objectives, the director of the advising center had prepared and coordinated the final statement. In six of the formal statements, the academic dean of the college or school was the main person instrumental in having the aims and objectives formally written. In an additional three cases, it was a group of the administration of the academic unit which specified the aims and objectives for the centralized program. In one situation due to the administrative reporting structure, the aims and objectives were established by the main student affairs office on the campus. '45 In only one response it was stated that the director and his entire staff of academic advisers were responsible for preparing the formal statements. None of the responses indicated that students had in any meaningful way been involved in the preparation of the advising center's aims and objectives, nor did they state that the academic faculty had to any great extent been involved in the formalization and preparation of the advising objectives. History of Advising Center The directors responded with information regarding the growth and development of the centralized program within their specific units. Some of the more unique and unusual situations were the following: the advisers within one center had received an excellent reception from the students, who fully endorsed the program. These students felt such appreciation for the services offered that they often brought in friends from other academic colleges or schools for advising assistance. Many of the centralized centers have grown in recognition within their own academic units as evidenced by new administrative or assistant deans being assigned to further develop the program. In some cases the academic counselors now carry the total advising load for certain majors within the college, even though the center was originally established as a clearing house for academic questions and records. Several of the centers have been acknowledged within their respec- tive academic units as being extremely successful in enforcing admissions standards and academic regulations while at the same time giving better overall guidance for the undergraduates included in their programs. L+6 Many advising centers were immediately successful when established and have now been physically expanded. One now ineludes three branch cen- ters in residence halls under the responsibility of one assistant dean. This decentralized approach towards a centralized advising program has also been followed in another academic unit which now has a separate office within each of its various academic departments. Generally the responses indicated that as their programs and enroll- ments grew additional authority was given to the director and his academic counselors in working with the academic program and problems. This, the directors reported, indicated greater confidence in the centralized ad- vising program both on the part of the faculty and by students. Organization and Structure Advising Center Staff Size The size of the staff within the advising center was found to vary widely according to the enrollment of the academic unit and the student group served by the center. The directors represented the staff size of their respective advising centers by stating the number of personnel in each of several categories of equivalent full time academic counselors; they were: full time, half time, and other personnel serving as academic counselors in the center. A total of 15 advising centers had the equivalent staff size of two or less full time academic counselors. This represented 30 per cent of “the centers within the survey. Eighteen or approximately 36 per cent of 1the directors responded that they had the equivalent of three to five Eacademic-counselors and an additional 24 per cent, 12, stated that they ‘47 were in the range of six through 10 equivalent full time counselors. Only six academic advising centers had staffs in excess of 11 equivalent full time personnel. In categorizing each advising center on the basis of full or half time personnel approximately an per cent, or 22 centers, had only full time academic counselors working on their professional staff. Within this group only three advising centers were found to have one full time acting director/academic counselor. Five advising centers or approximately 10 per cent had professional staffs where only half time personnel were employed as academic counselors other than the administrator of the center himself. The remaining centers within the survey were found to have a combination of full and half time personnel. This group was 42 per cent, 21 centers, within the survey. Several of the advising centers utilized people on a unique basis to serve in the advising center. One advising center used three under- graduate seniors as academic counselors. Another large advising center utilized seven full time secretaries in certain areas of advising to assist the students with their problems. This allowed the professional academic counselors to handle the more involved problems as well as the curriculum planning for the students. One advising center used a person as an assistant recorder who had the responsibility of working with the academic requirements and course records of the students within the academic unit. This person was on full time civil service status. Many of.the directors.fe1t that clerical assistance enabled the £>rofessional academic counselors to give full attention to the problems and academic programs of students. Nineteen or approximately 39 per cent 148 of the advising centers had less than two equivalent full time clerical personnel in their office. Twenty advising centers, or approximately #2 per cent, fell in the category of two to four full time equivalent clerical personnel. Finally, nine advising centers or 18 per cent, had full time-equivalent clerical staffs of five or more people. Several of the centers utilized the assistance of associate deans or the dean within their respective academic unit. Certain department chairmen and other faculty members who had a unique background or spe- ciality not held by regular academic counselors occasionally assisted students with their advising problems. These additional personnel added to the scope and services that could be offered by many centralized advising centers. Advising Center Hours The general availability of academic counselors to work with students was represented by the number of hours the advising center was Open. It was represented that five advising centers for a total of 10 per cent had less than #0 hours a week when they were open. The majority of the centers in the survey, 28, had a 40 hour week when the office was open and academic counselors were available to see students. Those centers falling in this no hour a week category account for 56 per cent of the advising centers represented in this survey. Thirty-four per cent, 17 centers, had work weeks of more than 40 hours when some adviser was available to discuss problems with students. It was found in the survey results that 10 advising centers had luours over the normal lunch period when students could come in and either see an academic adviser or make an appointment. Each director was asked ‘49 if his advising center kept evening hours scheduled; one center was open until 7 p.m. two nights per week. Most centers which occasionally kept extended hours were open in the evenings during the registration period at the start of the terms. This group constituted 12 per cent of the centers included in the survey. The greatest number of those advising centers which kept extended hours, more than no a week, were found to be open on Saturday mornings. Some assistance by staff members was available at this time for students who could not otherwise see their adviser during the center's regular hours. Several more directors made the comments that office hours were kept on Saturday mornings by appointment only. Over 30 per cent of the directors responded that there was special times when, by appointment, groups or parents of students often came to the advising center and had the opportunity to talk to an academic counselor about a specific problem. Physical Location and Arrangement The directors in describing the physical arrangement of their re- spective advising centers generally discussed the space allocated for the advising conferences with students, the reception area, and the area in the office for the administrative and clerical work. Of the total of the 51 respondents in the survey, 11 advising center directors stated that they had good physical facilities for their centralized advising programs. Their academic counselors had private offices in several different types of arrangements. The cluster type of arrangement was mentioned where advisers would have an office directly off the reception area.for students. This was stated to lend informality to the office 50 and advising procedures. Other offices had the academic counselors' areas behind the administrative area. This helped to control the flow of students into the academic counselors' offices. Several of the directors, in commenting on the physical arrangement of their office stated that it was not totally satisfactory and often presented problems in the prOper functioning of the advising program. The main problems mentioned by these advisers concern these aspects: location of the advising center, space allocated for the staff, privacy for conferences, shared offices, and inadequate reception areas. Nearly all the directors who felt that their physical office ar- rangement was notrfully satisfactory, represented that lack of adequate space was a critical factor. This, of course, would be evident with offices shared by two academic counselors or in situations where a counselor, having no private office, would work with the student at an open desk to one side of the general reception area. There were some centers which had academic counseldrs in offices immediately off a main corridor. With no reception area immediately available, the students would walk directly into the counselor's office. Often times this would cause confusion and interruptions in the flow of his work. Many reception or waiting areas for students were reported inade- quate during normal times and during the peak times of registration, posed great problems for adequately taking care of the flow of students. One director further stated that the physical facilities of the advising office were inadequately furnished for working with students. Hie wait- ing office had only six chairs for working with a total of 600 students. 51 Some additional aspects.noted of satisfactory physical arrangements were the-availability of areas for a vocational library which students could use. Materials regarding various occupations, other colleges and universities, and other appropriate reading materials were available for the students to browse through. Some offices-were decorated according to the students' taste and it was felt that this greatly contributed to the informality and pleasant atmosphere enjoyed by students. An inter— esting comment by one adviser stated that the advising center was located in a friendly and homey house located on the campus and surrounded by the new tall campus buildings. The director felt that the students appre- ciated this contrast and associated with it the helpful nature of the advising program. In summary, most directors felt that the physical arrangement and location of the office had a definite impact upon the acceptability or limitations of their advising program and was not a minor element of concern in establishing a centralized advising program to serve the needs of the students. Grogp of Students Served The centralized academic advising programs on each respective campus served varying groups or classifications of students which also determined the number of students advised within their main program responsibilities. When asked to characterize the group of students served by the advising center, three directors responded that their centers worked only with freshmen students in the academic unit. A total of 16 or approximately 32 per cent of the centers had the responsibility of advising the lower 52 division students, freshmen and sophomores, in their college or school. Many mentioned exceptions to this classification by responding their academic counselors worked with some juniors and seniors or students who were principally advised within major departments. Many academic counselors possessed the flexibility of serving a broad range of students outside their main advising responsibility. In some colleges or universities the sophomore, junior and senior classification students were served through the centralized advising center. This group constituted a total of 6 per cent of the survey. Nine or a total of 18 per cent of the advising centers worked with junior and senior students, and in some cases graduate students of that respec- tive academic unit. Of these nine advising centers, five were located on campuses where a separate university college or lower division cen- tralized advising center had the responsibility of working with students through the freshmen and sophomore academic years. These five centers were then established to work with the upper division students of their respective college or academic unit. The largest category of academic advising centers were those that had an advising program covering the four years of undergraduate work in one academic unit. Within one certain professional program this covered a period of five rather than four years. A total of 20 or no per cent of the advising centers carried broad responsibilities for all undergraduate students within their majors. The centralized advising program within some academic units had unique responsibilities for only certain majors. Some of these unique situations were: one unit handled mainly the undecided and academically 53 deficient students and those that had poor departmental advising; one college of engineering had responsibility covering all four years of undergraduate work except the sophomore through senior students in agricultural engineering and civil engineering as well as those students who qualified for the honors college within the major institution. Several advising centers which had reSponsibilities for lower division advising did permit students in the upper division, on a voluntary basis to use the centralized_program office; two of the colleges or schools of business administration had the primary responsibility of advising the junior and senior students within their college; how- ever, both permitted the pre-business students to come to the advising center to be guided in preparing for the upper division academic work. An advising center in a large state university permitted all students interested in any coursework in their academic unit to utilize the services of the center even though it was principally established to serve the junior and senior students within one specific major. One college of nursing opened its advising center to any high school senior or junior college student interested in preparing for a program within that profession. One university college which had the reaponsibility of advising the freshmen and sophomore lower