1

Excellence in Academic Advising Report

University of Southern Maine

August 2019

2

During the 2018-2019 Academic Year, USM participated in an institution-wide advising assessment process, as part of a national project on advising assessment and improvement. This national project is called Excellence in Academic Advising. The goal of Excellence in Academic Advising is to create positive change in the student academic advising experience in order to enhance student learning, success, and degree completion. This document provides a summary of the assessment process itself, the recommendations it yielded, and possible next steps for implementation and action.

Excellence in Academic Advising

NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising and the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education created a partnership that guides institutions through a comprehensive, standards-based assessment process of decision-making, planning, and implementation that promotes excellence in academic advising. In the spring of 2018 the University of Southern Maine was chosen to be one of twelve charter institutions for the Inaugural Excellence in Academic Advising Cohort (Appendix A).

The Excellence in Academic Advising (EAA) process is focused upon holistically examining academic

advising through a lens of teaching and learning, evidence-based decision-making, and action planning.

The first step in the process was to build a community of institutional partners who volunteered to

participate in the year-long review. The USM EAA community consists of 56 faculty, staff, and students.

Faculty participants come from all four colleges, and staff represent Academic Affairs, Enrollment

Management, and Student Affairs (Appendix B). Participants were divided into nine committees, each

focused on a specific Condition of Excellence:

1. Collaboration and Communication

2. Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity

3. Improvement and Scholarship

4. Institutional Commitment

5. Learning

6. Organization

7. Advisor Selection and Development

8. Student Purpose and Pathways

9. Technology Enabled Advising.

The Process

USM launched Excellence in Academic Advising on December 20, 2018 with a meeting of the entire EAA

community along with Provost Jeannine Uzzi and our EAA Fellow, Dr. Sharon Aiken-Wisniewski,

Associate Professor at the University of Utah. This meeting grounded our work in teaching and learning

as well as evidence-based decision-making. We also revisited the previous work of the institution

regarding the 2015 reorganization of academic advising, the 2016 Advising Task Force (Appendix C), and

student surveys. There was also an open discussion regarding the EAA electronic platform, nine

Conditions of Excellence, USM data that would be made available, and the overall current state of

academic advising at USM. The effort, expertise, and enthusiasm of the USM EAA community was also

highlighted as the driving force of the EAA process.

It is important to note that the USM EAA process took into consideration the work of the 2016 Advising

Task Force that identified recommendations and initiated changes in the structure and practice of

3

academic advising. Although these changes were significant, it was recognized that USM is now at a

different stage in its institutional growth and additional exploration through the EAA process provides

an opportunity for additional changes to be implemented. In essence, the EAA process builds upon the

work previously done by the Advising Task Force.

Throughout the spring 2019 semester the EAA committees met to discuss the current state of academic

advising at USM as it relates to each committee’s focus area/Condition of Excellence. Each committee

addressed guiding questions pertaining to the Nine Conditions of Excellence. Committee discussions

were informed by institutional data, best practices, and advising literature. Data, discussion notes,

conclusions, and recommendations were entered into a database/platform provided by EAA. The

platform includes an extensive Evidence Library housing USM’s institutional documents. These

documents included but were not limited to assessment data, job descriptions, reports, performance

assessment criterion, syllabi, equitable access information, professional development opportunities and

plans, learning outcomes, and advising resources and documents. Committees used the platform to

document their findings.

The March 2019 EAA Community meeting allowed all participants to gather and learn about the initial

findings of each committee. The Steering Committee (Appendix D) met shortly after to discuss the initial

findings, identify next steps, and provide feedback for the upcoming retreat. At the end of May the EAA

Community gathered for the official EAA Retreat process to discuss their overall findings, review the

USM data, synthesize individual committee recommendations, identify the final recommendations, and

vote on those recommendations. Following the retreat, the Steering Committee met to review the

outcomes of the EAA Retreat and refine the recommendations.

Overarching Recommendations

The recommendations of the USM EAA Community include:

1. Establish an Institutional Academic Advising Advisory Council

2. Improve the Advising Model to Enhance Partnerships

3. Create a Comprehensive Academic Advising Professional Development Plan

4. Improve Advising Technology and Tools

5. Increase Resources for Academic Advising

Establish an Institutional Academic Advising Advisory Council

The Academic Advising Advisory Council would be charged with leading and/or supporting on-going

institutional efforts in academic advising. This council would consist of faculty from every school and

college, representatives from the Advising department, students, and staff from other relevant areas of

the institution. The first initiative of this group would be to create the vision, mission, goals and learning

outcomes for academic advising at USM. The council would use this report to guide their actions. Other

areas of responsibility would be reviewing and assisting with implementation of advising policies and

procedures, ensuring implementation of improvement-focused assessment of academic advising

learning outcomes, making assessment tools available for individual faculty and professional advisors,

prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion within advising practices, implementing inclusive and

4

institution-wide professional development opportunities, and providing institution-wide communication

about academic advising at USM.

Priority Actions for Oversight:

1. Create an Advisory Council with the authority to implement policy.

2. Create an academic assessment plan for individuals and departments that gathers data from

students, peers, and the USM community.

3. Develop an intuitional vision, mission, goals, and learning outcomes for academic advising.

4. Create learning outcomes for advising within each major/academic department.

5. Developing opportunities to address diversity, equity, and inclusion within the advising

practices.

6. Embed advising in departmental policies, procedures, and personnel reviews.

Improve the Advising Model to Enhance Partnerships

The EAA process revealed the need to revisit USM’s advising model. While the EAA process confirmed

that the culture and practice of advising have improved significantly in the past three years, further

improvements require increased collaboration to meet students’ needs. The first step is to shift from

our current “dual” model to a more fully collaborative partnership model. It is recommended that we

first change the language we use to refer to the model. USM should call its advising model the USM

Advising Partnership Model. This change would allow the name to reflect the intention of the model –

collaboration across advising roles to improve the advising experience. In addition to revealing the need

for this change in focus and language, the assessment process revealed that basing the student’s

transition from professional to faculty advisor on credit hours alone does not necessarily meet students’

needs. Specific attention should be given to strengthening the partnership and identifying the most

appropriate time to transition the student from one advisor to another while ensuring that the student’s

advising needs are the primary focus. Another priority is enhancing all participants’ understanding of the

responsibilities of advisors and students in the advising process. In addition, it was found that there is a

need to have stronger coordination between professional and faculty advisors and other university

departments. We also need to enhance coordination with the community colleges. A focus on

developing professional relationships within these groups would be beneficial for building working

collaborations as well as enhancing the student advising experience. Examples of a more collaborative

partnership approach include but are not limited to, joint meetings with students, including professional

advisors in portions of department meetings related to advising, informal functions, and joint

professional development opportunities.

Priority Actions for the Model:

1. Change the name of USM’s advising model to the USM Advising Partnership Model.

2. Provide additional educational opportunities for students and advisors to understand their

advising responsibilities.

3. Design a smooth process for transitioning students from professional to faculty advising that is

based on student advising needs rather than solely credit hours.

4. Create opportunities for professional and faculty advisors as well as other university

departments and community colleges to develop their professional working relationships and

better understand each other’s roles.

5

Create a Comprehensive Academic Advising Professional Development Plan

The USM Advising Professional Development Plan should include learning and development

opportunities both internal and external to USM, recognition and reward, and avenues for professional

growth. Improved professional development opportunities increase the level of knowledge and

expertise and would create opportunities to build connections between faculty, professional advisors,

and other university areas (Financial Aid, Disability Services, Veteran Services, TRIO, Learning Commons,

Career Hub, Athletics, Residential Life, etc.). Development topics that would benefit the USM

community include paths to graduate school and careers, career advising tools, MaineStreet, advising

technology, relationship building, diversity, equity, and inclusion, etc. Advising learning outcomes can

assist in identifying the professional development needs of academic advisors. Diversity, equity, and

inclusion should be a primary topic that is embedded in all professional development opportunities. The

USM EAA Community also found that a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion development is essential

both within the practice of academic advising and throughout the institution, regardless of employee

title and responsibilities.

The university’s processes for orienting and onboarding new faculty and professional advisors provide a

critical opportunity to ensure that new employees are immediately grounded in key aspects of the

academic advising partnership. To improve the culture and practice of advising at USM, it is imperative

that these orientation and early training experiences emphasize understanding the advising process

itself, expectations with respect to each position’s advising role, relation of advising to promotion and

tenure, advising tools and technology, and broad partnerships with students and other advisors.

Orientation and early training should reflect the vision, mission, goals, and learning outcomes of

academic advising at USM. The EAA process revealed the need for required ongoing professional

development for all advisors – faculty and staff, and the need to make this or similar training available

and relevant to part-time faculty as well.

The EAA process resulted in rich and complex conversations about the relationship of advising to criteria

for promotion and tenure. While participants in the EAA process recognize and respect the authority of

academic departments to determine promotion and tenure criteria, participants recommended that the

place of advising in promotion and tenure criteria be a priority conversation going forward. In addition

to explicitly discussing the place of advising in promotion and tenure, the institution can provide other

rewards and recognition for advising excellence, such as Excellence in Academic Advising awards,

additional professional development monies for conferences and resources, highlights in the President’s

Monday Missive and the Provost’s Scribe, credentialing for completing a professional development

series, etc. The USM EAA Community noted the importance of including mutual acknowledgement of

advising achievements between professional and faculty advisors.

The Professional Advisor Career Ladder will improve our ability to retain our excellent advising staff by

providing the opportunity for individuals who have a passion for their work to increase their title and

pay and be recognized for their expertise and commitment to students, to USM, and to the field of

academic advising. Although the advisor starting salary has increased since the initial Advising Task

Force Report, there is no incentive and no avenue for advancement in the professional field at USM.

The implementation of a career ladder would provide mechanisms for formal recognition of and reward

for advising excellence.

6

Priority Actions for Professional Development:

1. Offer frequent professional development opportunities that promotes increased participation

from the entire institutional advising community.

2. Offer professional development that is required of full-time faculty (offered to part-time) and

professional advisors.

3. Develop learning outcomes for both professional and faculty advisors that explicitly address

diversity, equity, and inclusion.

4. Create onboarding processes for professional and faculty advisors that meet the expectations of

the advising role and directly relates to the vision, mission, goals and learning outcomes of the

department and academic advising at USM.

5. Design and implement a rewards and recognition structure for faculty and professional advisors.

6. Make the relationship between excellent academic advising and the promotion and tenure

process explicitly clear to new and current faculty members.

7. Fund and implement the proposed professional development career ladder for professional

advisors.

Improve the Advising Technology and Tools

The EAA process highlighted the need to utilize technology to enhance the academic advising experience

for students, faculty and professional advisors. Key findings include the need to modernize

communication tools and enhance the user-interface of My USM portal. Better organization of and

clearer access to existing tools would decrease what was described as an “information fishing

expedition” experienced by students, faculty, staff, and others seeking advising information.

The EAA process identified the USM Degree Progress Report (DPR) as a top priority area for improved

technology. Currently the DPR can be widely utilized and highly depended upon for understanding how

particular courses meet the requirements of the Core Curriculum. There is significant need to have the

same confidence in the DPR with respect to major and minor requirements and general requirements

for degree completion. As a critical advising tool, it is imperative that the DPR works efficiently and

effectively for all academic requirements and circumstances (multiple minors, certificates, double

majors, double counting, etc). The committee fully realizes that this could require additional financial

and human resources.

Individual committees and the steering committee recommend creating more explicit connections

between formal and official catalog processes and updates to major requirements in the DPR. Linking

DPR updates to the catalog process would create an institutional expectation of this work for

department chairs and create commitment to the DPR design and usage. It is understood that this

would take an increase in capacity at the academic departmental level and Registration Services as well

as general oversight of the process.

The EAA process revealed that technology was not leveraged to assist with access to advising

information. Departmental websites vary widely in the amount and type of advising information they

provide. With respect to general advising resources, there are limited how-to videos, the Advising

Passport has not been fully utilized, and there is no clear expectation for how academic advising

information is to be presented on any website. In addition, information is often inaccessible to students

7

simply because it is challenging to locate or institutional language/jargon is used, making it difficult to

understand.

Access to making advising appointments with professional and faculty advisors is uneven across the

institution. In addition to advising information tools, the EAA process revealed a strong need for a more

uniform and accessible mechanism for scheduling advising appointments. Students need up-to-date

technology that provides access to advising appointments.

Priority Actions for Technology and Tools:

1. Prioritize ongoing training in advising technology in order to enhance the usage of current tools.

2. Identify technological options and training opportunities and make recommendations that

match institutional needs.

3. Design a process tied to the yearly catalog copy that creates both the expectation for a working

DPR within the major/minor and the commitment to the DPR process and usage.

4. Create an expectation that all academic departments have an advising section on their website

to provide stream-lined communication. Provide a design template outlining minimum

expectations.

5. It is recommended that the academic departments and Advising’s websites be updated in

regards to advising in order to provide stream-lined and accessible communication.

6. Invest in an institution-wide appointment booking tool (i.e. YouCanBookMe).

7. Update the Advising Passport, create a calendar of advising related activities, and revisit need

for additional advising resources (how-to-videos, handbook, etc.).

Increase Resources for Academic Advising

Resources for academic advising at USM are stretched. Advising loads for faculty advisors are uneven

across the institution. Advising loads for professional advisors have become somewhat more

manageable, but they still do not allow sufficient time for in-depth relationships with all students and

other important professional activities. Funding for professional development is extremely limited. The

current offerings have been made possible due to collaborative partnerships, grants, and a very small

budget in the Advising department. There are no funds specifically allocated for the proposed

professional advisor career ladder, a priority recommendation noted above. Similarly, there are no

funds allocated for USM’s Annual Advising Workshop, ongoing professional development series,

national and regional advising conference participation, training materials, etc.

Priority Actions for Resource Allocation:

1. Provide the funding necessary in academic advising at USM to cover the costs of implementing

the recommendations in this report.

2. Establish standards for advising loads for both professional and faculty advisors with

developmental advising philosophy, USM’s 10 Goals and Academic Vision in mind.

3. Build capacity within the advising community for ongoing projects, advising loads, professional

development opportunities, and new initiatives.

8

Timeline

The recommended timeline is as follows.

Summer 2019 1. Provide EAA report to the USM President and Provost for their review and response. 2. Change name of advising model to USM Advising Partnership Model.

Fall 2019 1. Academic Advising Advisory Council is seated and begins work- September/October 2. Advising Council develops vision, mission, goals, and learning outcomes for Academic Advising.

To be completed January 2020.

3. Create advising assessment and technology sub-committees of Advising Council that will focus

on assessment and technology recommendations within report.

4. Implement the proposed professional advisor career ladder.

5. Design professional development plan (including onboarding) that relates to the advising vision,

mission, goals, and learning outcomes.

6. Examine and design a smooth process for transitioning students from professional to faculty

advising.

7. Make the relationship between excellent academic advising and the promotion and tenure

process explicitly clear to new and current faculty members.

8. Design a process tied to the yearly catalog copy that creates both the expectation for a working

DPR within the major/minor and the commitment to the DPR process and usage.

9. Examine and begin to establish standards for advising loads for both professional and faculty

advisors with proactive and developmental advising philosophy in mind.

10. Examine areas that need additional capacity.

Spring 2020 1. Create additional educational opportunities for students and advisors to understand their

advising responsibilities. 2. Share advising learning outcomes expectations.

3. Create an inventory of assessment tools.

4. Begin to provide opportunities for professional and faculty advisors to build their working

relationships.

5. Identify areas of mandatory training for faculty and professional advisors.

6. Identify additional advising resources needed.

7. Share standards for advising loads.

Year 2 1. Continue work from Year 1. 2. Implement professional development plan that includes optional and mandatory options.

3. Provide ongoing opportunities for professional and faculty advisors as well as other university

departments and community colleges to develop their professional working relationships.

4. Implement the Rewards and Recognition structure.

5. Provide an institution-wide appointment booking tool to the advising community.

6. Complete the update of the Advising Passport resource.

7. Begin new fiscal year (FY 21) with adequate advising budget.

9

Conclusion

USM’s EAA process recognizes that many positive changes have been made in USM’s advising structure

and approach over the last four years. These positive changes have positioned academic advising at

USM to explore the student advising experience more deeply through the EAA process. The

recommendations in this report are consistent with the 2016 Advising Task Force Report and they

position USM to further improve the academic advising experience while advancing student learning,

success, and degree completion.

The membership of the USM EAA Committee consisted of faculty, staff, and students. As a group, we

holistically examined academic advising through the lens of teaching and learning, evidence-based

decision-making, and action planning. Our next step in the process is to present these

recommendations for consideration, and to act on them, once approved. USM EAA Committee

members have a shared understanding that these recommendations need to be institutionalized and

will require broad participation across the institution. Members of the USM EAA Community look

forward to assisting with the implementation phase of the Excellence in Academic Advising process.

10

Appendix A: EAA Announcements

11

For Immediate Release: October 4, 2018 Phoenix, AZ

NACADA and Gardner Institute announce charter cohort of twelve institutions for

Excellence in Academic Advising.

Monday, Oct 1, 2018, at the NACADA Annual Conference Dr. Charlie Nutt, executive director, NACADA:

The Global Community for Academic Advising announced the charter institutions for Excellence in

Academic Advising (EAA). EAA is an evidence-based, redesign process that helps institutions create and

implement a comprehensive strategic plan for academic advising. The John N. Gardner Institute for

Excellence in Undergraduate Education (Gardner Institute) partnered with NACADA to create the EAA

process to change and affirm the role and influence of academic advising in higher education.

The twelve institutions, selected from a large pool of applicants with diverse advising structures,

represent a diverse range of institution types. Schools within the cohort include 2-year and 4-year

institutions, small private liberal- arts colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as

large, private, online, regional and state institutions, public and private research universities.

The charter cohort include:

• American Public University System (APUS)

• Claflin University

• College of the Mainland

• Florida International University

• Frostburg State University

• Johns Hopkins University

• State University of New York at New Paltz

• University of Hawai’i at Manoa

• University of Southern Maine

• University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire

• Wheaton College Massachusetts

• Wiregrass Georgia Technical College

The two-year program kicked off at the NACADA annual meeting in Phoenix this week. The inaugural

cohort will be guided through evidence-based decision making, planning, and an implementation

process to improve their academic advising efforts. They will engage in an institution-wide initiative

using NACADA and the Gardner Institute’s nine “Conditions of Excellence in Academic Advising.” These

standards acknowledge the role of academic advising in promoting student learning, success, and

completion as well as the complexity of higher education and organizational change. Excellence in

12

Academic Advising Fellows will support the development of a set of evidence-based institutional

recommendations for change, as well as provide support for plan implementation.

“Academic advising is a key component of student success, persistence, and degree completion on many

campuses,” said Charlie Nutt, NACADA executive director. “By examining advising through multiple

lenses and implementing evidence-based recommendations, institutions can ensure alignment with

priorities for student success.”

About this significant collaborative effort, John Gardner, Gardner Institute chair and chief executive

officer, noted that, “The launch of the Excellence in Academic Advising initiative is the most important

development for improving the quality of academic advising and raising its overall level of priority on US

campuses since the establishment 39 years ago of the National Academic Advising Association.”

Drew Koch, Gardner Institute president and chief operating officer added, “We believe the combination

of analytics, sage and trusted external guidance, and wise internal institutional knowledge that we are

building into the EAA model will yield measurable improvement in institutional outcomes related to

academic advising – especially for our nation’s most historically underserved and underrepresented

students. There are important completion agenda and equity imperative considerations at work here.

We are delighted to be part of this historic endeavor.”

NACADA is a global association of professional advisors, counselors, faculty members, and

administrators working to enhance the educational development of students in higher education

through research, professional development, and leadership. The Gardner Institute is a non-profit

organization dedicated to partnering with colleges, universities, philanthropic organizations, educators,

and other entities to increase institutional responsibility for improving outcomes associated with

teaching, learning, retention, and completion.

For more information, contact nacadajngi@ksu.edu

13

Appendix B: EAA Committee Membership

14

Appendix C: Advising Task Force Report

Advising Task Force Executive Summary, Report, and Appendices

https://usm.maine.edu/president/advising-task-force

15

Appendix D

Steering Committee Membership