nacada, october 7, 2013
Post on 23-Feb-2016
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONStructure and Effectiveness: Academic Advising Models at HBCUs and Impact on Retention and Graduation Rates Dr. David S. Hood, Associate Dean of University College North Carolina Central University Dr. Jennifer A. Schum , Associate Dean of University College North Carolina Central University. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Academic Advising Models at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Impact on Retention and Graduation Rates Dr. David S. Hood, Associate Dean of University College North Carolina Central University Dr. Mia Horace, Associate Vice President for Student Life Southern Wesleyan University Mr. Kevin J. Wade, Retention Coordinator Virginia Union University
Structure and Effectiveness: Academic Advising Models at HBCUs and Impact on Retention and Graduation Rates
Dr. David S. Hood, Associate Dean of University CollegeNorth Carolina Central University
Dr. Jennifer A. Schum, Associate Dean of University CollegeNorth Carolina Central University
NACADA, October 7, 20131Academic Advising and RetentionCuseo (2003): Direct, causal connection between academic advising and retention yet to be established Impact retention through: 1) student satisfaction with college experience, 2) effective educational, and career planning and decision-making, 3) utilization of support services, 4) student-faculty contact outside classroom, 5) student mentoringEssential to advising programs: 1) mission and outcomes, 2) recognition/ reward, 3) hiring/ deployment criteria, 4) orientation/ training/ developmentIn Higher Education, students are leaving school at the end of their freshman year at alarming rates (McDaniel and Graham, 2001).For every meeting with an academic advisor, the odds that a student will be retained increase by 13% (Swecker, Fifolt, & Searby, 2013)
Filling critical gap in higher education despite substantial ideological, funding challenges (Cantey et al., 2013)Disproportionately enroll low-income, first generation, underprepared324,000 attended HBCUs in 2011 (NCES, 2013)HBCUs comprise 3% of all four-year institutions in the US, yet produce 20% of the bachelors degrees awarded to Black students (UNCF, 2013)In US: 33% of Whites vs 20% Black adults (aged 25+) have earned bachelorsAverage overall 6-year graduation rate in US= 50%Black= 42%, White= 62% David3Academic Advising ModelsHabley (2004)DecentralizedFaculty-Only ModelSatelliteSharedSupplementary ModelSplit ModelDual ModelTotal IntakeCentralized Self-Contained ModelJen
4Faculty-Only ModelMore prevalent decentralized structureAll students are assigned to a departmental advisorTypically a professor from the student's academic discipline Used at 28% of all institutions Primarily the model of choice at private institutions36% of the private 2-year colleges 39% of the private 4-year colleges and universities.
However, when considering the two most popular shared models together, 4-year private institutions using the Supplementary or Split Models slightly outnumber (at 43%) the 4-year private institutions with the Faculty Only Model (39%).
Jen5Satellite ModelAcademic divisions within the institution establishes a unit responsible for advisingProfessional advising faculty/staff in each unitStyles to approaching advising vary Jen6Supplementary ModelStudents are assigned to a department advisorCentral administrative unit housing professional advising staff Usually staff offers support through resources and trainingCenters may serve students according to transfer course evaluation/ degree auditMost popular at 2-year private and 4-year institutions2-year private (21%)4-year private (26%)Found at 17% of all institutionsJen7Split ModelFaculty in departments and staff of an advising center oversee advisingAdvising centers are usually responsible for:Undecided majorsAcademic probationFreshmen Pre-majors for professional programOnce declared or cleared for professional program, students are reassigned to academic majorFound at 27% of all institutionsThe Split Model is dominant at 4-year public colleges and universitiesNearly half (46%) of these institutions utilize this modelJen8Dual ModelStudent has two advisorsInstructional facultyAdvises on academic major-related issuesAdvising OfficeAdvises on general requirements, procedures, and policies
Jen9Total Intake ModelStaff in an administrative unit advise all studentsStudents are advised for a specified period of time/and or requirements have been metAfter requirements are met, students receive a faculty advisor
Jen10Self-Contained ModelAdvising may occur in an advising center or a counseling centerStaffed primarily by professional advisors/counselorsFaculty may advise student at the center/part-time basisFound at 14% of all institutionsMost frequently found at 2-year public colleges at 29%
Jen11Statement of ProblemNo data exist that shed light on the perception of Provosts/ Chief Academic Officers (CAOs) at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) on the structure and effectiveness of first year academic advising on student retention and graduation rates.
David12Purpose of StudyThe primary purpose of this study is to determine if there are statistically significant differences between first year academic advising models at HBCUs and First year retention ratesFour-year graduation ratesCAO perceptions of program structure effectivesCAO perceptions of effectiveness with studentsAdditionally, this study will determine if there are statistically significant relationships between CAO perceptions of program structure effectiveness and effectiveness with students andFirst year retention ratesFour-year graduation rates
David13Research Questions1. Are there statistically significant differences between the Academic Advising models implemented at HBCUs during the first year and 1) first year retention and 2) four-year graduation, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics?
2. Are there statistically significant differences between the Academic Advising models implemented at HBCUs during the first year and perceptions by CAOs of 1) effectiveness of program structure and 2) effectiveness with students?
3. Are there statistically significant relationships between 1) effectiveness of program structure and 2) effectiveness with students, with 1) first year retention and 2) four-year graduation, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics?
David14Survey Items1. FY academic advising model 2. AA reporting line 3. Presence of AA coordinator4. Presence of SLOs for FYAA5. Adequate training for FYAA6. Adequate rewards for FYAA7. Effective assessment of FYAA8. Effective collab between AA and FY programs 9. Effective collab between AA and faculty 10. FYAA knowledge of curricula11. FYAA knowledge of developmental needs of students
12. Effectiveness of FYAA with special populations 13. Effectiveness of FYAA with those switching majors 14. Quality FYAA important to retention 15. FYAA effective at increasing retention on my campus16. Percentage of FY in bridge/preparation program17. Gender18. Length of experience as CAO19. Length of experience in higher education
David15Research Design and PopulationNCCU IRB approvalElectronic survey (SurveyMonkey)Pilot: convenience sample of 57 Advisors and academic support colleaguesopen two weeks, two follow-up reminders Study: Chief Academic Officers at 97 institutions identified as Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the U.S.84 contacts identified at four-year institutionsopen for two weeks, two follow-up reminders Other data taken from National Center for Education StatisticsFirst year retention, four-year graduation rate, total undergraduate enrollment, first year cohort, control (public/private), selectivity
Jen16Pilot Results32 respondents; reliable instrument (Cronbachs = .837)Factor Analysis on Likert scale items Q5 to Q16Two factors with excellent internal consistency Factor I, Effectiveness of Program Structure scale (Cronbachs = .827)Q8, AA-FY program collaboration .828Q7, Effective AA assessment.823Q5, Effective AA training.821Q6, Effective AA reward.820Q9, AA-faculty collaboration.459Factor II, Effectiveness with Students scale, (Cronbachs = .798)Q12, AA effective with special populations.831Q10, AA knowledge of curricula .778Q13, AA effective with switching majors.771Q11, AA knowledge of first year dev. needs.683Q15, AA effective at increasing retention.594Q14, AA important to retention.221
Jen17Preliminary Study ResultsLow response rate= 136 M/6 F= 12 (1 skipped)Avg. higher ed. exp.= 25.92 yrs.; 66.7%= in position < 3 years61.5%= total intake, 23.1%= shared split91.7%= First Year Academic Advising reports to Academic Affairs30.8%= no Student Learning Outcomes for FYAA50%= reward structures for FYAA not effective33%= training /professional dev. for FYAA not adequate 25%= assessment of FYAA not effective 25%= collaboration between FYAA and faculty not effective 80%= less than 25% of freshmen in summer bridge
Jen18Preliminary Study Results91.6%= strongly agreed quality FYAA important to retentionall agreed/ strongly agreed
75%= FYAA on campus effective at increasing retention25% not sure, or FYAA is not effective
Jen19Next StepsMail paper surveys to Provosts/ CAOs to increase response rate
Alternates not appropriate for research questionssurveying Directors of Advisingsurveying larger population of Provosts/CAOs
Jen20DISCUSSIONReferencesCantey, N. I., Bland, R., Mack, L. R., & Joy-Davis, D., (2013). Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Sustaining a culture of excellence in the twenty-first century. Journal of African American Studies, 17, 142153.Habley, W.R. (2004). The status of academic advising: Findings from the ACT Sixth National Survey. (NACADA Monograph Series, no 10.) Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association.Frost, S. H. (2000). Historical and philosophical foundations for academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A Comprehensive handbook (pp.3-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Jarrell, C. (2004). Creatin