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, 2013

Academic Advising and Retention

Cuseo (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 mentoring

Essential to advising programs: 1) mission and outcomes, 2) recognition/ reward, 3) hiring/ deployment criteria, 4) orientation/ training/ development

In 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)

HBCUs

Filling critical gap in higher education despite substantial ideological, funding challenges (Cantey et al., 2013) Disproportionately enroll low-income, first generation, underprepared 324,000 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 bachelor’s

Average overall 6-year graduation rate in US= 50% Black= 42%, White= 62%

Academic Advising Models

Habley (2004)

Decentralized Faculty-Only Model Satellite

Shared Supplementary Model Split Model Dual Model Total Intake

Centralized Self-Contained Model

Faculty-Only Model

More prevalent decentralized structure All students are assigned to a departmental advisor Typically a professor from the student's academic discipline Used at 28% of all institutions Primarily the model of choice at private institutions 36% 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%).

Satellite Model

Academic divisions within the institution establishes a unit responsible for advising

Professional advising faculty/staff in each unit Styles to approaching advising vary

Supplementary Model

Students are assigned to a department advisor Central administrative unit housing professional advising staff Usually staff offers support through resources and training Centers may serve students according to transfer course

evaluation/ degree audit Most popular at 2-year private and 4-year institutions 2-year private (21%) 4-year private (26%) Found at 17% of all institutions

Split Model

Faculty in departments and staff of an advising center oversee advising

Advising centers are usually responsible for: Undecided majors Academic probation Freshmen Pre-majors for professional program

Once declared or cleared for professional program, students are reassigned to academic major

Found at 27% of all institutions The Split Model is dominant at 4-year public colleges and

universities Nearly half (46%) of these institutions utilize this model

Dual Model

Student has two advisors Instructional faculty

Advises on academic major-related issues

Advising Office Advises on general requirements, procedures, and policies

Total Intake Model

Staff in an administrative unit advise all students Students are advised for a specified period of time/and or

requirements have been met After requirements are met, students receive a faculty advisor

Self-Contained Model

Advising may occur in an advising center or a counseling center

Staffed primarily by professional advisors/counselors Faculty may advise student at the center/part-time basis Found at 14% of all institutions Most frequently found at 2-year public colleges at 29%

Statement of Problem

No 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.

Purpose of Study

The 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 rates Four-year graduation rates CAO perceptions of program structure effectives CAO perceptions of effectiveness with students

Additionally, this study will determine if there are statistically significant relationships between CAO perceptions of program structure effectiveness and effectiveness with students and First year retention rates Four-year graduation rates

Research Questions

1. 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?

Survey Items

1. FY academic advising model 2. AA reporting line 3. Presence of AA coordinator 4. Presence of SLOs for FYAA 5. Adequate training for FYAA 6. Adequate rewards for FYAA 7. Effective assessment of FYAA 8. Effective collab between AA

and FY programs 9. Effective collab between AA

and faculty 10. FYAA knowledge of curricula 11. 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 campus

16. Percentage of FY in bridge/preparation program

17. Gender 18. Length of experience as CAO 19. Length of experience in higher

education

Research Design and Population

NCCU IRB approval Electronic survey (SurveyMonkey) Pilot: convenience sample of 57 Advisors and academic support

colleagues open 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 institutions open for two weeks, two follow-up reminders

Other data taken from National Center for Education Statistics First year retention, four-year graduation rate, total undergraduate

enrollment, first year cohort, control (public/private), selectivity

Pilot Results

32 respondents; reliable instrument (Cronbach’s α= .837) Factor Analysis on Likert scale items Q5 to Q16 Two factors with excellent internal consistency

Factor I, Effectiveness of Program Structure scale (Cronbach’s α= .827) Q8, AA-FY program collaboration .828 Q7, Effective AA assessment .823 Q5, Effective AA training .821 Q6, Effective AA reward .820 Q9, AA-faculty collaboration .459

Factor II, Effectiveness with Students scale, (Cronbach’s α= .798) Q12, AA effective with special populations .831 Q10, AA knowledge of curricula .778 Q13, AA effective with switching majors .771 Q11, AA knowledge of first year dev. needs .683 Q15, AA effective at increasing retention .594 Q14, AA important to retention .221

Preliminary Study Results

Low response rate= 13 6 M/6 F= 12 (1 skipped) Avg. higher ed. exp.= 25.92 yrs.; 66.7%= in position < 3 years 61.5%= total intake, 23.1%= shared split 91.7%= First Year Academic Advising reports to Academic Affairs 30.8%= no Student Learning Outcomes for FYAA 50%= reward structures for FYAA not effective 33%= 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

Preliminary Study Results

91.6%= strongly agreed quality FYAA important to retention all agreed/ strongly agreed

75%= FYAA on campus effective at increasing retention 25% not sure, or FYAA is not effective

Next Steps

Mail paper surveys to Provosts/ CAOs to increase response rate

Alternates not appropriate for research questions surveying Directors of Advising surveying larger population of Provosts/CAOs

DISCUSSION

References

Cantey, 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, 142–153.

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). Creating a foundation for student success: From research to practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, (6), 513-524.

Makela, J. P. (2006, June). Advising community college students: Exploring traditional and emerging theory. In Brief. Office of Community College Research and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

National Academic Advising Association. (2007). Concept of academic advising. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Concept-advising-introduction.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Historically black colleges and universities. Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=667 .

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013) . Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/index.asp

Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46-53.

United Negro College Fund (20130). About HBCUs. Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://www.uncf.org/sections/MemberColleges/SS_AboutHBCUs/about.hbcu.asp