/
Advising Pathway

Advising Pathway

Nov 23, 2022

Updates

  • Academic Advising 

    • Introduction of EAA (Excellence in Academic Advising) introduction chaired by Drs. Jennifer Cooley and Amanda McCandless

  •  

    • NACADA lead subcommittees members were established:

      • Commitment and Organization- David Marchesani

      • Advisor Selection and Development - Jenny Connolly and Michelle Swanson

      • Learning and Assessment and the Scholarship of Advising- Kim Bock

      • Collaboration and Communication- Lori Johnson and Colleen Sullivan

      • Student Purpose and Pathways- Heather Asmus

      • Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity- Jesús Lizárraga and Ericka González-Smith

      • Technology Enabled Advising- Kyle Haiman and Michele Peck

  •  

    • Survey regarding advising practices at UNI to be launched in the Spring of 2023 

  •  

    • Provost called for participation in NACADA. That includes faculty, staff, and administrators applying for committee membership. 

Advising Focused Working Group Team 

Team Leads and Steering Committee Liaisons

  • Jenny Cooley 

  • Amanda McCandless

Team Members 

  • Victor Acevedo

  • Gowri Betrabet Gulwadi

  • Kim Bock

  • Chad Christopher

  • Shoshanna Coon

  • Carolina Coronado-Park

  • Stacia Eggers

  • Kyle Haiman 

  • Caroline Ledeboer

  • David Marchesani

  • Linda Reardon-Lowry

  • Elisabeth Soliz

Advising Pathway Summary Concept

Explore additional ways to enhance our institutional, advising services, because they are an integral part of persistence and success. An innovation taskforce will be convened to rapidly assess our effort and provide recommendations for change.

Goals

  1. Leverage existing models and programs for advising standards to ensure best practice and expedite the process (e.g. NACADA, Gardner Institute, etc.).

  2. Recommend a model of advising that provides comparable, coherent, and appropriate services for all students, with a focus on accessibility.

  3. Determine and implement best practices to support on retention, persistence, and student success.

  4. Establish an implementation process and timeline.

Prioritized Objectives

  1. Using data-informed methods, determine areas of strength and weakness in our current advising model.

  2. Using information from national organizations and standards, identify advising practices that provide equitable access that supports all students.

  3. Recommend changes to improve advising with a focus on student success models.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Objectives

  • Investigate advising options that support students with a diverse set of backgrounds, needs, and career goals

  • Recommend strategies for equitable and inclusive practices within advising

  • Examine how advising fuses with other student support units on campus, such as the Center for Multicultural Education, UNI-CUE, Gender & Sexuality Services, and Success & Retention

Why this pathway

Academic advising is vital for student persistence to graduation and successful advising goes beyond choosing classes. Advisors need a holistic understanding of how the realities of students' lives influence progress towards graduation. This is especially important as we increase the number of transfer and part-time students. Advising is also a critical component of EDI work to ensure equitable advancement of all students. An anecdotal increase in students who have filed complaints with the university around advising-errors  – sometimes costing the students time and money – supports the need for elevation of the role. Likewise, a recent student survey1 suggests a higher degree of satisfaction among students who were advised by an OAA advisor. Faculty, with increasing responsibilities, may not have the time nor the training, to effectively advise students. While faculty can be provided release time to focus on advising, this reduces teaching resources requiring either removing classes from the schedule or hiring adjuncts.

Advising FWG Updates

 

Data

Fall 2021 FTFT cohort – percent of new freshman advised by an OAA advisor

  • College of Business: 100%

  • College of Education: 100%

  • College of Social & Behavioral Sciences: 71.4%

  • College of Humanities, Arts and Science: 51.9%

 

1 Student survey responses on advisor models

  1. How many times have you and an academic advisor discussed your academic interests, course selections, or academic performance?

    1. 44% of OAA intake advisees met with their advisor 3 or more times

    2. 35% of non-intake advisees met with their advisor 3 or more times

  2. Academic advisors: Been available when needed

    1. 77% of OAA advisors were available when needed “quite a bit” or “very much” of the time

    2. 70% of non-OAA advisors were available when needed “quite a bit” or “very much” of the time

  3. Academic advisors: Listened closely to your concerns and questions

    1. 74% of OAA advisors listened closely to your concerns and questions “quite a bit” or “very much”

    2. 71% of non-OAA advisors listened closely to your concerns and questions “quite a bit” or “very much”

  4. Academic advisors: Informed you of important deadlines

    1. 77% of OAA advisors informed you of important deadlines “quite a bit” or “very much”

    2. 60% of non-OAA advisors informed you of important deadlines “quite a bit” or “very much”

  5. Academic advisors: Helped you when you had academic difficulties

    1. 69% of OAA advisors helped when you had academic difficulties “quite a bit” or “very much”

    2. 57% of non-OAA advisors helped when you had academic difficulties “quite a bit” or “very much”