Teasley, M. L., & Buchanan, E. M. (2013). Capturing the student perspective: a new instrument for measuring advising satisfaction. NACADA Journal, 33(2), 4–15. doi:10.12930/NACADA-12-132
Summary: This article discusses the rationale for assessing student perceptions of advisor interaction in the context of the application of advising practice theory. It proposes a survey instrument, which institutions can use to assess the interactions. The article seeks to identify any connection between certain student development theories and the students’ perceptions of the experience (i.e. does a certain type of advising theory more significantly influence the experience). The purpose of this research is to more effectively quantify how advisor interactions influence student retention (Kuh, 2008). A survey instrument was developed and deployed three times. Each time it was administered, statistical analysis was conducted and modifications were made for the next iteration.
O’Banion (1971,1994, 2009) identified the 5 major dimensions of the advising experience. These are meant to outline the types of discussions advisors lead with students. This type of advising is called developmental advising. This theory suggests that advisors support the development of understanding and skills, which support a successful college experience. Another type of advising is prescriptive advising. That type of advising includes course scheduling, discussing graduation requirements, etc. It is meant to outline next steps for students. Each type of advising has a place however advisors are encouraged to leverage developmental advising practices as it is most beneficial to a student’s growth.
Teasley and Buchanan (2013) developed a survey “originally designed to measure satisfaction with prescriptive functions…developmental functions…and overall advisor traits” (pg. 6). Three factors were initially considered in the survey: prescriptive, developmental, and advisor functions. Those three factors correlate to student developmental advising theories. Those three factors were considered in the first two versions of the survey. The third version of the survey eliminated the third factor related to advisor functions. The article concluded with support for the validity of the survey and the encouragement of its adoption within institutions.
Organization: The article was organized well. It began with a review of key literature and effectively demonstrated the need for assessment of advising. The literature review included key pieces in student development theory and general assessment for the purposes of increasing student retention. It included a discussion of the limitations of the research. The research data and collection methodology were conveyed. It concluded with appropriate recommendations and possible future steps.
Methodology: Exploratory Factor Analysis was used with the first two iterations. As previously discussed, the designers were interested in learning about three factors, which influenced the students’ perceptions. The first and second surveys were administered to the undergraduate research pool. Based upon the analysis, modifications were made to the questions in survey 1 and survey 2.
The analysis suggested that only two factors were contributing to the students’ perceptions: general advising concerns and outreach functions. Students did not distinguish between the use of development or prescriptive advising.
As a result, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was employed with the third survey. The participants involved in the third survey came from the university research pool.
(Since I am not as familiar with these two statistical analysis options, I researched them on Wikipedia. The links above were explanations of them and based upon that information, it appeared the data analysis techniques used were appropriate and the guidelines for reliability and validity were followed.)
Limitations: Initial discussion of the source of the questions was not included. The origin of those questions would have been beneficial in terms of replication.
The undergraduate research pool was utilized. Students could have participated in both the first and second survey. It would have been helpful to understand how many students did participate again and if they made an impact on the findings.
The third iteration of the survey targeted only two factors, but very little information was shared or discussed regarding the second factor related to advisor outreach. It would have been helpful to understand or convey next steps with those findings. The third survey was intended to further examine the validity of the instrument.
Reflections: My research interests are directed towards the integration of student learning outcomes and advisor performance. White and Shulenberg (2012) highlight and define the value of student learning outcomes:
“The challenge of coming to grips with the questions about learning outcomes is twofold: (1) each institution needs to accept advising as an educational endeavor and identify the relevant learning outcomes and (2) reliable and valid methods to determine if these outcomes that have been met need to be developed”(pg. 14)
I need to be mindful that assessment of advising is not the same as assessment of student learning outcomes. There is a lot of literature in the field about assessing advising. However, student learning outcomes aim to measure the student’s learning as a result of advising interactions. Advisor performance, knowledge, and training are certainly components of that, however, student learning outcomes look at specific interactions to induce learning.
The article references other sources for possible assessment tools. I certainly want to research and learn more about those. Those other tools were described as instruments created within the institutions themselves and perhaps were not statistically tested for validity and reliability. This annotated bibliography on the NACADA website includes valuable resources for learning more about assessment.
An additional aspect for me to consider with my research area includes that of the inclusion of advisor training and application of student development theory. I had been considering the application of assessment to influence training, development and performance management.
References:
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Advising for student success. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 68–84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
King, M. C. (2005). Developmental academic advising. Retrieved from NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Developmental-Academic-Advising.aspx
White, E., & Schulenberg, J. (2012). Academic advising-a focus on learning. About Campus, 16(6), 11–17.