1 / 17

The Academic Advisor: Student Resource…or Impediment?

Innovations 2013. The Academic Advisor: Student Resource…or Impediment?. Troy Boquette -Executive Dean of Student Services Mari Straith Yancho -Academic Advisor & Adjunct Faculty Mott Community College, Flint, Mi Project Dissertation-Doctorate in Community College Leadership

betha
Download Presentation

The Academic Advisor: Student Resource…or Impediment?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Innovations 2013 The Academic Advisor: Student Resource…or Impediment? Troy Boquette-Executive Dean of Student Services • Mari StraithYancho-Academic Advisor & Adjunct Faculty Mott Community College, Flint, Mi • Project Dissertation-Doctorate in Community College Leadership • Ferris State University

  2. Why? • Retention of Students • Increased emphasis on Graduation • Soft Skills Matter • Services Across Campus

  3. Disclaimer statement The following youtube.com clip contains some language that may not be suitable for adults. As educators, though, you’ve heard it all… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCqp1CqMq5w

  4. Current Advisor Training Model • 16 hours of training in a specific discipline: Business, Cosmetology, Fine Arts, Health Sciences, Humanities, Social Sciences, Technology • Preliminary advising experience is done under an academic advising mentor. • New advisors are placed on the advising schedule as hours become available. • The training process may be repeated if an advisor wishes to ‘cross-train’ in another academic discipline.

  5. Strengths: • Academic advisors are first trained in their own discipline area, where they are considered to be ‘content experts.’ • Advisors are selected from faculty members who do advising in addition to their teaching load; thus, there is already a student connection established. • The use of advisor mentors allows for one-on-one training; the advisor trainees observe the mentor work with many students.

  6. Weaknesses • After completion of the training, there is no evaluation process in place for novice advisors. In reality, • there is no evaluation process in place for any advisor. With rare exception, once an advisor, always an advisor. • Poor advisors can continue to dispense wrong advice to students with little fear of repercussion. • Advising duties take a ‘back seat’ to teaching duties. This can lead to ‘holes’ in the Advising Center when a specific discipline has no advisor present.

  7. Empiricalobservationdemonstrated: • A large amount of wrong information being given to students • Students being placed into incorrect classes • Very good advising…and very bad advising • Poor advising affecting student success and retention • An immediate need to address these issues, which led to…

  8. The Advisor Assessment Test (A2T) There are 3 main components to the A2T: • General Advising Information – (objective) - basic MCC advising facts that should be known by all advisors • Interpretation of Transcripts – (subjective) analyzing the best sequence of courses for a student, based on their developmental, personal, and program needs • Specific Division Area Program Requirements – (objective) demonstration of content knowledge of all programs offered within the division

  9. New Advisor Training & Assessment Model Who? New Advisors What? The goal - improve the caliber of academic advising Where? Mott Community College, Flint, Mi When? Begun July 2012 How? Training coupled with the A2T to be used for new advisor trainees , but…

  10. Piloted with currentadvisors Why? To establish a baseline from which to measure improvement, using current advisors wishing to cross-train in other areas Timeline: • July 2012-A2T and cross-training session • July 2012- cross-training cancelled due to results (With 15 advisors, the A2T average =57%, range of 40%=88%)

  11. Fall Training Initiative Timeline: • October 2012-A2T Section 1 given as a pre-evaluation test to all current advisors, coupled with general advising training sessions (3 sessions held) • November 2012- Division specific training • December 2012- Complete A2T given as a post-evaluation (completed individually within a 3-week window at the Testing Center-MCC Library)

  12. Results of A2T • Pre-evaluation-Section 1 A2T Range 36%-84% 41 participants 0-69% = 29 70-79% = 8 80-100% = 4 Less than 9% scored > 80% • Post-evaluation-Section 1 A2T Range 40%-97% 42 participants 0-69% = 12 70-79% = 11 80-100% = 19 Over 45% scored > 80%

  13. What did they think? Comments that I received were… • About time • Wow! I don’t know as much as I thought I did • Are we going to have more? • Why now? • I wish I could have prepared. • I wish you had told us that we were going to be tested.

  14. What did I think? • Shocked • Disappointed • Time for a change • Good people/Bad system • Accountability in question • Reviewed the test • Asked questions

  15. New Model • 40/52 • 20 new FTE’s • Counselors (Student Success Specialist) • Advisors (Academic Success Specialist) • Academic Advisors • Advising is the priority • Retention is the priority • Consistent schedulingand training • Assessment

  16. What’s Next? • Learn • Grow • Train • Assess

  17. Questions? • Feel free to contact either Troy or Mari at: • Troy Boquette (810) 762-0567 troy.boquette@mcc.edu • Mari StraithYancho (810) 762-0322 mari.yancho@mcc.edu

More Related