Report to the University Community:
A Model for Undergraduate Academic Advising at Portland State University

Presented by:
Portland State University Student Advising Action Council

January 2001

Student Advising Action Council Members
Executive Summary

Table of Contents:

• Introduction
• Previous Examinations of Academic Advising at PSU
• Current State of Academic Advising at PSU
• Review of the Literature on Student Success and Retention
• Recommendations
• Implementation of the Advising Model
• Assessment of Implemented Advising Model
• References

• Appendix I: Report to the University by the PSU Committee on Undergraduate Student Retention ­ Section on Advising (November 1993)
• Appendix II: Proposed Advising Model for Portland State University (Advising Task Force, 1995)
• Appendix III: Report from the President’s Commission on Campus Climate and Life ­ Section on Advising (October 1998)
• Appendix IV: Summary of Orientation Programs
• Appendix V: First Year Student Advising Sessions

Student Advising Action Council Members

Janine Allen, ED, Co-Chair
Cathleen Smith, PSY, Co-Chair
Susan Agre-Kippenhan, ART
Karen Devoll, XS
Rod Diman, PO
Walt Ellis, UPA
Dick Forbes, BIO
Dan Fortmiller, IASC
Leslie Gilderson, SBA
Bryan Johanson, MUS
Marlene 'Bar' Johnson
Risa Kiam, SSW
Mary Kinnick, ED
Devorah Lieberman, CAE
Taalib Madyum
Robert Mercer, CLAS
Maureen O'Connor, SBA
Dick Pratt, OAA
Sandra Rosengrant, FLL
Nixie Stark, SP
Michelle Toppe, SA

Consultant: Devorah Lieberman, PO/OAA
Support: Katie Sinback, OAA

Executive Summary

In fall 1999 President Daniel Bernstine appointed the Student Advising Action Council to carry out the recommendations related to academic advising in the Report from the President’s Commission on Campus Climate and Life. In addressing its charge, the Action Council considered the following: (1) previous efforts to address advising issues at Portland State University; (2) the current state of academic advising at PSU; and (3) the literature on student retention and success.

The conclusion reached by the Action Council is that a quality advising system is critical to student satisfaction, persistence toward goals, and success. Further, the Action Council recommends the following:

1. The University adopt a total intake advising model where students are initially advised through a central advising office, and, upon declaration of a major, are advised by faculty in their major department.
2. The University adopt a developmental advising model, which is a multi-step process incorporating life and career exploration with major selection and course scheduling.
3. Advising be required at critical junctures in the student’s academic experience: orientation, during the first year, and at the attainment of 90 hours.
4. Students be required to designate a major by the time they have accumulated 120 credit hours.
5. IASC be designated as the central advising office and also charged with the responsibility of providing support and assistance to faculty advisors in the academic departments.

The Action Council suggests that the proposed advising model be implemented over several years, with full implementation in 2003-04. Further, the Action Council recommends that funding for the proposed advising system come from multiple sources including:

• An increase in the matriculation fee
• Reallocation of funds from OAA for a .5 FTE advisor
• From the President’s initiative funds
• A designated increase in tuition or fees.

Introduction

In fall 1999 President Daniel Bernstine appointed the Student Advising Action Council (Action Council) to carry out the recommendations related to advising in the Report from the President’s Commission on Campus Climate and Life (October, 1998) and those that emerged from the "1999 Presidential Roundtables and Town Hall" discussions. Specifically, the charge of the Action Council was to:

• Review current PSU student advising data and alternative advising models (including the 1995 Proposed Advising Model);
• Define academic advising for all Portland State students with particular attention to the needs of diverse students;
• Provide a strategic plan for achieving the stated advising model objectives;
• Design a strategy to assess the success of the implemented model;
• Focus initially on undergraduate student advising followed by graduate student advising.

The Student Advising Action Council concurs with the President’s Commission on Campus Climate and Life (Commission) conclusion:

All students should have a clear and simple means of accessing all the information they need for planning and carrying out a successful university experience. The information should be accurate, consistent, up-to-date, easy to obtain, and easy to understand ( p. 4).

The Action Council further asserts that effective academic advising is critical to a student-centered educational experience that enhances student success, strengthens student connections to the university, and fosters persistence toward educational goals. The Action Council endorses the conclusions reached by the President’s Commission and recommends that PSU adopt, with some modifications, the Proposed Advising Model for Portland State University developed by the 1995 Advising Task Force. In this model:

• Advising is a process that helps the student integrate life planning, career planning, and academic choices in order to develop a personally relevant educational and career plan;
• Advising is a shared responsibility between faculty in academic departments and professional advisors in a central advising office;
• Advising is mandatory for all students.

Implementation of this model will enhance student academic advising at PSU by increasing access to advising, increasing the quality of advising, strengthening the university’s commitment to advising and highlighting the importance of advising to students and faculty.

In arriving at its recommendations, the Action Council considered the following: (1) previous efforts to address advising issues at PSU; (2) the current state of academic advising at PSU; and (3) the literature on student retention and success.

Previous Examinations of Academic Advising at PSU

Problems in academic advising have been formally recognized for over one third of the life of the University (Proposed Advising Model for Portland State University, 1995). Recently these problems have emerged as primary concerns. Since 1990 PSU has undertaken a number of studies to examine the student experience at Portland State. Three reports resulted from these examinations:

• Report to the University by the PSU Committee on Undergraduate Student Retention (November 1993)
• Proposed Advising Model for Portland State University (Advising Task Force, 1995)
• Report from the President’s Commission on Campus Climate and Life (October 1998).

In all of the reports, problems with academic advising were identified. Each report made a compelling argument that effective academic advising is key to improving the student experience and fostering student retention and success. The Action Council was struck by the fact that historically, and as recently as 1998, advising at Portland State University has been identified as problematic. We examined the current state of advising to determine if the situation had improved.

The Action Council examined recent data from several sources to assess the current state of academic advising at PSU. Our analysis identified the following four concerns:

1. The Information and Academic Support Center (IASC) has emerged as the University’s central location for advising. The number of students using IASC as their primary source for advising has increased dramatically, from 4,624 student contacts in 1995-96 to 7,079 in 1998-99, an increase of 53.1%. In addition, the number of upper division students using IASC has increased. Currently 62.63% of the students served in IASC for academic advising are upper division. Faculty report that they send students to IASC for advisement on general education and university requirements. Although the professional advisors in IASC are well-versed in general education, university requirements, and other curricular issues, and have attempted to meet student advising needs, the center has not been officially designated as the central advising office nor funded for this responsibility. Because there has not been an official designation of authority for advising, clarity around roles and responsibilities of IASC employees, faculty who refer, and students has been lacking.
2. Students continue to express concerns about academic advising in satisfaction surveys conducted by the Portland State University Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP). In the most recent survey of current students OIRP found that nearly 50% of the students surveyed were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with academic advising. In addition, student satisfaction with advising is lower than with any other aspect of the student experience (OIRP, 1999). In a survey of graduating seniors conducted through the PSU Title III Grant, 72.3% of seniors who responded agreed that PSU should have mandatory academic advising and 87% agreed "It is important to develop an advisor/advisee relationship with someone on campus" (Perrin & Ostrogorsky, 1999).
3. Many faculty are not aware of all the changes in general education and in the BS/BA degree requirements. This may result in faculty communicating inaccurate advising information to students. When faculty are surveyed, they express a lack of confidence in advising students about general education requirements. In fact, the faculty’s lack of confidence and ability to provide information about the general education requirements in comparison to the major requirements was described as "the most striking issue we discovered" by the Faculty and Student Baseline Academic Advising Report (1999, p. 3). In this report fewer than 50% of the faculty reported discussing the general education requirements with their advisees, and 29% said that they "did not know where to refer students to get more information on general education requirements."
4. Faculty reluctance to advise in requirements beyond the major is likely due to a number of factors. Although advising on University Studies’ requirements is relatively straightforward for students who follow traditional enrollment patterns, general education advising is complicated by the coexistence of the distribution model. Many student cohorts served by PSU began their studies under the distribution model that is presented in catalogs still in use. In addition, degree requirements are fluid. As the faculty strives to continually refine the curriculum, requirements are modified. Thus, academic advisors must be well versed in the requirements listed in a number of previous catalogs. Finally, two-thirds of the undergraduates who attend PSU transfer from other institutions, particularly community colleges. The research of Mary Kinnick and her colleagues (Bach, Banks, Blanchard, Kinnick, Ricks, & Stoering, 1999) on PSU student enrollment patterns in the Portland metropolitan area challenges the assumption that transfer students follow a single linear path to degree completion. On the contrary, these researchers found that students follow multiple enrollment patterns. The increasing mobility of learners as they move in and out of and then back into PSU complicates academic advising.

The Action Council is concerned that inadequacies in academic advising, which for many students are obstacles to success, have been and continue to be ignored at PSU. It is encouraging that the Portland State University (PSU) Strategic Resource Plan developed by the Council of Academic Deans states "PSU aspires to . . . create a learning environment that is student centered, accessible, develops the talents of a diverse student body, and reflects PSU's scholarship in action." As the Commission noted, in a student centered learning environment students should expect to have a clear and simple means of accessing the information needed to plan and complete a successful university experience. Each student, regardless of background or point at which he/she enters the University, should have a clear pathway to success.

Review of the Literature on Student Success and Retention

Academic Advising as a means of promoting student persistence is mentioned in the literature more often than any other student service, and empirical studies confirm the importance of academic advising to student retention (Thomas, 1990, p. 193). In addition, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p. 405) summarize twenty years of research findings showing that a high quality advising program influences grades, student satisfaction, and student intentions, all of which have been shown to affect student persistence.

A quality student-centered academic advising program is critical to student retention and success in higher education. In addition, research has consistently linked student retention and success to a number of factors that could be incorporated into such a system:

• Support services early in the student’s career. National retention data show that attrition rates are highest in the first year of enrollment. Institutions that are purposeful with regard to students’ early experiences are more likely to influence student success. Dedicating significant resources to students early in their academic careers is important because it is during this period that the student develops positive expectations for self and the campus experience, habits that are conducive to success, and commitment to the institution and to his/her educational goals (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1996; Tinto, 1993).

• Experiences that reinforce a sense of inclusion and self-efficacy. Students, particularly those from underrepresented groups, who believe that the institution is responding to them as individuals, who have a sense that they belong and have the skills necessary to succeed, are likely to complete their education and indicate satisfaction with the experience (Rendon, 1994; Rendon & Garza, 1996).

• Support services that are challenging rather than remedial. Studies show that academic support services that contribute to student learning and development are those that challenge students to meet high levels of achievement rather than reinforcing stereotypes with low expectations for achievement (Steele, 1997; Kuh, 1999).

• Purposeful and frequent interactions with faculty and academic professionals. These interactions may be inside and outside the classroom in formal and informal settings (Astin, 1993; Terenzini, Pascarella & Blimling, 1996).

• Significant and educationally purposeful interactions with peers. These are opportunities that take advantage of natural peer relations and are structured in a way that is educationally purposeful (e.g., participation in student groups and student organizations, use of peers in orientation and advising, peer mentors in University Studies) (Attinasi, 1989; Astin, 1993; Terenzini et al., 1996).

• Support that is holistic rather than fragmented. Students value support that connects and integrates their experiences into a meaningful whole. This integration includes the melding of in-classroom and out-of-classroom experiences and integrates academic, career and life goals. Advising serves to help students integrate their whole university experience (Astin, 1993; Kuh, Branch, Lund, & Ramin-Gyurnek, 1994).

• Experiences that increase student commitment to educational goals and the institution. Goal and institutional commitment correlate with persistence. Experiences that assist the student to connect to the institution socially and academically increase goal commitment (Braxton, Vesper, & Hossler, 1995; Tinto, 1993; Stage, 1996; Braxton, Bray, & Berger, 2000; Okun, Benin, & Brandt-Williams, 1996).

• Support services that aid students in negotiating the higher educational system. Services that help students develop skills in maneuvering and managing the complex higher education environment are critical, particularly for students unfamiliar with higher education (Attinasi, 1989). Advising should assist the student in making sense of and negotiating the "physical, social, and academic/cognitive geography" (Attinasi, 1989, p. 262) of the University. In this way students can make sound choices among alternative pathways they could travel in attaining academic and career goals.

• Pre-enrollment advising that assists students with academic planning. Research suggests that early contact with someone at the university matters. Students transferring from two-year institutions are more likely to persist toward their educational goals if they experience early contact with personnel from four-year institutions while still attending the two-year college. Collaborative advising models that involve advisors from both the two- and four-year institutions are more likely to ease barriers to success. This is particularly true for students from diverse backgrounds (Rendon & Garza, 1996; Kinnick & Kempner, 1988). In addition, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p. 403) report that the weight of the research evidence suggests a positive link between new student orientation and persistence.

Recommendations

In making its recommendations, the Action Council considered the characteristics of students who attend Portland State University. The University serves a diverse student body, with many first-generation-college and low-income students. In addition, many students commute to campus and balance multiple roles and responsibilities, which makes developing connections to the University challenging. The common connection in the student experience at Portland State University is through the academic core, and quality academic advising is crucial to students’ successful negotiation of that core.

The Action Council concluded that academic advising can be central to enhancing the student experience if it incorporates those factors that the literature suggests contribute to success and persistence. That is, the advising system should begin early in the student’s career and ensure frequent and educationally purposeful interactions with faculty, academic professionals and peers. Advising should be holistic and provide experiences that are inclusive, supportive yet challenging, and that strengthen commitment to educational goals. Advising should provide students with the means to make informed choices about pathways to achieve their goals. Finally, these factors should be clearly evident in all contacts the student has with the advising system.

The Advising Action Council recommends that Portland State University implement, with some modification, the Proposed Advising Model for Portland State University developed by the 1995 Advising Task Force (Task Force). This proposed system is a total intake model that involves a developmental approach to academic advising.

A total intake model is considered one of the best models for academic advising and is one in which all students are originally advised by a central advising office until a set of institutionally predetermined conditions are met, and then students are advised by faculty. The Task Force suggested that this model (along with the self-contained model in which all academic advising from orientation through departure takes place in a centralized unit), comes closer to achieving advising goals and is more effective than are any of the other models. King (1995, p. 21) states that this model is the ideal model for academic advising.

Developmental academic advising incorporates the following five stages (Habley, 1983):

Stage 1. Exploration of life goals
Stage 2. Exploration of career/educational goals
Stage 3. Selection of a major or program of study
Stage 4. Selection of courses
Stage 5. Scheduling of courses

Each stage in the process builds upon learning and decision making that takes place in the earlier stages. For students who have already made a career choice, the college advising process may start at Stage 4. For students who are undecided or who are in transition from one major to another, the college advising process may have to start at an earlier stage or even go back to Stage 1. A good advising program will provide for students no matter at which of the five stages a student must start. The Task Force noted that a central advising office would probably be the one office on campus that can most easily offer all five states of the advising model. In particular, students who are in the exploratory phase of their college career should have access to advisors who have a global understanding of all academic programs offered by PSU.

Developmental advising is holistic in that it incorporates all aspects of the students’ experiences, both on and off campus, into a meaningful whole. In this way the student is seen in totality, as an individual with goals that go beyond the university experience. The holistic aspect of developmental advising assists students in connecting different parts of the educational experience into an integrated whole. That way, the student’s choice of inquiry, cluster, and capstone courses, as well as internships, practica, part time employment, and other out-of-classroom experiences, is meaningful to his or her academic major and long-term aspirations.

After reviewing the unique characteristics of Portland State University and the students it serves in relation to the considerable body of research on student success and persistence, the Advising Action Council is firm in its recommendation that academic advising be mandatory. Further, in implementing a total intake, developmental academic advising model, the Advising Action Council recommends the following:

• New student orientation will be required. The underlying theme of orientation is the facilitation of the student’s successful integration into Portland State University, which is a new and unfamiliar social and academic setting. During orientation students make an initial connection with faculty, peers, and the academic advising process. Further, orientation provides student with information about requirements and expectations, student support services, and opportunities for involvement in campus life. In these ways, the orientation program equips the student with tools and experiences that set the stage for future success. A summary of the orientation program is included in Appendix IV.

• IASC will be designated as the central advising office. IASC will:

• Create and distribute an academic advising handbook for faculty advisors
• Communicate and coordinate advising information including updates on changes approved by the Faculty Senate and Academic Requirements Committee (ARC),
• Provide support for faculty advisors and departments, including assistance in developing and writing departmental advising plans,
• Provide an initial advising session⁴ to all first year students, and advise all undeclared, Academic Support Program, and students in transition from one program to another, and
• Communicate advising information to the community colleges and collaborate with community college personnel to provide pre-enrollment advising to students who plan to transfer to PSU.
• Work with faculty to develop alternative venues for orientation and advising for distance education students and students involved in off-campus programs who are degree-seeking.

Students will be required to seek academic advice at critical junctures in their academic career: 1) All admitted freshmen and transfer students will be required to attend orientation before their first term of enrollment. Those who do not attend orientation must attend an orientation and advising make-up session during their first term of enrollment; 2) All new students will be required to attend an advising session in IASC during their first year of enrollment or before they have attempted 24 hours at PSU; and 3) Once students have earned 90 hours they will be required to meet with an advisor in their chosen academic major department or in IASC. Students who have established pre-enrollment relationships with academic units, as a result of departmental outreach efforts to prospective students, will be encouraged to continue the advising relationship already in place.

• Students who attend neither orientation nor the first-term make-up session will be encouraged to seek advising, but will nonetheless be required to sign a hard waiver, i.e., a document that lists topics covered in these sessions and relinquishes PSU's responsibility to provide information about these topics.
• In addition, if they have not already done so, students will be required to designate a major once they have accumulated 120 credit hours. Students will be advised that this is not an irrevocable decision, but a declaration of intent.

IASC and the Registrar’s office will develop a sequential communication plan so that students will 1) be given accurate information at critical junctures in their academic career, and 2) view the mandatory advising checkpoints as valuable opportunities to monitor progress toward their goals rather than as impediments. While this proposed model mandates the minimum number of advising contacts, the council recognizes that national surveys report the average contacts students make in a central advising center is 4.8 per year (Habley & Morales, 1998, p. 44). Thus, students will be encouraged to seek advising more frequently than the required contacts.

Academic advising of declared majors will be the responsibility of the academic department. Once a student has declared a major, departmental advisors will be responsible for providing advice not only on major, but also on general education and university requirements. Each department will develop a written advising plan that is tailored to the unique needs of the department and its students, and that incorporates the factors known to promote student success and retention, e.g., frequent contact between faculty advisors and students. As is the case with other responsibilities, the department must distribute the workload in order to accomplish the collective work that must done. For example, in some departments there may be one or more faculty who choose to carry the bulk of the advising while others carry out other responsibilities of the department. Indeed, "it is more than probable that not all faculty possess the inclination or the expertise to engage in advising" (Voorhees, 1990, p. 299). Each academic department will have a liaison in IASC to assist in developing and writing advising plans and to serve as a resource for general education and university requirements as well as other student services.

Faculty who do departmental advising will be supported. Each academic department will have access to a liaison advisor in IASC who will assist in developing advising plans and will provide accurate and up-to-date information regarding university requirements and policies and to information and procedures students may use for exceptions to policies. Advisors will have training regarding all university requirements to enhance their knowledge for advising within the specific major. They will also be trained in how support services may be used to enhance the success of their students. IASC will develop and maintain an update-to-date advising handbook that will be available to faculty advisors and professional advisors.

IASC and the Records Office will work with the Office of Academic Affairs to ensure the user-friendly nature of documents important in the advising process (e. g. Catalog, Class Schedule).

Without the appropriate infrastructure, attempts to fully implement the recommendations of the task force will result in greater dissatisfaction of students, and may serve to impede rather that facilitate student persistence and success. In order to successfully implement the mandatory advising system recommended by the task force, the following issues related to infrastructure need to be addressed:

• PSU needs to commit resources to establishing a central advising center.
• Advisors must have access to an accurate list of declared majors. The technology infrastructure needs to be in place to capture major information each time a student registers (e.g., Banner needs to "ask" the student to update relevant information each time he or she registers).
• Pre-professional programs of study must be designated in the Student Information System (SIS) as such and not as a major. This will require changing standardized coding convention and addressing previous coding errors.
• The Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS) and Course Articulation System (CAS) must be fully implemented and accessible to faculty advisors.
• An incentive system that recognizes and rewards faculty for quality advising must be developed and implemented. For example, the Report to the University by the PSU Committee on Undergraduate Student Retention (November 1993, p. 22) suggested a certification program for academic advisors, who would be provided with release time to serve in this role. The 1995 Advising Task Force (p. 15) proposed merit monies be divided into two parts. One part could be used to recognize people who are meritorious in historically recognized activities and the second part could be used for meritorious advisors. The Task Force noted that, if the University wants an exemplary advising program (or even if the goal is only a "standard" advising program), the university must recognize in a meaningful way those who are meritorious advisers.
• An on-going system of supporting faculty advising through communication and development opportunities must be in place.
• A standing committee must be appointed by the president to implement the proposed advising model, monitor its effectiveness, review departmental advising plans, and serve as a resource to departments and advising faculty.
• An electronic advising file that would follow the students throughout his or her academic career must be available to advisors. Implementation details will need further exploration.

Implementation of the Advising Model

Current Resources in Advising

Each department and/or school or college devotes resources to advising students who are majors; in fact some have centralized advising offices (e. g. School of Business Administration). However, there are two centers on campus that provide advising to a broader group of students.

The first such center is the IASC, which provides academic advising to students regardless of major. The number of personnel resources devoted to academic advising are as follows:

The second center is the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) Advising Office. These advisors provide academic advising for the General Studies degree, pre-health careers preparation, pre-education careers preparation, general education and other CLAS related areas. The number of personnel resources devoted to academic advising in the above areas are:

Resource Requirements

Under the proposed advising model, IASC would provide support and assistance to all academic departments, and advise undecided students, first year students, and students in transition between majors. Using current enrollment data, IASC would provide advising to an estimated 5,400 students per year. According to the Fall 1999 Fact Book, 3,600 PSU students are undeclared majors, plus the University enrolls 1,110 new freshmen and 688 new transfer students with less than 90 hours, for a total of 5,400 students. To determine the implications of the model for resources, the committee reviewed data from a national survey conducted by the National Academic Advising Association (Habley and Morales, 1998). The survey data are included in Table 1 below.

Table 1
Four Year Public Institutions Average Advising Load
Per 1.0 FTE Professional Advisor

The survey found that in four year public institutions the average number of students assigned to each full-time advisor is 267.4, and the average number of contacts between the advisor and advisee is 4.8 per year, bringing the total number of advising contact per full-time advisor to 1,284 per year.

The estimated advising load for IASC under the proposed model is included in Table 2. Applying the data on current student enrollment to the proposed model, 3,110 new students would make one contact with IASC, while the 3,600 undeclared students could be expected to make 4.8 contacts for a total of 20,390 advising contacts in IASC per year. Applying the national data formulaically by dividing the expected number of contacts by the national average number of annual advising contacts per advisor, the implementation of the proposed model would require nearly 15 full time advisors. Currently, IASC has 2.05 FTE in academic advising.

Table 2
Estimated IASC Advising Load

The Action Council does, however, recognize that this estimate of students to be served by IASC may be inflated in that the number of students may be duplicative (e. g., new students who are also undecided), and that some students listed in the student information system as undeclared may have identified a major, but not yet updated their records. In addition, the Action Council recognizes that there are alternative advising strategies that use a combination of group advising, peer advising, and individual advising sessions, which might allow IASC advisors to increase advising contacts above the national average. Further, 4.8 advising contacts per year may not be necessary for all PSU student populations, whereas three contacts per year may be a more appropriate average target. In light of these considerations, the Action Council believes that an additional 5.0 FTE in professional advisors, which would bring the total FTE of professional advisors in IASC to 7.05, would be sufficient for full implementation of the model. The responsibilities of the professional advisors would be to provide academic advising to students and serve as liaisons and resources to academic departments in matters concerning general education and university requirements, advising strategies and plans, and student services resources.

In addition to the professional advisors, resources will be needed for supporting the additional advisors, printing advising guides, sequential communications with students, and supporting the technology used in advising. Table 3 summarizes the resource needs the Council suggests are sufficient to implement the proposed advising model.

Assessment of Implemented advising model

In the design of the proposed advising model, the Action Council intentionally embedded factors that research suggests either directly or indirectly influence student persistence. If fully implemented, this model will impact retention. However, it is important to note that student persistence is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, and, as such, dramatic and immediate increases in retention rates are unlikely. It is more likely that we will see increases in retention that occur over an extended period of time. In addition to the long-term implications for increasing student retention, the Action Council anticipates that two general outcomes will follow from the implementation of the Action Council’s recommendations:

The academic advising process at PSU will become more effective. We recommend that multiple measures of this outcome be explored: reduction in number of ARC petitions predicated on misunderstandings of degree requirements, increase in number of students who "successfully" apply for graduation and/or who complete their requirements in a timely fashion. Another measure of the success of an advising system is whether students have an accurate idea of where they are in their academic career and a knowledge of the pathways they will travel in attaining their academic and career goals. We should assess whether students understand how their academic experience is relevant to their goals. An intended outcome of the proposed advising model is an increasing proportion of students who have clearly articulated educational goals and know how to achieve them.

1. Students, faculty, and staff will report increased satisfaction with the overall PSU advising experience. Again, multiple measures of this outcome should be used and involve comparison with baseline data summarized earlier in this report (e.g. survey data from OIRP and PSU Title III grant activities).

Implementation Outcomes for 2000-2002

While the outcomes listed above suggest the results that are expected once the advising system is in full operation, below are the outcomes that are expected at the end of the first two years of implementation.

July 1, 2001 Outcomes

• Implementation of a campaign to encourage students to update their major information on SIS
• Development of a sequence of communications to students regarding importance of advising and actions to be taken at critical junctures in the student’s academic experience
• Development and distribution of alternative models for departmental advising plans
• Development and implementation of three departmental advising plans
• Communication network to assist departmental and other professional advisors
• Access to DARS for three academic departments
• Initial implementation of CAS
• Development of Faculty Advising Guide, which will be available electronically

July 2002 Outcomes

• Implementation sequence of communications to students
• Development and implementation of all departmental advising plans
• Implementation of mandatory orientation
• Advising Workshops for faculty
• Complete implementation of DARS and CAS
• Development of Electronic Advising Files

Implementation Outcomes July 2003 and July 2004

While in the process of implementing the proposed advising system, the Acton Council believes that formative evaluation will provide critical information that will inform its continued implementation. Therefore, in order to achieve the final outcomes of mandatory freshmen orientation by 2003 and full implementation of the advising model by 2004; the implementation objectives for the last two years should be developed in light of the lessons we learned during the initial implementation.

References

Advising Task Force. (1995). Proposed advising model for Portland State University. (1995). Unpublished manuscript, Portland, Oregon: Portland State University.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Mexican Americans’ perception of university attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 248-277.

Bach, S. K.; Banks, M. A.; Blanchard, D. K.; Kinnick, M. K.; Ricks, M. F. & Stoering, J. M. (1999). Reverse transfer students in an urban postsecondary system in Oregon. In B. Townsend (Ed), Understanding the impact of reverse transfer students on community colleges, New Directions for Community Colleges No. 106. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braxton, J. M.; Bray, N. J.; & Berger, J. B. (2000). Faculty teaching skill and their influence on the college student departure process. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 215-227.

Braxton, J. M.; Vesper, N. & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 36, 595-612.

Committee on Undergraduate Student Retention. (1993). Report to the university by the PSU committee on undergraduate student Retention November, 1993. Unpublished manuscript, Portland, Oregon: Portland State University, Office of Institutional Research and Planning.

Habley, W. R. (1983). Organizational structures for academic advising: Models and implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 535-540.

Habley, W. R. & Morales, R. H. (1998). Current Practices in Academic Advising: Final Report on Act’s Fifth National Survey of Academic Advising. National Academic Advising Association, Monograph Series No. 6, 1998.

Hurtado, S.; Milem, J. F.; Clayton-Pedersen, A. R. & Allen, W. R. (1996). Enhancing Campus Climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational Policy and Practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 279-302.

King, M. C. (1995). Organizational models and delivery systems for faculty advising. In G. L. Kramer (Ed.) Reaffirming the role of faculty in academic advising, National Academic Advising Association, Monograph Series No. 1, 1995.

Kinnick, M. K. & Kempner, K. (1988). Beyond "front door" access: Attaining the bachelor’s degree. Research in Higher Education, 29, 299-316.

Kuh, G. D., Branch; k.; Lund, J.P.; & Ramin-Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries. ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report No. 8. Washington D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Kuh, G. D. (1999). Setting the bar high to promote student learning. In G. Blimling, E. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 67-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 26, 31-59.

Office of Institutional Research. (1999). 1999 Current undergraduate student survey: Executive Summary. Unpublished manuscript, Portland, Oregon: Portland State University, Office of Institutional Research.

Okun, M. A.; Benin, M. & Brandt-Williams, A. (1996). Staying in college: Moderators of the relation between intention and institutional departure. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 577-596.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perrin, N. & Ostrogorsky, T. (1999). Faculty & student baseline academic advising report 1999. Unpublished manuscript, Portland, Oregon: Portland State University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

President’s Commission on Campus Climate and Life. (1998). Report from the president’s commission on campus climate and life. Unpublished manuscript, Portland, Oregon: Portland State University.

Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 23-32.

Rendon, L. I. & Garza, H. (1996). Closing the gap between two- and four-year institutions. In L. Rendon & R. Hope (eds.), Educating the new majority: Transforming America’s educational system for diversity (289-308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stage, F. (1996). Setting the context: Psychological theories of learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 227-235.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T. & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class experiences and their influences on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 149-162.

Thomas, R. O. (1990). Programs and activities to improve retention. In D. Hossler, J. Bean & Associates (Eds.), The strategic management of college enrollments (pp.186-201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2^nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Voorhees, R. A. (1990). A survey of academic advising as an area inquiry. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research volume VI. New York: Agathon Press.