Fall Quarter 1999
Winter Quarter 2000
Spring and Summer Quarters 2000
FALL QUARTER 1999
November 19, 1999 - Proposed Advising Model for Portland State University
The council identified some strengths and weaknesses of the report on the "Proposed
Advising Model for Portland State University ", informally known as the Norm
Rose Report. This report examined the advising situation at PSU in 1995 and
contained recommendations as to how this situation could be structured so that
both students and faculty reported more satisfaction with advising at PSU. The
strengths of the Norm Rose Report include:
The "developmental" model of advising provides students with an integrated academic
program and enhanced learning experience.
A holistic approach to advising is essential.
Declaring a major is a requirement.
Checkpoints to ensure that PSU has correct and current information about the
student including address and major.
Connecting degree audits with advising.
Requirement for central advising for entering students.
Centralized advising center.
Advising liaisons located in the centralized advising center who are aware of
departmental requirements.
Creation of an advising handbook that is systematically revised and disseminated.
Some of the concerns with the report were:
Strain on resources.
There needs to be a mechanism for assessment of both departmental and centralized advising.
Cost of new advisors.
Roadblocks for students must be minimized.
Communication between departments and between departments and the administration must be enhanced.
December 3, 1999 - Strategies to Encourage Advising
The council questioned faculty reluctance to participate in advising and discussed strategies to encourage participation. The council believed the factors that affect faculty participation in advising include:
Advising is not a valued part of faculty culture.
Faculty are too busy with other activities.
Advising is not intellectually exciting.
Learning and staying current with curriculum requirements takes a lot of effort.
There is a wide interpretation of the meaning of advising.
The strategies to encourage participation in advising include:
Establishment of an award for outstanding advising.
Require departments to establish advising plans.
Provide advising incentives for departments.
Integrate advising into faculty culture.
January 5, 2000 - Consensus Points
The council came to cons
ensus on several points in regards to what should be included in an advising
plan.
Mandatory advising should be implemented and accomplished through registration
checkpoints.
Holistic advising in major and university requirements for declared majors should
occur in the departments.
Departments should have autonomy in how advising is implemented within the department.
Faculty development and incentives to support advising are necessary.
There is a need for professional advisors for undeclared majors.
A central mechanism for coordination and communication of information related
to academic advising is necessary.
All students will be expected to declare an academic major at a certain point
in their academic career.
Opportunities should be provided for students to explore career opportunities
and how they relate to choosing a major.
Opportunities for students to verify their major, address and phone number should
be provided.
The council will identify and communicate effective models of advising to departments.
January 19, 2000 - Proposed Advising Model for Admitted Students
A subcommittee of the council prepared an advising model that addressed the consensus points agreed upon at the previous meeting. The model proposes a system wherein students must seek advising at certain checkpoints in their academic career in order to register for classes. Students first seek advising in a centralized advising center and then, once a major is declared, students receive advising in their major department. The council voiced some concerns with the model related to specifics of implementation. There was some question as to whether it was appropriate for transfer students as well as freshmen, whether the checkpoints would be too difficult to implement and if these checkpoints would pose roadblocks for students. The council agreed that communication with students and departments was vital to the success of the proposed model, also believing that technological tools could be of help in the implementation of such an advising system.
February 2, 2000 - Honing the Proposed Advising Model and Defining Goals
The council continued to smooth out possible rough spots in the proposed advising model and further defined their goals. The council hopes the model will:
Increase the number of students who have clearly articulated goals and pathways to achieve these goals.
Increase faculty, staff and student satisfaction with the overall advising experience.
Increase student understanding of how the academic process is relevant to their goals.
Increase the effectiveness of the advising as demonstrated by multiple measures such as a decrease in Academic Requirements Committee petitions.
Encourage more frequent visits with advisors.
Provide students with well-informed academic advisors and a holistic advising experience (an experience that encompasses and integrates academic and life goals).
February 16, 2000 - Student Advising Action Council Report
The co-chairs of the council, Janine Allen and Cathleen Smith, worked with Devorah Lieberman to begin drafting the councilÕs final report. This draft encompassed the council's goals, the proposed advising model and addressed some of the specifics of implementation. The council also revisited ways to reward effective advising and incentives for faculty to advise.
March 1, 2000 -Review of Discussion with ACE Visitors and the Latest Draft
of the Advising Report
Co-chairs Janine Allen and Cathleen Smith had the opportunity to meet with Sandy Astin and representatives from ACE to discuss the work of the council and the proposed changes to advising at PSU. Astin and the ACE visitors offered several suggestions: The visitors stressed the importance of having a baseline assessment of the current advising picture as well as building ongoing data collection in to the advising plan, adding that the Assessment Council could be of great assistance in designing an assessment plan. The council was urged to keep in mind ways to communicate the benefits of a more extensive advising plan to faculty. The visitors suggested that students be required to create a long range education plan. The visitors furnished the council with contacts at other universities who have done similar work with advising.
The council reviewed the latest draft of the Advising Report and further examined the checkpoint wherein students must seek initial advising at IASC. There was some concern that students who have sought advising through the department or in the CLAS Advising Center will be penalized and that the relationships between these students and their advisors will be undermined. The council agreed that there should be some flexibility if a student has already formed a relationship with an advisor outside of IASC.
As the council will assist departments in the development of their advising plans through various measures including providing examples of model advising programs, Cathleen asked the council to start thinking about the components of such model programs.
March 29, 2000 - Model Departmental Advising Programs and the Latest Draft
of the Advising Report
Instead of simply furnishing departments with a list of model programs, the council will provide prototypes of advising programs and incorporate examples from the effective programs at PSU.
The council began discussion of an implementation timeline for the proposed advising model. Additionally, potential resources to fund the model were discussed.
April 12, 2000 - Funding the Advising Model, Title III Data, and Advising
Strategies.
The council discussed sources of funding for the model and how these funds would be spent. There was concern about adding advising duties for faculty without providing financial support. Release time, hiring professional advisors and creating advising stipends were some suggested options for departmental funding support. Possible funding sources include an increase in student fees (the council then discerned that the fee increase would be too great), access funds tied to advising or putting advising funds into the Student Affairs budget for distribution.
Cathleen shared Title III Baseline Advising Data showing student satisfaction with advising. The council questioned how more satisfaction data could be gathered in the future. It was suggested that students fill out such a questionnaire upon applying for a degree audit.
The council discussed departmental advising prototypes including the faculty release model (a designated faculty member(s) is given release time to handle the departmentÕs advising load), and the intentional assignment model (students are assigned to a faculty member based on a predetermined factor such as area of interest). Delivery modes of advising such as a mandatory class, group advising and peer advising were also discussed.
April 26, 2000 - Report on meeting with Dan Bernstine, George Pernsteiner
and Mary Kay Tetreault
Janine and Cathleen reported on their meeting with Dan Bernstine, George Pernsteiner and Mary Kay Tetreault, relaying some suggestions and ideas offered by these administrators. While there was support for mandatory advising, it was suggested that students be given a Òhard waiverÓ option. Should a student choose to take this Òhard waiver,Ó (s)he will still be able to seek advising but will not be compelled to navigate the mandatory checkpoints. The council expressed great concern about the Òhard waiver,Ó stating that it would send a mixed message about the importance of advising and create unneeded complexity in the advising system.
Another point of concern for the administrators was the mandatory major declaration at 90 hours. As the council had already been concerned that 90 hours might be too early to require major declaration, it was decided that this checkpoint would be an Òaffirmation point,Ó (students would have the option to remain undeclared) and major declaration would be required at 120 hours.
According to the administrators, one of the major strengths of the report was the council support for departments in developing advising plans. The provost supported the redirection of resources to aid advising faculty and asked the council to think of ways to provide incentives for advising.
More information was requested about what happens in advising sessions and how these sessions are of benefit to students.
May 10, 2000 - The Initial Advising Contact, Role of CLAS Advisors, Departmental
Advising and Support
The council revisited the initial advising contact in IASC, and how this requirement relates to the departments and the CLAS Advising Center. There was some concern from council members and others outside of the council, that the initial advising contact in the IASC would harm relationships with the major department and CLAS advisors. Members of the council worry that all departments are not able to provide developmental advising and agree that an appointment with an IASC advisor would be of benefit to incoming students. The CLAS question is more complex as members of the council agreed that these advisors provide developmental advising but worry about added complexity to the proposed advising system. This issue is further complicated by how this aspect of the report will impact the allocation of resources.
The council again explored issues of support for advising faculty. Cathleen worries that the IASC departmental liaisons and advising handbook will not be perceived by faculty as adequate support for increased advising duties. Before making any further decisions on financial support, the council will gather feedback from faculty and the CLAS chairs, whom Janine and Cathleen are slated to present the model to at the CLAS chairs meeting in June.
May 24, 2000 - The Advising Model and an Alternative
In response to concerns about the primary advising contact in the IASC and those expressed by the CLAS chairs and the administrators, Janine and Cathleen drafted an alternative advising system to the total intake model. The primary difference between the alternative system and the original model is that all students would not have an initial contact in IASC, but would have the option to go the department once they declare a major. Council members expressed concern with the alternative model in that it placed much of the advising responsibility with departments, and is more decentralized than the original proposed model. The council further explored issues related to mandatory advising, assessment, developmental advising in the departments, major declaration, the primary contact in IASC and resource allocation.
June 7, 2000 - Finalizing the Proposed Advising Model
The council revisited the primary contact issue, orientation, and funding/resource issues with the goal of finalizing the advising report. In regards to the primary contact issue, it was decided that language in the report would be changed to reflect that students would have an appointment in IASC during their first year at PSU. Also agreed upon, was an internal process between IASC and CLAS wherein students who have already developed a relationship with an advisor in CLAS can continue to receive advising there. Though there was no resolution as to whether this process would be included in the report or as to how it would affect resource allocation.
July 19, 2000 - Finalizing the Report
The council revisited the hard waiver, the registration, the advising guide, and questions about faculty support and resources. Upon polling the group about the possibility of a hard waiver, Janine and Cathleen learned that the council felt strongly that the waiver would erode the integrity of the advising system. Concerns were expressed about the registration hold as a means of enforcing the advising checkpoints. Dan stated that it is important to balance an emphasis on the value of advising, as demonstrated through the hold, with what will work for students, faculty and staff while fostering beneficial advising relationships. The council hoped that other means of enforcement could be found in the process of implementing the system. As the creation of an advising guide for faculty was deemed a high priority, this action was moved to the 2000 – 2001 implementation cycle. It was suggested that portions of the guide be included in the Bulletin and that the entire guide be available online. Again, concerns were voiced that faculty would not receive adequate support for additional advising duties. Dick stated that faculty culture plays a greater role than money, adding that there was little support in the administration for dedicating additional resources so that faculty will advise.
August 10, 2000 - Finalizing the Report
Upon reviewing changes made to the report, the council discussed major declaration, faculty support and the next steps for the advising system. At 120 hours, students will be contacted and asked to declare a major. They will be required to affirm their majors each time they register and major declaration forms will be readily available in departments. Janine informed the council that a major declaration campaign, in which students will be urged to update their majors, will be undertaken in the fall. The issue of incentives for faculty advising remained unresolved. Dick was in favor of developing an award to recognize effective advising. While this is a positive step, Cathleen stated that it was not enough. Janine, Devorah and Cathleen will further discuss this issue when meeting with the president, provost and vice president for finance and administration. Janine expressed hope that council members would be willing to serve on the Academic Advising Committee, a committee created to oversee the implementation and assessment of the advising model and to provide support to departments.