DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 423 806 HE 031 654

AUTHOR Belcheir, Marcia J.TITLE Student Satisfaction with Academic Advising. Research Report

98-04.INSTITUTION Boise State Univ., ID. Office of Institutional Assessment.PUB DATE 1998-07-00NOTE 31p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Research (143) Tests/Questionnaires (160)EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Advising; Educational Counseling; Faculty

Advisers; Higher Education; Participant Satisfaction;Questionnaires; *Student Attitudes; Tables (Data);*Undergraduate Students; Undergraduate Study

IDENTIFIERS *Boise State University ID

ABSTRACTThis study examined the academic advising process at Boise

State University (Idaho) prior to implementation of "signaturelessregistration" (advisor's approval not necessary for course registration) andother changes in the advising process. Students (n.890) in 21 undergraduateclasses responded to a survey about their advising experience. Analysis ofsurvey responses indicated that: (1) almost 30 percent reported theycurrently did not have an advisor (either faculty, advising center staff, orpeers); (2) about two-thirds thought the advising process adequately mettheir needs, while one-third did not; (3) about 60 percent reported thattheir meetings with advisors lasted 15 minutes or less and less than halfthought this time was sufficient; (4) topics during an advising sessionfocused on scheduling and registration procedures, although students wantedto talk more about career planning and academic difficulties; (5) less than40 percent felt their advisor kept them up to date on academic requirements,referred them to other sources for assistance, helped them identifyobstacles, or helped them explore careers; and (6) students who were assignedto advising centers were more likely to be satisfied than students who hadfaculty advisors or peer counselors. Extensive tables detail the study'sfindings. The survey is attached. (DB)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

STUdENT SATiSFACTiON

WiTh ACAdEMiC AdvisiNg

RESEARCh REpogr 98-04

MARCiA J. BEIchEiR , Ph.D.CooRdiNATOR

INSTiTUTiONAI. ASSESSMENT

BEST C PY AVAILABLE

MAK STATE UNivERsiiy

July 1 9 9 8

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

Marcia J. Belcheir

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 0

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and ImprovementiTED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)his document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

AbSTRACT

STUdENT SATiSfACTiON WiTh ACAdEMiC AdvisiNg

The purpose of this study was to gather information on the academic advising process as it

existed prior to the implementation of "signatureless registration." Data will be used to

document changes in student perceptions of advising after advising was no longer tied to

registering for classes and to guide efforts to "re-vision" the advising process. A survey from

ACT administered to a random sample of undergraduate classes provided the basis for the study.

Findings from the study include:

The largest group of students (46%) indicated they were currently advised by faculty

members. About 14% were assigned to advising center staff, and 8% had peer advisors.

Almost 30% reported they currently did not have an advisor.

About two-thirds thought the advising process adequately met their needs, while one-third

did not.

Meetings with advisors were short. About 60% reported their meetings lasted 15 minutes or

less. Fewer than half thought the time they spent with their advisors was sufficient.

Topics of conversation during an advising session mainly focused on scheduling and

registration procedures. Students indicated that they wished they had talked more to their

advisors about career planning and academic difficulties.

Students generally agreed their advisors were approachable, good listeners, trustworthy, and

displayed a sense of humor. Most students, however, felt like just another face to their

advisor.

Advising fell short in a number of areas. Among them, less than 40% agreed their advisor

kept them up to date on changes in academic requirements, referred them to other sources for

3

assistance, helped them identify obstacles to meeting their educational goals, or helped them

explore careers in their fields of interest.

Over 75% of students who were assigned to advising centers felt that their advisingneeds

were adequately met, while about 70% of students who had faculty advisors felt that way.

Less than 60% of students who had peer advisors were satisfied with the advising process, a

similar percentage to students with no advisor at all.

Students appeared happy with advising centers because they were more proactive and

available. Students were happy with faculty because they were able to establish personal

relationships with them. Peer counselors, however, were less likely to be proactive,

available, or known to the advisee.

This report confirms the already expressed need to improve advising. Clearly, more

conversations need to take place during the advising sessions, covering topics such as careers,

academic difficulties, and resources for additional help. Students also would like their advisors

to be more proactive in dealing with them and establish relationships where they are known as

individuals to their advisors. Under the current system, peer advising in departments generally

does not appear to be very effective in meeting students' advising needs and should probably be

either improved or eliminated as an approach to advising. In addition, efforts should be made to

provide advisors for students who currently do not have one, starting with freshmen since this

group was least likely to think they had an advisor.

STUdENT SATiSfACTION wiTh ACAdEMIC AdvisiNg

Academic advising is the process by which students receive help in forming their educationalgoals and planning ways to achieve them. Based on students' individual circumstances, personaldevelopment and academic skills, academic advisors provide information and support and foster asense of responsibility in students to achieve their own goals. Academic advising includes:ongoing contact with an informed and supportive representative of the academic community;introduction to and explanation of academic requirements, policies and procedures; explorationof necessary skill levels (reading, writing mathematics, study skills); referral to campus resources;degree planning; and career exploration and preparation. (Philosophy statement of academicadvising at Boise State University, 1995).

Traditionally, academic advising has been addressed through a variety of venues at Boise State

University. Just as tremendous diversity exists among BSU students regarding their ages,

educational backgrounds, prior academic achievements, educational goals, and attendance

patterns, so diversity also exists in advising services available. Students who are undecided

about their major are referred to the Academic Advising Center. Students who have chosen a

major are referred to their, respective departments. There they may receive advising at an

advising center such as those available in the College of Business and Economics or the College

of Applied Technology or see a faculty member or peer advisor. Students who are full-time have

been required to get advising, proof of which is shown by obtaining the advisor's signature for

course selection prior to registering each semester. Students who are part-time have been

encouraged but not required to seek advising.

Evidence has been mounting for some time, however, that advising generally could use some

improvement. Alumni have commented about problems with advising, especially as it relates to

career selection (see Research Report 98-01 and 96-03). Often new freshmen didn't even know

they'd been advised they just thought they'd registered (see Research Report 97-04). An in-

depth study by the university's academic advising council found that advising frequently was not

taking place as a part of registration. Instead, students were searching for their advisors, often

unsuccessfully just prior to their registration appointments, and signatures often were those of

secretarial staff or the students themselves. Advising in many cases was replaced by the act of

obtaining a signature.

As a result of these findings, a change in the advising process is occurring at Boise State

University. Because the current process didn't seem to be working and because it perpetuated

1

the idea that advising was simply course selection, signature-free registration was implemented

for the first time in November of 1997. At the same time, a process innovation team was

organized to study advising and make recommendations about how to improve it at BSU. The

Academic Advising Council is also working to ensure that students are well-advised without

tying it to registration.

Before the start of all these changes, however, benchmark data needed to be gathered on how

well the current process was working so it would later be evident as to whether actual

improvements had been made. The data also would be used to help the advising innovation team

with their "re-visioning" of advising.

To carry out the study, an advising survey was purchased from ACT (American College

Testing). A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A. A random sample of 25 on-campus

undergraduate classes were drawn in such a way that no student would be in more than one class.

Of the 25 classes selected, 24 faculty agreed to participate in the study and 21 (or 84%) returned

the survey. The total number of surveys returned were 890. It was estimated that if everyone

had attended the classes selected and filled out the survey on that day, 1,172 would have been

completed. Therefore, the response rate was over 75%, assuming up-to-date class records and

perfect attendance.

DEmogruphics of TliE REspoNdErvis

We were interested in the undergraduate experience with advising, and 97% of the students

responding indicated that they were undergraduates (see Table 1). Most were freshmen (45% of

the total) and under the age of 20. Less than 20% were 30 or older (see Table 2). About 10% of

the students were undecided about their majors, while the remainder were spread across the

colleges at the university (see Table 3).

As is reflective of our student body, about 84% reported they were white non-Hispanic. Females

were slightly over-represented in the survey at 62%, and full-time students were definitely over-

represented since they comprised 88.5% of the respondents, yet typically made up about 60% of

6 2

undergraduates. Most (59%) students came directly to BSU from high school (see Table 4).

Almost 80% were working at least part-time and 25% were working over 30 hours per week (see

Table 5).

SEIEcTiNg ANd Mali Ng wilt! AN AdvisOR'

Most students (46%) indicated that they were currently advised by faculty. The next largest

group (29%) indicated that they had no adviser. See Table 6 and Figure 1. Students without

advisors were more likely to be freshmen (68% vs. 45%) and non-transfers (68% vs. 59%).

About the same percentage were fulltime (84% vs. 88%).

No advisor29%

Peer counselor7%

Other college staff4%

Figure 1. Current Academic Advisor

Advising Center staff14%

Faculty46%

Most (52%) said they had little or no input into the selection of their advisor. Students typically

had known their advisor for only a short period of time with over 50% indicating they had had

their current advisor for six months or less (see Table 7). About 40% indicated they had changed

their advisors at least once, usually because they changed their major. Only 14% indicated they

had changed their advisors because they were dissatisfied with them.

1 Anyone that responded that they did not have an advisor was excluded from this analysis.

BEST COPY AVAHLAIAL 7 3

Students were most likely to report that they met with their advisors once a year (41%), though

14% indicated they had never met with their advisor in the past year. On the other hand, about

20% met with their advisors three or more times. (See Table 8.)

Students were divided as to whether the number of meetings they had with their advisors were

sufficient. While 44% indicated the number was sufficient, 38% did not think so, and 18% were

undecided. Most meetings were quite short. About 60% who met with their advisors indicated

the meetings lasted less than 15 minutes. Only 5% met with their advisors over 30 minutes.

(See Table 9).

Topics of DiSCUSSiON DURiNq AdvisiNg SESSiONS

Students confirmed that the main topic of conversation during advising sessions was scheduling

and registration procedures (see Table 10). The other two main topics were students' academic

progress and meeting the requirements for graduation, student teaching, certification, etc.

Students also indicated what they did not discuss during advising sessions but wished they had.

Topping the list was matching their learning style with particular courses and instructors with

slightly over 50% of students indicating they wished they had had this conversation. Other

topics which rose to the top of the list were finding a job after college (47%), identifying career

areas which fit skills and abilities (43%), coping with academic difficulties (40%), and clarifying

life and career goals (39%). Generally, then, students wished they'd talked more about possible

careers and academic problems. Again, see Table 10 for further details. Figure 2 provides a

visual display of some of the areas students either discussed or wished they had.

Students felt little need to talk to advisors about either withdrawing from the institution or

dealing with personal problems with 77% indicating they felt no need to discuss these topics

with their advisors. Employment on campus was another area with 64% indicating they didn't

need to talk about this topic with their advisors.

8 4

Figure 3. Impressions of Advising

1 2 3

Item

4 5 6

0 AgreeDisagree

Item:1. Provides me with accurate information about requirements, prerequisites, etc.2. Refers me to other sources from which I can obtain assistance3. Encourages me to assume an active role in planning my academic program4. Is familiar with my academic background5. Helps me explore careers in my field of interest6. Is a helpful, effective advisor whom I would recommend to other students

Students most strongly agreed that their advisor:

Respects my right to make my own decisions (mean=3.86, 71% agreement)

Has a sense of humor (mean=3.75, 61% agreement)

Keeps personal information confidential (mean=3.68, 53% agreement)

Is a good listener (mean=3.63, 58% agreement)

Is approachable and easy to talk to (mean=3.62, 58% agreement)

Students were least likely to agree that their advisor:

Takes the initiative in arranging meetings (mean=2.35, 18% agreement)

Encourages me to talk about myself and my experiences (mean=2.82, 26% agreement)

Encourages my involvement in extra-curricular activities (mean=2.86, 26% agreement)

Helps me explore careers in my field of interest (mean=2.93, 32% agreement)

Clearly defines adviser/advisee responsibilities (mean=2.96, 30% agreement)

Knows who I am (mean=2.97, 43% agreement)

1 0 6

These responses indicated that students generally had a good impression of their advisors as

individuals since they agreed their advisors were approachable, good listeners, trustworthy, and

displayed a sense of humor. However, students generally did not feel they had a personal

relationship with their advisors. These responses also confirmed that the career exploration

component of academic advising was generally lacking from the advising experience at BSU.

GENERAL SATiSfACTiON WiTh AdvisiNg ANd ITS REkTiONSIlip

TO STUdENT ANd AdviSOR ChARXTERISTICS

One item on the survey asked students to indicate whether the advising system met their needs

exceptionally well, more than adequately, adequately, less than adequately, or very, poorly. As

shown by Figure 4, about two-thirds of the respondents were satisfied with the current system

23%

'`

Figure 4. Percent agreeing Advising Met Needs

10%5%

11%

51%

o Exceptionally wellMore than adequately

[13 Adequately

o Less than adequatelyVery poorly

while one-third did not feel the system met their needs. To try to better explain these

differences, further analyses were conducted to try to uncover some relationships between

satisfaction with the advising process and either characteristics of the students or characteristics

of the advising situation.

1 17

STUdENT ChARACTERISTICS

To see if certain students felt they were better served by the advising process than others were,

analyses were conducted to see if differences existed between how well students indicated the

advising system met their needs and reported cumulative grade point average (GPA), number of

hours worked, full-time or part-time enrollment, class level, and status as a native or transfer

student. Only number of hours employed was related (general association value=40.789, df=20,

1)=.004). Generally speaking, students who were unemployed or worked only a few hours per

week were happier with the advising experience than those who worked full-time. See Table 12

for further details.

Who AdvisEd ThE STUdENT

Students also indicated who was their current academic advisor: faculty, advising center staff

member (fulltime academic advisor), other college staff, peer counselor (student), or no current

advisor. A Row Mean Scores (RMS) Difference test indicated that differences in satisfaction

existed depending on who the student had as an advisor (RMS=40.02, df=4, p=.001). As shown

by Table 13, students seemed most satisfied with the advising system when they were advised by

advising center staff. The next most satisfied group was those who were advised by faculty.

There appeared to be few differences between being advised by peer counselors and having no

advisor at all.

WhAr wAs DiscussEd iN AdvisiNg SESSiONS

A check was also conducted to see if there were differences in perceptions of how well the

advising system met their needs depending upon whether students indicated they felt no need to

discuss a topic, whether they had not discussed the topic and wished they had, or whether they

had discussed the topic during an advising session. (The list of the 18 topics is listed in Table

10.)

Results indicated that each of the 18 topics showed statistically significant differences, those who

discussed the topic were most likely to feel the advising system more than adequately met their

needs. Those who wished they had discussed a topic had the highest percentage who indicated

the system was less than adequate in meeting their advising needs. Those who felt they had no

1 28

need to discuss the topic typically had the highest percentage who felt the advising system

"adequately" met their needs.

IMpRESSiONS Of Ad VISORS ANd AdvisiNg SATiSFACTION

How did impressions of the advisor relate to satisfaction with the advising process? An initial

analysis indicated that each of the 36 items was significantly related to satisfaction. A factor

analysis using maximum likelihood and varimax rotation was then conducted to reduce the

number of items and provide a "bigger picture" understanding of the relationship between

advisor perceptions and advising satisfaction.

Results indicated that advisors could be described on six general dimensions: encouraging,

proactive, respectful, approachable, personal, and time management. Factor 1, Encouraging,

included items such as "encourages me to talk about myself," "encourages my involvement in

extra-curricular activities," "helps me examine my needs, interests, and values," and "encourages

my interest in a discipline." Factor 2, Proactive, included items such as "takes the initiative in

arranging meetings," "defines advisor/advisee responsibilities," "helps me identify obstacles to

goals," and "refers me to other sources for assistance." Factor 3, named Respectful, included

items such as "respects my opinions and feelings," "respects my right to make my own

decisions," "is a good listener," and "provides a caring, open atmosphere." Factor 4,

Approachable, included items such as "seems to enjoy advising," "is approachable and easy to

talk to," "is a helpful advisor I would recommend to others," and "has a sense of humor." Factor

5, Personal, included "knows who I am" and "expresses interest in me as an individual." Factor

6, Time Manager, included "is on time for appointments," "allows sufficient time to discuss

issues," and "is available when I need assistance."

Scores on the six dimensions of advising were useful in explaining student satisfaction with the

advising process (R2=.31, F=44.93, df=6,594, p=.0001). Each factor also was important in its

own way in explaining how advisor perceptions related to student satisfaction with the advising

process. However, scores on the Proactive dimension of advising were most highly related to

advising satisfaction. This was followed by the Encouraging dimension of advising and the

Approachable dimension. See Table 14 for further details.

13 9

AdvisoR TypE ANd AdvisoR ChARACTERIsTiCs

Recall that students seemed happiest with advising from an advising center staff member. Next,

they were most satisfied with faculty. There appeared to be little difference in satisfaction

between having a peer advisor and having no advisor at all. To test if characteristics of the

different "types" of advisors related to satisfaction, the six characteristics were tested to see if

mean differences occurred depending upon whether the student had advising center staff, faculty,

other staff, or peer counselors as their current advisors.

Differences were found for three of the six characteristics: proactive (F=7.47, df=3,599,

p=.0001), personal (F=22.06, df=3,599, p=.001), and time management (F=8.73, df=3,599,

p=.0001). For the proactive dimension, follow-up tests indicated that advising center staff were

rated much more highly than any other group, and none of the other groups differed from one

another on this dimension. For the personal dimension, faculty were rated much more highly

than any other group, and none of the other groups differed from one another. In the area of time

management, advising center staff and faculty were rated more highly than peer counselors.

Advising center staff were also rated more highly than other staff in this area. See Table 15 for

group means. Partial results are shown in Figure 5 below.

106

104

Figure 5. Means on Three Advising Dimensions

Proactive Personal

14

Time Mgt

DAdv CenterEFaculty0Peer

10

It appears that one thing students appreciate from advising centers is the more proactive

approach that center staff take to advising. They also appreciate the personal relationships that

they form with faculty. In addition, it seems important to students that advising center staff and

faculty are more likely to meet their appointment obligations and be available for future help if

students need it. It is likely that these differences contribute to ratings of student satisfaction

with the advising process.

SUMMARy ANd CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to gather some data on students' perceptions of the advising

process to be used to guide proposed changes to the process and provide a benchmark to see if

there are differences in how advising is viewed several years after changes are implemented.

Results indicated that three-quarters of all students were either advised by faculty (46%) or not at

all (29%). Students typically met with their advisors once a year for less than 15 minutes. Fewer

than half thought the number of meetings they had with their advisor was sufficient.

Advising sessions mainly consisted of conversations about scheduling and registration

procedures. Slightly less than half the students also indicated they discussed their academic

progress and/or meeting the requirements for graduation. Students indicated that they wished

they had talked to their advisors about possible career and academic problems but most did not.

Students generally had a good impression of their advisors with more than half agreeing their

advisors were approachable, good listeners, trustworthy, and had a sense of humor. However,

students generally did not feel they were seen as individuals by their advisors with less than half

agreeing their advisor knew who they were or expressed interest in them as unique individuals.

Less than 40% agreed their advisor kept them up to date on changes in academic requirements,

referred them to other sources for assistance, helped them identify obstacles to meeting their

educational goals, or guided them in exploring careers in their fields of interest.

In general, about two-thirds of students felt the current advising system adequately met their

needs, while one-third did not. Students with advising center staff as advisors were the most

1 511

likely to be satisfied while students with faculty advisors were second. Students being advised

by peer counselors were about as satisfied as students with no advisor at all. Students who

discussed a variety of topics during their advising sessions also were more satisfied. In addition,

students with advisors who they viewed as encouraging, proactive, respectful, approachable,

good time managers, and personal were happier with the current system. It appeared that the

reason students were happy with advising centers because the centers were more proactive and

good at time management. Students were happy with faculty as advisors because they were

more likely to have a personal relationship with them. Peer counselors were at the bottom in

satisfaction because they were neither proactive, available, nor known to the advisee.

This report confirms the already expressed need to improve advising. Clearly, more

conversations need to take place during the advising sessions, covering topics such as careers,

academic difficulties, and resources for additional help. Students also would like their advisors

to be more proactive in dealing with them and establish relationships where they are known as

individuals to their advisors. Under the current system, peer advising in departments generally

does not appear to be very effective in meeting students' advising needs and should probably be

either improved or eliminated as an approach to advising. In addition, efforts should be made to

provide advisors for students who currently do not have one starting with new freshman.

1612

Table 1. Class status of survey respondents

Class Frequency Percent

Freshman 393 44.6

Sophomore 155 17.6

Junior 152 17.2

Senior 157 17.8

Other 3 0.3

Table 2. Age of survey respondents

Age Category Frequency Percent

18 or under 199 22.5

19 97 11.0

20 86 9.7

21 77 8.7

22 66 7.5

23-25 126 14.3

26-29 73 8.3

30-39 103 11.7

40 or over 56 6.3

Table 3. College which has reported student major

College/Major Frequency Percent

Undecided 84 9.4

Applied Technology 34 3.8

Education 118 13.3

Business and Economics 254 28.5

Engineering 34 3.8

Health Sciences 81 9.1

Arts and Sciences 87 9.8

Social Sciences/ Public Affair 166 18.7

Unknown major 32 3.6

Table 4. Last School attended by survey respondents

Last School attended Frequency Percent

High School 526 59.4

Vocational-Technical School 52 5.9

Two-year college 131 14.8

Four-year college 151 17.1

Grad/Professional school 7 0.8

Other 18 2.0

BEST COPY AVAPALE 13

Table 5. Hours per Week that Survey respondents are employed

Hours per week worked Frequency Percent

0 or only occasional jobs 189 21.4

1-10 67 7.6

11-20 174 19.7

21-30 225 25.4

31-40 158 17.9

Over 40 72 8.1

Table 6. Current Academic Advisor

Current Academic Advisor Frequency Percent

Faculty 385 45.6

Advising Center Staff 118 14.0

Other College Staff 37 4.4

Peer counselor 63 7.5

No advisor 242 28.6

Table 7. How long respondents have had their current advisor

How long had advisor Frequency Percent

0-6 months 347 57.3

7 months to 1 year 80 13.2

1 to 1 Y2 years 63 10.4

1 Y2 to 2 years 43 7.1

Over 2 years 73 12.0

Table 8. How Often Respondents met with their Advisors in Past Year

Number of Times Frequency Percent

Never 82 14.2

Once 238 41.3

Twice 137 23.8

Three times 51 8.9

Four or five times 33 5.7

More than five times 35 6.1

18 14

Table 9. Time Spent in Each meeting With Advisor

Time spent Frequency Percent

Not met 78 13.6

Under 5 minutes 79 13.7

5-15 minutes 264 45.9

16-30 minutes 123 21.4

More than 30 minutes 31 5.4

Table 10. Topics Discussed in Advising and Satisfaction with Advisor's Assistance

Topic: No need todiscuss

Shouldhave

discussed

Havediscussed

% satisfiedwho

discussed'

My academic progress 22.1 34.3 43.6 66.1

Scheduling/registration procedures 18.6 17.1 64.3 69.9

Dropping/adding classes 44.2 18.9 36.8 70.8

Obtaining course credit throughnontraditional means (CLEP,PEP, jobexperience, etc.)

48.8 35.6 15.6 62.4

Selecting/changing my major area ofstudy

55.3 21.8 22.9 66.7

Meeting requirements for graduation,student teaching, certification, etc.

21.2 33.5 45.4 68.3

Improving my study skills and habits 53.2 34.8 12.0 65.2

Matching my learning style toparticular courses, course sections, orinstructors

36.7 51.2 12.1 72.7

Obtaining remedial/tutorial assistance 60.6 29.7 9.7 66.0

Clarifying my life/career goals 37.0 39.3 23.6 74.6

Identifying career areas which fit mycurrent skills, abilities, & interests

38.5 42.6 18.9 80.2

Coping with academic difficulties 46.2 39.6 14.2 74.4

Obtaining financial aid 50.0 32.0 18.0 68.1

Obtaining employment on campus(work study, assistantships, etc.)

64.1 23.8 12.1 62.1

Finding a job after college/jobplacement

38.7 46.7 14.6 61.3

Continuing my education aftergraduation

46.8 38.4 14.8 77.5

Withdrawing/transferring from thisinstitution

77.4 16.9 5.6 66.7

Dealing with personal problems 77.1 12.5 10.4 80.4

Percent of those who were very satisfied or satisfied. Number of respondents limited to those who indicated they

discussed the topic.

19 15

Table 11. Respondents' Impressions of Advisors

My advisor: N Mean Percentdisagree

Percentneutral

Percentagree

Knows who I am 557 2.97 44.2 12.6 43.3Is a good listener 542 3.61 12.4 30.1 57.6Expresses interest in me as a uniqueindividual

542 3.21 28.0 29.5 42.4

Respects my opinions and feelings 537 3.58 12.3 30.9 56.8Is available when I need assistance 542 3.37 20.1 30.1 49.8Provides a caring open atmosphere 534 3.49 15.4 32.4 52.2Checks to make sure we understand eachother

531 3.33 19.6 35.2 45.2

Respects my right to make my owndecisions

533 386 7.7 21.2 71.1

Provides me with accurate informationabout requirements, prerequisites, etc.

541 3.54 20.7 20.1 59.1

Keeps me up to date on changes inacademic requirements

522 2.91 36.2 33.0 30.8

Refers me to other sources from which Ican obtain assistance

510 3.12 28.6 34.3 37.1

Encourages me to assume an active role inplanning my academic program

532 3.47 17.7 31.4 50.9

Accepts constructive feedback concerninghis/her effectiveness as an advisor

456 3.12 18.0 55.5 26.5

Encourages me to achieve my educationalgoals

529 3.45 15.7 35.7 48.6

Helps me identify the obstacles I need toovercome to reach my educational goals

507 3.17 24.5 38.7 36.9

Takes the initiative in arranging meetingswith me

505 2.35 58.0 23.6 18.4

Is on time for appointments with me 491 3.55 11.8 36.9 51.3Clearly defines advisor/adviseeresponsibilities

506 2.96 31.6 38.3 30.0

Allows sufficient time to discuss issues orproblems

518 3.44 18.5 28.0 53.5

Is willing to discuss personal problems 416 3.16 19.0 50.5 30.5

Anticipates my needs 489 3.01 28.0 42.1 29.9Helps me select courses that match myinterests and abilities

513 3.29 24.4 29.2 46.4

Helps me examine my needs, interests,and values

487 3.10 26.5 40.7 32.9

2 0 16

Table 11 - Cont'd.

Is familiar with my academic background 528 3.05 33.3 27.3 39.4Encourages me to talk about myself andmy college experiences

487 2.82 39.6 34.7 25.7

Encourages my interest in an academicdiscipline

498 3.08 27.9 38.2 33.9

Encourages my involvement inextracurricular activities

460 2.86 36.1 37.8 26.1

Helps me explore careers in my field ofinterest

486 2.93 34.0 33.7 32.3

Is knowledgeable about courses outsidemy major area of study

487 3.16 22.8 41.5 35.7

Seems to enjoy advising 521 3.46 17.1 30.7 52.2Is approachable and easy to talk to 531 3.62 15.4 26.2 58.4Shows concern for my personal growthand development

502 3.17 26.7 36.9 36.5

Keeps personal information confidential 451 368 5.8 41.0 53.2Is flexible in helping me plan myacademic program

514 3.47 \ 15.2 38.3 46.5

Has a sense of humor 516 3.75 10.3 28.5 61.2Is a helpful, effective advisor whom Iwould recommend to other students

520 3.36 21.5 31.7 46.7

Table 12. Number of Hours Employed and Satisfaction with Advising

Percent agreeing advising s stem met needs:Hoursemployed

Exceptionallywell

More thanadequately

Adequately Less thanadequately

Verypoorly

Total N

0 or odd jobs 5.65 18.08 45.20 20.90 10.17 177

1-10 1.61 16.13 59.68 17.74 4.84 62

11-20 7.69 12.43 44.97 27.22 7.69 169

21-30 6.13 8.02 54.25 21.70 9.91 212

31-40 2.70 8.11 51.35 29.05 8.78 148

Over 40 2.86 1.43 64.29 17.14 14.29 70

Total 5.13 11.10 51.19 23.27 9.31 838

BEST CON AVAILABLE

17

Table 13. Current Academic Advisor and Satisfaction with Advising

Percent agreeing advising system met needs:Currentadvisor

Exceptionallywell

More thanadequately

Adequately Less thanadequately

Verypoorly

Total N

Faculty 5.73 12.76 50.78 20.83 9.90 384

AdvisingCenter staff

13.56 19.49 44.92 18.64 3.39 118

Other collegestaff

0.00 11.11 50.00 27.78 11.11 36

PeerCounselor

1.59 4.76 52.38 30.16 11.11 63

No advisor 1.33 6.64 53.10 27.43 11.50 226

Total 5.08 11.37 50.67 23.34 9.55 827

Table 14. Regression Equation Predicting How Well Advising System Meets NeedsFrom Six Dimensions/Factors of Advising

Variable Standardized B T for HO Prob > T

Factor 1: Encouraging 0.224 6.466 .0001

Factor 2: Proactive 0.347 10.075 .0001

Factor 3: Respectful 0.125 3.604 .0003

Factor 4: Approachable 0.210 6.085 .0001

Factor 5: Personal 0.088 2.560 .0107

Factor 6: Time Manager 0.111 3.218 .0014

Table 15. Means2 for Advising Dimensions which Showed Significant Differences

Group Proactive dimension Personal dimension Time managementMean N Mean N Mean N

Advising Center 103.83 118 96.9 118 101.44 118

Faculty 99.2 385 102.35 385 100.76 385

Peer Counselor 99.0 63 94.9 63 94.8 63

Other staff 97.8 37 94.4 37 96.8 37

2 Scores were standardized with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 10. Higher scores were more positive.3 Advising Center mean significantly differed from all other groups. Effect sizes were .466 for faculty, .482 for peercounselors, and .607 for other staff.4 Advising Center mean significantly differed from other staff and peer counselor means. Effect sizes were.463 forother staff and .670 for peer counselors.5 Faculty mean significantly differed from all other groups. Effect sizes were .565 for advising center, .784 for peer

counselors, and .813 for other staff.6 Faculty mean significantly differed from peer counselor mean. Effect size was .608.

9 0 18

AppENdix A

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

I1

11

11

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

11

11

II

II

I1

11

11

11

11

11

esS

UR

VE

Y O

F A

CA

DE

MIC

AD

VIS

ING

IIes

DIR

EC

TIO

NS

: The

info

rmat

ion

you

supp

ly o

n th

is q

uest

ionn

aire

will

be

kept

con

fiden

tial.

The

data

will

be

used

for

rese

arch

pur

pose

s an

d to

hel

p im

prov

e th

e ac

adem

ic a

dvis

ing

prog

ram

at

this

col

lege

. If,

how

ever

, any

que

stio

n re

ques

ts in

form

atio

n th

at y

ou d

o no

t wis

h to

pro

vide

,fe

el fr

ee to

om

it it.

Ple

ase

use

a so

ft (N

o. 1

or

2) le

ad p

enci

l to

fill i

n th

e ov

al in

dica

ting

your

res

pons

e. D

O N

OT

use

a ba

ll-po

int p

en, n

ylon

-tip

or

felt-

tip p

en, f

ount

ain

pen,

mar

ker,

or

colo

red

penc

il. S

ome

item

s m

ay n

ot a

pply

to y

ou o

r to

this

col

lege

. If t

his

is th

e ca

se, s

kip

the

item

or

mar

k th

e "D

oes

Not

App

ly"

optio

n. If

you

wis

h to

cha

nge

your

res

pons

e to

an

item

, era

se y

our

first

mar

kco

mpl

etel

y an

d th

en b

lack

en th

e co

rrec

t ova

l. S

elec

t onl

y O

NE

res

pons

e fo

r ea

ch it

em.

Not

e th

at th

e te

rm "

Col

lege

," a

s us

ed in

this

sur

vey,

ref

ers

to th

e po

stse

cond

ary

inst

itutio

nad

min

iste

ring

this

sur

vey,

and

not

to a

spe

cific

uni

t or

depa

rtm

ent w

ithin

the

inst

itutio

n.

SE

CT

ION

I--B

AC

KG

RO

UN

D IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

---

Beg

in..b

y, w

ritin

g yo

ur S

ocla

lSeC

UrI

tynu

mbe

r in

the

larg

e bo

keS

' at:t

he'tO

p of

Blo

ck A

fern

aini

ng b

lock

i by

blac

keni

ng th

e si

ngle

mos

t app

ropr

iate

res

pons

e in

eac

h'C

ase.

:,T

hen,

:in

;the

colu

mn

belo

w-

eaC

K. b

Ox;

;; °b

lack

en th

e 'a

ppro

pria

te; o

yal.-

,, C

ompl

ete

the

"

11:1

SO

CIA

L S

EC

UR

ITY

NU

MB

ER

(Ide

ntifi

catio

n N

umbe

r)

IIHIH

1100

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

00 ,0

000

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000

0 00 0

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

0 00 0

0 00 0

AG

E

0 18

or

Und

er0

190

200

210

220

23 to

25

0 26

to 2

90

30to

39

0 40

to 6

10

62 o

r O

ver

RA

CIA

L/E

TH

NIC

GR

OU

P

0 A

fro-

Am

eric

an o

r B

lack

0 N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

(In

dian

, Ala

skan

, Haw

aiia

n)0

Cau

casi

an o

r W

hite

0 M

ekic

an-A

mer

ican

, Mex

ican

Orig

in0

Asi

an A

mer

ican

, Orie

ntal

, Pac

ific

Isla

nder

0 P

uert

o R

ican

, Cub

an, O

ther

Lat

ino

or H

ispa

nic

0 O

ther

0 I p

refe

r no

t to

resp

ond.

MA

RIT

AL

ST

AT

US

Fem

ale

0 U

nmar

ried

(Inc

ludi

ng S

ingl

e.D

ivor

ced,

and

Wid

owed

)

0 M

arrie

d0

Sep

arat

ed0

Pre

fer

Not

to R

espo

nd

WH

AT

IS Y

OU

RC

UR

RE

NT

EN

RO

LLM

EN

TS

TA

TU

S?

Ful

l-Tim

e S

tude

nt

Par

t-1

line

Stu

dent

IND

ICA

TE

YO

UR

CU

RR

EN

TC

LAS

S L

EV

EL

0 F

resh

man

0 S

opho

mor

e0

Juni

or0

Sen

ior

0 G

radu

ate

or P

rofe

ssio

nal S

tude

nt

0 S

peci

al S

tude

nt0

Oth

er/U

ncla

ssifi

ed0

Doe

s N

ot A

pply

to T

his

Col

lege

WH

AT

WA

S T

HE

LA

ST

TY

PE

OF

SC

HO

OL

YO

UA

TT

EN

DE

D P

RIO

R T

O-

EN

TE

RIN

G T

HIS

INS

TIT

UT

ION

?

Hig

h S

choo

lV

ocat

iona

l/Tec

hnic

al S

choo

l

2-Y

ear

Com

mun

ity/J

unio

r C

olle

ge0

4-Y

ear

Col

lege

or

Uni

vers

ity

0 G

radu

ate/

Pro

fess

iona

l Col

lege

0 O

ther

,

IND

ICA

TE

YO

UR

OV

ER

ALL

CO

LLE

GE

GR

AD

EP

OIN

T A

VE

RA

GE

0 A

- to

A (

3.50

-4.0

0)0

B to

A-

(100

-3.4

9)0

B. t

o B

(2.

50-2

.99)

0 C

to B

- (2

.00-

2.49

)

0 c.

bc.

C (

1.50

-1.9

9)o

D to

C-

(1.0

0-1,

49)

0 B

elow

0 (

0 00

-0.9

9)0

Hav

e N

ot E

stab

lishe

da

Gra

de P

oint

Ave

rage

0 D

oes

Not

App

ly

IND

ICA

TE

YO

UR

CU

RR

EN

TC

OLL

EG

ER

ES

IDE

NC

E

0 R

esid

ence

Hal

l

0 F

rate

rnity

or

Sor

ority

Hou

se

0 C

olle

ge M

arrie

d S

tude

nt H

ousi

ng0

Off-

Cam

pus

Roo

m o

r A

part

men

t0

Hom

e of

Par

ents

or

Rel

ativ

es0

Ow

n H

ome

0 O

ther

el A

US

ING

TH

E L

IST

OF

CO

LLE

GE

: MA

JOR

S A

ND

OC

CU

PA

TIO

NA

LC

HO

ICE

S IN

CLU

DE

D W

ITH

TH

IS +

'`

QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E, I

ND

ICA

TE

. ;

, YO

UR

MA

JOR

AR

EA

OF

ST

UD

Y:

WR

ITE

TH

IS C

OD

E IN

TH

E.,.

.

BO

XE

S A

T T

HE

TO

P O

F B

LOC

K-

'N

, AN

D B

LAC

KE

N T

HE

AP

PR

O-:

:P

RIA

TE

OV

AL

IN T

HE

CO

LUM

N' B

ELO

W E

AC

H B

OX

. (IF

YO

UH

AV

E M

OR

E.T

HA

N O

NE

MA

JOR

'-:A

RE

X.S

ELE

CT

.TH

E O

NE

CO

DE

TH

AT

.you

FE

EL

BE

ST

; DE

SC

RIB

ES

yO

UR

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

PR

OG

RA

M)

"-;

IND

ICA

TE

YO

UR

CO

LLE

GE

MA

JOR

FO

R W

HA

T P

RIM

AR

Y P

UR

PO

SE

DID

YO

U E

NT

ER

TH

IS IN

ST

ITU

TIO

N?

(Sel

ect O

nly

One

)

No

Def

inite

Pur

pose

in M

ind

To

Tak

e a

Few

Cou

rses

tor

Sel

f-Im

prov

emen

tO

r P

erso

nal S

atis

fact

ion

0 T

o T

ake

a F

ew J

ob-R

elat

ed o

r Jo

b-R

equi

red

Cou

rses

0 T

o T

ake

Cou

rses

Nec

essa

ry fo

r T

rans

ferr

ing

to A

noth

er C

olle

ge

0 T

o O

btai

n or

Mai

ntai

n a

Cer

tific

atio

n

0 T

o C

ompl

ete

a V

ocat

iona

l/Tec

hnic

al P

rogr

am0

To

Obt

ain

an A

ssoc

iate

Deg

ree

0 T

o O

btai

n a

Bac

helo

r's D

egre

e

0 T

o O

btai

n a

Mas

ter's

Deg

ree

0 T

o O

btai

n a

Doc

tora

te o

r P

role

ssio

nal D

egre

e

IND

ICA

TE

TH

EN

UM

BE

R O

F H

OU

RS

PE

R W

EE

K Y

OU

AR

EC

UR

RE

NT

LY E

MP

LOY

ED

0 o

or O

nly

Occ

asio

nal J

obs

0 1

to 1

00

11 to

20

0 21

to 3

00

31 to

40

0 O

ker

40

BE

ST

rnp

v A

VA

II A

kiF

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 9 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WH

AT

IS Y

OU

RR

ES

IDE

NC

EC

LAS

SIF

ICA

TIO

NA

T T

HIS

CO

LLE

GE

?

0 In

-Sta

te S

tude

nt0

Out

-of-

Sta

te S

tude

nt0

Inte

rnat

iona

l Stu

dent

(Not

U S

Citi

zen)

IF Y

OU

R IN

ST

ITU

TIO

N H

AS

PR

OV

IDE

DA

LIS

T O

F A

DV

ISO

R C

OD

ES

, PLE

AS

ES

ELE

CT

TH

E A

PP

RO

PR

IAT

E C

OD

E,

FO

R Y

OU

RC

UR

RE

NT

AC

AD

EM

ICA

DV

ISO

R. W

RIT

E T

HIS

CO

DE

INT

HE

BO

XE

S A

T T

HE

TO

P O

F'

BLO

CK

0, A

ND

BLA

CK

EN

TH

E.

'A

PP

RO

PR

IAT

E O

VA

L IN

TH

E't

CO

LUM

N B

ELO

W E

AC

H B

OX

. IF

YO

U R

EC

EIV

E A

DV

ISIN

G F

RO

MS

EV

ER

AL

SO

UR

CE

S, R

ES

PO

ND

, --

WIT

H R

EG

AR

D T

O Y

OU

R P

RIM

AR

Y.A

CA

DE

MIC

AD

VIS

OR

. IF

AN

-

-AD

VIS

OR

CO

DE

LIS

T H

AS

NO

T'

' BE

EN

PR

OV

IDE

D, L

EA

VE

BLO

CK

0 B

LAN

K A

ND

PR

OC

EE

D T

O T

HE

NE

XT

ITE

M.

0IN

DIC

AT

EY

OU

RA

DV

ISO

R

10 0 0 9 0 9 0

0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

0 0

5

,101

i114

=4D

VIIN

at'

FO

RM

AT

ION

.

oyno

uyr:

'

' 1116

:::_a

_::it

.hdi

otl,d

ntho

Bat

,,:l

"ti9

;ps

re,

Dei

sOR

P °

laid

rG

IP'6

Cif

you

rece

ive

"rei

ently

have

,"an

adv.

an

lto

iiisi

ltUP

P'1

°for

,to,ff

iea9

1.41

7666

iisel

ng :I

T Y

9

InY

t"N

ote

'4%

)and

ftlo

nO

n'd

tpgu

estfO

nsq

P

heri:

skip

';:to

on p

ag,ia

dvis

ing

from

sev

eral

sou

rces

, res

pond

with

..reg

ard

to.

-yo

urpr

imar

Y a

cade

mic

adv

isor

.,`'

HO

W W

ELL

DO

ES

TH

E A

CA

DE

MIC

AD

VIS

ING

SY

ST

EM

CU

RR

EN

TLY

OF

FE

RE

D B

Y T

HIS

INS

TIT

UT

ION

ME

ET

YO

UR

NE

ED

S?

Enc

eolio

nally

Wel

lkA

ore

Tha

n A

dequ

atel

y

0 A

dequ

atel

y0

less

Tha

n A

dequ

atel

yV

ery

Poo

rly

WH

ICH

OF

TH

E F

OLL

OW

ING

BEST

DE

SC

RIB

ES

YO

URCURRENT

AC

AD

EM

IC A

DV

ISO

R?

0 F

acul

ty M

embe

r0

Adv

isin

g C

ente

r S

taff

Mem

ber

(Ful

l-Tim

e A

cade

mic

Adv

isor

)0

Oth

er C

olle

ge S

taff

Mem

ber

o C

011e

ge-A

ppoi

nted

Pee

r C

ouns

elor

(S

tude

nt)

0 I D

o N

ot H

ave

an A

dvis

or (

Ski

p to

Sec

tion

VI o

n P

age

4)

HO

W M

UC

H IN

PU

TD

ID Y

OU

HA

VE

IN T

HE

SE

LEC

TIO

NO

F Y

OU

RCURRENT

AC

AD

EM

IC A

DV

ISO

R?

0 A

Gre

at D

eal o

f Inp

ut0

Som

e In

put

0 Li

ttle

or H

o In

put

HO

W L

ON

GH

AV

E Y

OU

HA

DY

OU

RCURRENT

AC

AD

EM

IC A

DV

ISO

R?

0 0

to 6

Mon

ths

0 7

Mon

ths

to 1

Yna

r

0 1

to 1

', Y

ears

0to

2 V

eers

0 O

yer

2 Y

ears

.:4

213

EC

TIO

NM

IIAC

AD

EM

ICA

DV

ISIN

G.N

EE

DS

:-.

;F.

t41;

h fth

fow

ing-

issu

es to

pics

.,_or

.1(1

6e N

oltV

iSki

pte,

Se6

floW

NI:o

n pa

gtrX

ff.96

0:1q

p91,

,,t,"

.y:"

..r

.

111'

'''6

"-"y

'514

-

-'131

ibur

feve

ll'of

:sat

isfa

ctIo

n,..w

thlft

litS

siO

icin

de.'y

oui'a

dils

o!he

s,

e 'e

ac o

o I

r.l.'

e,tit

t,1,1

9,5C

ligirl

hka*

C99

617

..

p.

-P

AR

T B

:S

AT

ISF

AC

TIO

N W

ITH

-A

DV

ISO

R'S

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E

00

0

O0

0

00

0

O0

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

00

0

O0

0

00

0

EX

AM

PLE

A: L

earn

ing

abou

t ove

rsea

s ex

chan

gepr

ogra

ms.

EX

AM

PLE

B: O

btai

ning

info

rmat

ion

abou

t the

Pea

ce C

orps

, VIS

TA

, etc

.

1. M

y ac

adem

ic p

rogr

ess

2. S

ched

ulin

g/re

gist

ratio

n pr

oced

ures

3. D

ropp

ing/

addi

ng c

ours

es

4. O

btai

ning

cou

rse

cred

it th

roug

h no

ntra

ditio

nal

mea

ns (

CLE

P. P

EP

. joh

exp

erie

nce,

etc

.)

5. S

elec

ting/

chan

ging

my

maj

or a

rea

of s

tudy

6. M

eetin

g re

quire

men

ts fo

r gr

adua

tion,

stu

dent

teac

hing

, cer

tific

atio

n. e

tc.

00

00

0

0I

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

00

00

0

0

7 Im

prov

ing

my

stud

y sk

ills

and

habi

ts

8 M

atch

ing

my

lear

ning

sty

le to

par

ticul

arco

urse

s, c

ours

e se

ctio

ns, o

r in

stru

ctor

s

9. O

btai

ning

rem

edia

l/tut

oria

l ass

ista

nce

10. C

larif

ying

my

life/

care

er g

oals

11. I

dent

ifyin

g ca

reer

are

as w

hich

fit m

y cu

rren

tsk

ills,

abi

litie

s, a

nd in

tere

sts

12. C

opin

g w

ith a

cade

mic

diff

icul

ties

00

13. O

btai

ning

fina

ncia

l aid

00

00

0

00

14. O

btai

ning

em

ploy

men

t on

cam

pus

(wor

kst

udy,

ass

ista

ntsh

ips,

etc

.)0

00

00

00

15. F

indi

ng a

job

afte

r co

llege

/job

plac

emen

t0

00

00

00

16. C

ontin

uing

my

educ

atio

n af

ter

grad

uatio

n0

00

00

00

17. W

ithdr

awin

g/tr

ansf

errin

g fr

om th

is in

stitu

tion

00

00

0

00

18. D

ealin

g w

ith p

erso

nal p

robl

ems

00

00

II 1

'111

1'1'

m11

1111

1111

111

Vrt

ilifl

r11

(11 III1

III

II 1

I

1.1.

161

11

I1.

11

11

I1

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1I

II

II

II1.

1.1

I

A E

SE

CT

ION

:IV=

IMP

RE

SS

ION

S O

F Y

OU

R A

DV

ISO

IV-,

iPle

ase.

resp

ond

to th

e fo

llow

ing

ques

tions

abo

ut y

our

curr

ent a

Cad

amic

adv

isor

:, (N

ote:

Ski

p to

iSec

tion

VI o

n,pa

ge 4

if y

ou d

o no

t hav

e an

adv

isor

.-.

3

01,

A 0 A A 0 11 1 0

2. Is

a g

ood

liste

ner.

3. E

xpre

sses

inte

rest

in m

e as

a u

niqu

ein

divi

dual

.

4. R

espe

cts

my

opin

ions

and

feel

ings

.

5. Is

ava

ilabl

e w

hen

I nee

d as

sist

ance

.

6. P

rovi

des

a ca

ring,

ope

n at

mos

pher

e.

7. C

heck

s to

mak

e su

re w

e un

ders

tand

eac

hot

her.

8. R

espe

cts

my

right

to m

ake

my

own

deci

sion

s.

9. P

rovi

des

me

with

acc

urat

e in

form

atio

nab

out r

equi

rem

ents

, pre

requ

isite

s, e

tc.

10. K

eeps

me

up to

dat

e on

cha

nges

inac

adem

ic r

equi

rem

ents

.

11. R

efer

s m

e to

oth

er s

ourc

es fr

om w

hich

Ica

n ob

tain

ass

ista

nce.

rAD

VIS

OR

i-

19. A

llow

s su

ffici

ent t

ime

to d

iscu

ss is

sues

or

prob

lem

s.

20. I

s w

illin

g to

dis

cuss

per

sona

l pro

blem

s.

22. H

elps

me

sele

ct c

ours

es th

at m

atch

my

inte

rest

s an

d ab

ilitie

s.

23. H

elps

me

to e

xam

ine

my

need

s, in

tere

sts,

and

valu

es.

24. I

s fa

mili

ar w

ith m

y ac

adem

ic b

ackg

roun

d.

25. E

ncou

rage

s m

e to

talk

abo

ut m

ysel

f and

my

colle

ge e

xper

ienc

es.

26. E

ncou

rage

s m

y in

tere

st in

an

acad

emic

disc

iplin

e.27

. Enc

oura

ges

my

invo

lvem

ent i

n ex

trac

urric

-ul

ar a

ctiv

ities

.

28. H

elps

me

expl

ore

care

ers

in m

y fie

ld o

fin

tere

st.

29. I

s kn

owle

dgea

ble

abou

t cou

rses

out

side

my

maj

or a

rea

of s

tudy

.12

. Enc

oura

ges

me

to a

ssum

e an

act

ive

role

in p

lann

ing

my

acad

emic

pro

gram

.13

. Acc

epts

con

stru

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck c

once

rn-

ing

his/

her

effe

ctiv

enes

s as

an

advi

sor.

14. E

ncou

rage

s m

e to

ach

ieve

my

educ

a-tio

nal g

oals

.

15. H

elps

me

iden

tify

the

obst

acle

s I n

eed

toov

erco

me

to r

each

my

educ

atio

nal g

oals

.

16. T

akes

the

initi

ativ

e in

arr

angi

ng m

eetin

gsw

ith m

e.

17. I

s on

tim

e fo

r ap

poin

tmen

ts w

ith m

e.

18. C

lear

ly d

efin

es a

dvis

or/a

dvis

ee r

espo

nsi-

bilit

ies.

31. I

s ap

proa

chab

le a

nd e

asy

to ta

lk to

.

32. S

how

s co

ncer

n fo

r m

y pe

rson

al g

row

than

d de

velo

pmen

t.

33. K

eeps

per

sona

l inf

orm

atio

n co

nfid

entia

l.

34. I

s fle

xibl

e in

hel

ping

me

plan

dem

ic p

rogr

am.

36. I

s a

help

ful,

effe

ctiv

e ad

viso

rw

ould

re

mm

nr

t

2 8

SE

CT

ION

VA

DD

ITIO

NA

LA

DY

ISIN

G IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

s

Mee

eeire

spon

d to

the

follo

win

g qU

estio

ns 'a

bout

you

r ac

adem

ic a

dvis

ing

?.4i

.iArif

ir(N

ote:

'.Sic

ip to

:Sec

tion

yl o

n th

is p

age

it yo

u do

not

hav

e an

HA

VE

YO

U C

HA

NG

ED

AD

VIS

OR

S S

INC

E E

NR

OLL

ING

IN T

HIS

INS

TIT

UT

ION

?

0 Y

es. O

nce

0 Y

es, T

wic

e0

Yes

. Mor

e T

han

Tw

o T

imes

0 N

o (S

kip

to It

em C

I

1,--

-'' 1

' :- ''

,. .::

-.::'

'IN

DIC

AT

E W

HIC

H S

TA

TE

ME

NT

BE

ST

DE

SC

RIB

ES

TH

E R

EA

SO

N F

OR

YO

UR

MO

STR

EC

EN

T C

HA

NG

E O

F A

DV

ISO

R

11:10

IC

hang

ed M

y M

ajor

Are

a of

Stu

dy0

I Mov

ed in

toan

Upp

er-L

evel

or

Pro

fess

iona

l Pro

gram

with

in M

y M

ajor

Are

a of

Stu

dy

0 M

y A

dvis

or's

Sta

tus

Cha

nged

(R

etire

d. M

oved

. Dec

ease

d. P

rom

oted

, etc

)0

The

Inst

itutio

n to

r M

y D

epar

tmen

t) C

hang

ed o

r M

odifi

ed A

dvis

or A

ssig

nmen

ts

0IW

as N

ot S

atis

fied

with

My

Adv

isor

0 O

ther

..

DU

RIN

G T

HE

PA

ST

YE

AR

,H

OW

OF

TE

N D

ID Y

OU

ME

ET

WIT

H Y

OU

R A

DV

ISO

R?

0 N

ever

0 O

nce

0 T

wic

e0

Thr

ee T

imes

0 F

our

or F

ive

Tim

es

0 M

ore

Tha

n F

ive

Tim

es

DO

YO

U F

EE

L T

HE

NU

MB

ER

OF

ME

ET

ING

S IN

DIC

AT

ED

IN B

LOC

K C

WA

S S

UF

FIC

IEN

T F

OR

YO

UR

NE

ED

S?

0 Y

es0

No

0 U

ndec

ided

t-

HO

W M

UC

H T

IME

DO

YO

U U

SU

ALL

Y S

PE

ND

IN E

AC

H M

EE

TIN

G W

ITH

YO

UR

AD

VIS

OR

?

0 I H

ave

Not

Met

with

My

Adv

isor

0 Le

ss T

han

5 M

inut

es0

5 to

15 M

inut

es

016

to 3

0 M

inut

es

0 M

ore

Tha

n 30

Min

utes

SE

CT

ION

VIA

DD

ITIO

NA

L Q

UE

ST

ION

SIf

an a

ddi i

onal

set

of m

ultip

le-c

hoic

e qu

estio

ns Is

incl

uded

with

this

form

, ple

ase

use

this

sec

tion

' to

reco

rdyo

ur r

espo

nses

. Tw

elve

ova

ls a

re p

rovi

ded

fo e

ach

ques

tion.

but

few

que

stio

ns r

equi

re'

that

man

y ch

oice

s. S

impl

y ig

nore

the

extr

a re

spon

se o

vals

.'

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

© 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

a 0 0 0 0 0 0

a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/

:..

..,;..

tz,.;

4,:

.":',

..1(:

:..*.

SE

CT

ION

VII-

-CO

MM

EN

TS

-AN

D S

UG

GE

ST

ION

S.

.,

.-:-

-'.,,,

;',..,

.!:-.

..':-

..,..-

,.::::

::..,

.: -,

,,,...

.:

. .,-

,''.

, '.

'4

-'.

:

: If

you

wis

h A

Om

aite

any

com

men

ts o

r S

ugge

stio

ns C

once

rnin

g th

ii co

llege

or

its a

dvis

ing

prog

ram

ple

ase

use

'the

lines

pro

vide

d be

low

:: '',

-',''',

:q^.

.,X,':

%,'-

:',;.i

.v.:e

. +,..

-.;g

::,.

il.-:

:.;1"

.:,,-

4..'1

..,f.-

-;:,,

,:"...

:.:...

:....i

,.....

::::',

.,:...

..,.',

,.,,,

;.,:,.

..

,s.'.

...,:r

:'.,

.;

',:..-

,-.

, -.-

:- '

.:,-.

77:q

,5,.:

..;;:;

',Vt,.

.,:'

", -

.;'...

t:;:,,

7',4

-.' '

'-'.:

'1:''

'.*':

7..',

-.'!.

,--.

T.',

' "f,

' ""

- ',,-,

s,,

;.

..--

-

:-.

.].._

.

,: -:

:,''.

'-i-

et,'-

'-',"

.-: i

,..-.

.,..

'.:,.

.',.'

;.:',

..

t-,

--.

.-

'-7

.,-,i'

:..".

,;'..,

..',,

--,

'.", .

.,,v.

' .c.

--.

:,,

-,,

-.

DO

NO

T W

RIT

E B

ELO

W T

HIS

LIN

E.

TOFz-A11,110o

'Z'f(a/NA

VA:T-4-4-'1f' /.1/>01 *

N111,4-,%1A!.;007. quir

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

Student Satisfaction with Academic AdvisingResearch Report 98-04

Author(s): Marcia J. Belcheir

Corporate Source: Publication Date:

July 1998

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documentsannounced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to usersin microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service(EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of thefollowing notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following options and sign the releasebelow.

aSample sticker to be affixed to document Sample sticker to be affixed to document I*11-PERM:SSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

Check here MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BYPermittingmicrofiche(4" x 6" film),paper copy,electronic, andoptical mediareproduction. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

Level 1

Sign Here, Please

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPER

COPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

Level 2

or here

Permittingreproductionin other thanpaper copy.

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce is granted, butneither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

"I hereby grantindicated above.system contracservi des

to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce this document asReproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other than ERIC employees and its

ors requires permission f m the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and otherto satisfy informatioAgs of educators in response to discrete inquiries."

/ /IISignature: Position: Coordinator, Institutional Assessme

Printed Na e:Marcia J. :elcheir

Organization:Boise State University

Address:1910 University .

Boise, ID 83725

Telephone Number: /k 208 ) 426-1117

Date:10/12/98

OVER

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from anothersource, please provide the following information reguarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a documentunless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selectioncriteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price Per Copy: Quantity Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriatename and address:

Name and address of current copyright/reproduction rights holder:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

EPIC CL.7.A7:NC:!-I.OHSE nN ic3HER EDUCATION

Ci7-K1;LE, GUiTE '630WASHINCTON, D.C. 2003.3-1183

If you are making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, you may return this form (and the document being contributed) to:

ERIC Facility1301 Piccard Drive, Suite 300

Rockville, Maryland 20850-4305Telephone: (3013258-6600-

(roe) 773 -3 7902

(Rev. 9/91)