COUNSELING CENTER

Expected Functions of a Good Advisor:

Results of a Survey of Matriculating Students,

Parents, and Academic Advisors

Research Report 5-92

Counseling Center Retention Study Group*

* Vivian Boyd, Patricia Hunt, Stanley Hunt,

Gerald Gurney, Thomas Magoon, Karen O'Brien, Thomas Magoon

Although academic advising is considered an essential part of the undergraduate experience at the University of Maryland at College Park, there is no clearly defined operational definition of an effective academic advisor. The lack of an operational definition of advisor functions hampers efforts to improve selection, training, evaluation, and recognition of effective advisors on this campus.

In an effort to understand the critical functions of an academic advisor, the Counseling Center Retention Study Group surveyed three samples during the summer and fall of 1991: (a) newly matriculating students, (b) parents of new incoming students, and (c) UMCP academic advisors, concerning their expectations of the functions of a "good" academic advisor. A brief eleven item survey was devised which consists of functions that might be performed by advisors. Respondents were asked to check the functions they would expect from a good advisor and then circle what they considered the four most important of the checked functions.

Most of the advisor functions were seen as important by all three respondent groups. Further, parents, newly matriculating students, and academic advisors were in agreement concerning three of the four advisor functions they considered most important:

- Accurately answer advisees' questions about University academic requirements;

- At registration times, review advisees' proposed courses as to their appropriateness;

- Refer advisees to appropriate campus services should they have the need.

Differences among the three respondent groups reflect different concerns. Students were most likely to indicate that "offering accurate advice about choosing a major" was one of the four most important advisor functions, while parents and advisors felt "showing interest in learning about advisees" was.

The findings provide direction for the content of future advisor orientation and training programs.

METHOD

A brief 11 item survey (A Good Advisor) was devised which consists of functions that might be performed by advisors. Respondents were asked to check the functions they would expect from a good advisor, and then to circle what they considered the four most important of their checked functions.

During the summer of 1991, two sections of freshman students attending New Student Orientation (N=304) completed a questionnaire which contained the Good Advisor survey. During the same summer, three sessions of parents of incoming students who were attending New Student Orientation (N=161) completed a modified Good Advisor survey, in which they indicated their expectations of the functions of a good advisor for their son or daughter.

During the Fall of 1991, a sample of academic advisors (N=92) was contacted and asked to complete the survey. Sixty-three (68%) returned completed surveys. These advisors ranged in advising experience from 4 months to 29 years, with a mean of 9.6 years.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the importance that each of the three groups of respondents (new students, parents, and academic advisors) attached to each of the advisor functions, and identifies, for each group, the four advisor functions most frequently designated as the most important functions of a good advisor.

Table 1: Functions of a Good Advisor (in percent)
		RESPONDENT GROUPS
	PARENTS				STUDENTS				ADVISORS
A GOOD ADVISOR WILL:	not impt%	impt%	most* impt%	rank	not impt%	impt%	most* impt%	rank	not impt%	impt%	most* impt%	rank
1. Show interest in learning about students	5	52	43	4	28	44	28		5	41	54	4
2. Accurately answer students' questions about University academic requirements	3	39	58	3	3	51	46	2.5	0	14	86	1
3. At registration times, review students' proposed courses as to their appropriateness	2	31	67	1	7	29	64	1	8	24	68	2
4. At registration times, suggest other courses as to their appropriateness	7	71	22		9	55	36		17	61	22
5. Offer accurate advise about choosing a major	14	62	24		15	40	45	4	14	59	27
6. Offer accurate advise as to career planning	14	48	38		17	40	43		34	53	14
7. Offer a letter of recommendation if needed	21	71	8		25	62	13		34	64	2
8. Have office hours that would be compatible with students' class schedules	18	61	21		55	34	11		25	54	20
9. Offer to have 2 or 3 advising appointments a semester	16	48	36		42	38	20		27	49	24
10. Refer students to appropriate campus services	3	37	60	2	5	49	46	2.5	3	32	64	3
11. Know what students will need in order to do well	14	64	22		36	50	14		36	59	5

' Designated as one of the 4 most important advisor functions

DISCUSSION

The findings reported above were derived from responses to a survey on the functions of a good academic advisor from three respondent groups - new students, new students' parents, and academic advisors. The findings provide direction for the content of future advisor orientation and training programs. For example,

the function of reviewing students' proposed courses as to their appropriateness was heavily endorsed as an important function by approximately two-thirds of all three respondent groups. This function requires that advisors should be aware of the reading and writing demands of undergraduate level courses across disciplines. The demise of the Student Government-sponsored course evaluations several years ago makes awareness of the cognitive demands of courses difficult if not impossible, particularly for faculty advisors already under pressure from their discipline's other professional demands.

Another advisor function heavily endorsed as very important is referring students to appropriate campus services. This function assumes knowledge of campus services and programs. While each year the Counseling Center Retention Study Group updates and distributes the Resource Manual which addresses this very issue, distribution is costly and spotty.

Orientation and training of advisors can be helpful in preparing advisors to respond both to their own expectations as advisors and to the expectations of their advisees. However, it may be more realistic to expect faculty advisors to have the knowledge and skills needed for effective advising of upper division students, since upper division students tend to have a clearer knowledge than lower division students of their major and career direction.

If knowledge of lower division class content and campus resources are to be the core of a freshman or sophomore's advisor's

skills, perhaps this campus should consider designating professional advisors to advise lower division students. A major advantage to this approach is that professional advisors do not have the competing demands of research, teaching, and committee work that confront tenure-track faculty. They can therefore devote

their attention and energy to becoming trained, oriented and up-to date on the issues and information required to perform effectively as advisors of lower division students.

Future research should address (a) the strengths and limitations of the current advising system at UMCP, and (b) the feasibility of professional advisors to enhance the quality of advising and retention efforts here.