An Alternate Approach for Advising Online Students

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Presented by Jaclyn Kulls, M.Ed Graduate Student, Higher Education Leadership

INSTITUTIONAL SUGGESTIONS

INTRODUCTION

REFERENCES

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO ADVISING

IMPLICATIONS / PREDICTIONS

WHY FOCUS ON DISTANCE LEARNERS?

• Participants will learn about various approaches to academic advising.

• Participants will gain insight on issues pertaining to online student performance and retention rates.

• Participants will learn about new approaches to advising online students by utilizing virtual technology in order to increase retention and graduation rates for online programs.

Students face various difficulties including: issues navigating technological platforms, feelings of isolation and confusion, and inconsistent or vague communication from instructors (Clay, Rowland and Packard, 2008; Cross, Mandernach & Huslig, 2013).

Students become overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work and must overcome misconceptions that online courses would be easier to complete than their face-to-face counterparts (Clay, Rowland and Packard, 2008).

Academic advisors go beyond course registration processes and assist students in self-discovery, career-life planning, and molding of identities (Drake, 2011).

When there are dedicated student support services and additional channels of communication, retention can increase nearly 30% (King & Alperstein, 2015).

“Recognizing that online students do not have spontaneous communications as a result of the natural interactions that occur in a campus environment, it is imperative that advisors of online students proactively reach out to foster frequent and consistent interactions” (Cross, Mandernach & Huslig, 2013, p. 106).

Initiatives to support online students do not address the individualized advising session and thus, presents a gap within higher education research.

Prescriptive: one-way information reporting where student development and engagement is limited and students take on a passive role in the advising process (Bloom, Hutson & He, 2008; He & Hutson, 2016; Jeschke, Johnson & Williams, 2001).

Developmental: student theory based which facilitates a holistic, cognitive development and environmental engagement, but requires professional training and additional time commitment on the behalf of the advisor (Bloom, Hutson & He, 2008; Crookston, 1994; He & Hutson, 2016; Jeschke, Johnson & Williams, 2001).

Intrusive: intervention-based approach which utilizes multiple communication channels and early-warning alert systems to identify at-risk students where the advisors initiate pro-active contact (He & Hutson, 2016; Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Jeschke, Johnson & Williams, 2001).

APPRECIATIVE ADVISING• Intrusive advising software (i.e. early alert software) should be

implemented and used consistently across all departments.

• The six phases of appreciative advising can be implemented through both email and video conferencing.

• Online students can be required to report their Skype or video conferencing name to their advisors so that advisors can reach out at the first sign of low performance.

• New technologies such as Cranium Café and Tawk can allow for instant video or text-based chat without forcing students to download software.

• Software that allows for data drops and shared screens can assist in reducing student travel to the main campus and increasing overall institutional efficiency.

By incorporating intrusive advising technologies, overall student success and retention will increase.

Through incorporating appreciative advising into student-advisor communication across virtual technologies (meeting the student where they are), student satisfaction, student development, and students’ feelings of ‘connectedness’ to the institution will increase.

It is through conscious, creative, personable, and positive interactions with students across online mediums that retention and graduation rates for online programs will increase.

Appreciative advising is “a framework for optimizing advisor interactions…. [where] advisors intentionally use positive, active, and attentive listening and questioning strategies to build trust and rapport with students” (Bloom, Hutson & He, 2008, p. 11).

Appreciative advising uses the practice of positive psychology and appreciative inquiry to develop and promote a strength-based advising process (Bloom, Hutson & He, 2008; He & Hutson, 2016).

There are 6 phases of appreciative advising that break down barriers to discover student strengths, and promote the discovery and delivery of academic, personal and professional goals (Bloom, Hutson & He, 2008).

28%

Course Retention

Program Retention

Programs report a 15-20 percent difference between online and face-to-face completion rates (Britto & Rush,2013).

Percentage of online enrollment within higher education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).

Exploration of Life Goals

Vocational Goals

Program Choice

Course Choice

Course Scheduling

Bloom, J.L. (2014). Appreciative advising. Retrieved from https://www.umes.edu/cms300uploadedFiles/2014_aa_presentation_-_6_page_handout.pdf

Bloom, J.L., Hutson, B.L., & He, Y. (2008). The appreciative advising revolution. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing LLC.

Britto, M., & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and implementing comprehensive student support services for online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1). 29-42.

Clay, M.N., Rowland, S., & Packard, A. (2008). Improving undergraduate online retention through gated advisement and redundant communication. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(1), 93-102. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com

Crookston, B.B. (1994). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. NACADA Journal, 14(2), 5-9.

Cross, T., Mandernach, B.J., Huslig, S. (2013). Academic advising for online students. In R. L. Miller & J. G. Irons (Eds.). Academic advising: A handbook for advisors and students Volume 1: Models, Students, Topics, and Issues.

Drake, J. K. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About Campus, 16(3), 8-12. doi: 10.1002/abc.20062

He, Y. & Hutson, B. (2016). Appreciative assessment in academic advising. The Review of Higher Education, 29(2), 213-240. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2016.0003

Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university settings. College Student Journal, 36, 69-84. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com

Jeschke, M.P., Johnson, K.E., & Williams, J.R. (2001). A comparison of intrusive and prescriptive advising of psychology majors at an urban comprehensive university. NACADA Journal, 21(1-2), 46-58. doi: 10.12930/0271-9517-21.1-2.46

King, E. & Alperstein, N. (2015). Best practices in online program development: Teaching and learning in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2013 and fall 2014.

O’Banion’s Advising Definition (Bloom, 2014)