2012-11-14_CASMINUTES

Beth Boquet (Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs) and Suzanne Solensky (Director, Undergraduate Academic Planning) presented the results of a an extensive study of academic advising at Fairfield University. Boquet started the presentation by thanking CAS faculty for their advising work despite the unique challenges the university community has recently faced.

First, Boquet and Solensky presented recent improvements and developments in academic advising at Fairfield University. They reported on three categories of change: structural, procedural, and pedagogical.

Structural Changes
•    Consultation with NACADA and Center for Inquiry at Wabash College
•    Review of Centralized Advising Support and Early Intervention Programs
•    Review of Academic Advising Resources and Coordination Across Campus

Procedural Changes
•    Development of and improvements to online resources that support academic planning and advising
•    Improvements to online registration process (including online registration for incoming first-year students)
•    Development of web interface for comprehensive alert system

Pedagogical Changes
•    Collaboration with Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development
•    Development of comprehensive peer academic advising program for incoming students (first-year and transfer) and targeted cohorts (Service Learning, Health Sciences, English Department)
•    Collaboration with Center for Academic Excellence on events (such as Core Unmasked) and on faculty development workshops

Boquet and Solensky then presented results from the 2011 College Senior Survey. 53.3% of respondents expressed satisfaction with academic advising at Fairfield University. That number is below our peer institutions (63.6% at Catholic Universities; 66% at all four-year schools). Since 2006, the satisfaction rate at Fairfield has never been higher than 59.2%
Next, the presenters described an academic focus group study that was developed to reveal student and faculty perception of advising and to seek ideas for potential long-term solutions for improving academic advising.

Finding #1

Faculty-based academic advising, while often satisfying to both advisors and advisees, is on a spectrum from excellent to nonexistent. All groups defined advising as a personal relationship between student and faculty member, but they were acutely aware of instances when that ideal was not reached and of the resulting frustrations and “tensions.”

Finding #2

Effective advisors are neither recognized nor rewarded, and ineffective advisors are neither held accountable nor given other duties

Finding #3

In many cases, secondary or unofficial advisors do much of the actual advising of students – but these individuals may have neither the proper training, support, or information, nor accountability for the advice they give.
•    Uneven distribution of workload
•    Lack of knowledge about academic requirements
•    Difficulties of getting PIN for registration (which is given only to official advisor)
•    Inaccurate and misleading advice (esp. from other students)
Lack of access to a student’s degree evaluation or files and corresponding inability to adequately assess his or her overall academic progress

Finding #4

First-year students – especially, but not only, if they are undeclared – have special advising needs that are not always being met.
•    Students who started as undeclared frequently felt marginalized or assigned to advisors who could not help them.
•    Some students who had been or were undeclared felt pressure by their advisors to take classes or declare a major in that faculty member’s discipline.
•    Core requirements can appear daunting to many beginning students.

Finding #5
Faculty and Staff:

•    Lack of knowledge about to whom students should be referred or where to find answers
•    Concern about how to locate resources and whether resources exist
•    Frustration over the number of recent administrative and curricular changes, primarily because they felt they had no time to adapt their advising strategies accordingly.

Students:

•    Lack of information from academic advisor about roles and expectations
•    Advisors’ lack of knowledge about core requirements
•    Desire for a four-year plan of study, even if it is tentative and subject to change (especially on part of College of Arts and Sciences students)

Obstacles to Effective Advising: Student Perceptions

•    Not enough time with advisors
•    Unwillingness/inability of faculty to get to know students on an individual basis
•    Inability to meet with advisor
•    Assignment of advisor in a field they were not even interested in
•    Group advising sessions rather than individual appointments

Obstacles to Effective Advising: Faculty Perceptions

•    Unwillingness of students to come to advising appointments or to reach out
•    Perception on part of students that advising is not necessary or helpful – preference for listening to peers and family members rather than faculty
•    By faculty: number of advisees (advising loads of 30 or more students were common)
•    By staff (and students): intimidation or discomfort many students initially feel in approaching a faculty member

Suggestions: Faculty & Staff

•    Make the desire and skills to advise more important in the hiring process – but what does that do for current, tenured faculty?
•    Give advising more prominence in rank and tenure decisions – but how could it be quantified?
•    Offer incentives for good advising
•    Do more to train advisors – but how do you reach those who won’t come to training or seek out answers?
•    Give faculty options of ways in which they can serve the community – but does that send the message that advising is not central?
•    Get bad advisors out of advising – but does that simply give more work to the other faculty?

To conclude, Boquet and Solensky presented focus group recommendations for improving academic advising.

Structural Recommendations

•    Develop a clear policy statement on the value of academic advising – and the roles each participant should play
•    Develop ways to encourage and reward effective advising
•    Reconsider the role of and appropriate location of a centralized advising office in supporting a faculty-based advising model
•    Devote more human resources to advising – more people, with more time, to do the work with students

Procedural Recommendations

•    Create and encourage the use of interest sheets (about advisees) and four-year plans of study
•    Assess process of matching advisors and advisees
•    Continue to encourage use of degree evaluation

Pedagogical Recommendations

•    Offer more workshops (e.g. Banner self-service, periodic refreshers)
•    Support inter- and intra-departmental mentoring
•    Consider ways to help students learn their roles as advisees and to feel comfortable working closely with professors
•    Work with departments to create peer academic advising opportunities for students

Boquet and Solensky opened the floor for questions.

Prof. Schwab inquired about the possibility of an earlier notification process to provide faculty with the names of their freshmen advisees. She advocated receiving freshmen advisee information prior to the start of Fall semester. Schwab shared a brief anecdote about a family member who recently received an introductory letter from her advisor before she moved to campus to start her first semester. Schwab said that the letter “sealed the deal” for her niece, who was inspired and energized by the introductory letter. Schwab noted that advisee notifications for faculty were delayed this year, and she underscored her request for an earlier faculty notification process for incoming freshmen and new advisees.

Boquet agreed with Schwab. She explained that the timing of assigning advisors is a compelling issue for consideration. She said that the Office of Academic Engagement aims to deliver advisor-advisee assignments to faculty at the most appropriate time. Ideally, she said, faculty would know new advisee names, and send notes to all advisees by day one of the semester. Solensky pointed out that some students change majors prior to arrival, so early advising assignments in these circumstances might be inappropriate.

Prof. Lakeland added that unofficial advising happens in classes as well as in the office. He asked about the possibility of making certain that undeclared freshmen are assigned advisors who are teaching one of their first semester classes. Boquet said that a student’s current instructors are one factor the OAE considers when matching students with advisors. For radically undeclared majors, she explained, the OAE does attempt to pair them with one of their current professors; she said that balancing advising loads often complicates this strategy.

Prof. Gannet said that the large cohort of freshman writing instructors do a lot of informal advising. She suggested that a short and simple information sheet could help these unofficial advisors better understand the process. She noted that the information sheet might contain key contact/reference information, frequently asked questions, and a list of training resources for faculty members.

Prof. Abbot reported that this semester he seems to have a large number of advisees who were unaware of the core or other requirements. Additionally, his students often requested to borrow his materials (course catalogue, etc.). He asked if other students have reported that they say they missed receiving a printed copy of course offerings.

Solensky said that some students will not view the course catalogue or course listings on-line. She added that the cost for printing these materials was quite expensive, and often wasteful (excessive number of unused copies)

Prof. Rafalski asked about conducting on-line degree evaluations. He asked if he is only permitted to do a degree evaluation for his official advisees. He also asked if it is inappropriate for faculty to do degree evaluations for unofficial advisees.

Several faculty members spoke up to answer Rafalski’s questions. Boquet and others said that faculty may conduct degree evaluations for any student they are advising (official and unofficial).

Prof. Sauer asked if there might be a way to require freshman to contact their advisor early in their first semester.

Boquet and Solensky said that FYE (First Year Experience) seminars are, in various ways, requiring students to reach out to advisors and/or any faculty member. Boquet suggested taking smaller steps such as requiring an email rather than a visit at the start of the semester; this strategy might be less intimidating for some students.

Prof. Weiss and several other faculty members voiced their preference for using printed advising materials (course listings, catalogue, etc.).

A.    Prof. Regan requested that faculty contact him if they experience any trouble with the      on-line portal for registration. A response team is prepared to assist faculty.

B.    Associate Dean Im discussed the development of a CAS facebook page. He noted that the School of Business has a group facebook page that is maintained by a graduate assistant. The CAS facebook page will have a variety of contributors. Im will ask department chairs and program directors for the names of people who might like to contribute to this effort. Associate Dean Perkus added that it the CAS page will have “channels” that can be used for clubs, advising, etc.

C.    Associate Dean Simon thanked all departments and department chairs for their contributions to the “Classroom to Career” documents uniquely tailored for each major. He explained the document, which will be updated annually, will help students envision the trajectory of their Fairfield experience and their post-graduation plans. “Classroom to Career” documents will be posted on-line for all departments prior to spring semester advising .

D.    The CAS Chair announced that the ASPC is considering a standing date for all CAS meetings (e.g. the first Friday after General Faculty Meetings). She said that the CAS typically schedules at least two meetings in the Fall, and three meetings in the Spring. One important rationale for a fixed meeting date is increased attendance at CAS meetings. The Chair asked faculty if they had any thoughts or comments about establishing a fixed meeting date.

Prof. Weiss agreed that it would be helpful to have a fixed meeting date.

Associate Dean Simon suggested Friday at 3:30 as a potential meeting time because there fewer classes meet at that day and time.

Prof. Gannett asked about the possibility of a common, “no-classes” time once a week, a practice employed at some institutions to facilitate common meeting times for faculty.

Associate Vice-President for Academic Affairs Boquet explained that a common, weekly “meeting slot” is a possibility. She advised the ASPC to champion the idea of the common meeting period so that this idea will reach the discussion on time code revisions, which is slated for the future.

Prof. Weiss suggested Wednesdays as a good day for a common meeting period.

Prof. Harding raised the point that a number of colleagues have difficulties with late meeting times due to childcare. Several faculty members voiced their agreement with Harding.

With no additional comments from the floor, the Chair closed the discussion and announced that until a fixed meeting calendar is established, the ASPC will announce all semester meetings as early as possible to facilitate easier calendaring.

A. Integrative Health Sciences Update

The Dean explained that following Integrative Health Sciences presentations
(Deans and Directors), next steps include IHS presentations across university
divisions. She asked CAS faculty to consider how they would like to engage in IHS discussions. The Dean noted that the majority of our graduates who were employed six months after graduation work in business and healthcare professions. She added that a majority of grad degrees sought has moved from CAS to business-related programs.

B. Portfolio Review and Strategic Plan “refresh”

The Dean praised Prof. Scheraga’s compelling presentation at the November meeting of the general faculty. He outlined the portfolio review work conducted by the EPC. The EPC strongly asserted its ownership of the process, and as a result the committee has developed an effective tool to critically assess the value of academic programs. Because attendance at the General Faculty Meeting was quite low, the Dean suggested that the CAS might be well served if we invited Prof. Scheraga to give a similar presentation at one of our future meetings.

C. 2012 CAS Assessment & Integration Award

First Place ($2000) goes to Communication. Communication received this award for their work advancing assessment of student learning and core pathways/integration. The Dean praised specific actions taken by the Communications Department: analysis of artifacts, revising assessment protocols based on lessons learned, using an iterative approach to assessment, and integrating core pathways language into syllabi. Along with the alumni survey, which broadens their assessment, the department is making good progress. Unfortunately, many of our Communications colleagues are not present for to receive this award because they are attending the National Communication Association Annual Meeting. The Dean closed by saying that Communications has wrestled with assessment from the beginning, but recently faculty came together and embraced the work; this spirit of cooperation fueled the process.

Second Place ($1000) goes to Biology. Biology earned second place this year for their consistency in advancing assessment of student learning. The Dean praised the department’s work on assessment of learning outcomes over time. This work is part of five or more years of concerted effort to produce clear learning outcomes and the analysis of student artifacts. Their data demonstrate particularly strong performance on their goals.

The Dean recognized that the efforts of Biology and Communications, as well as a number of other programs, are positive developments, but she encouraged all departments and faculty to understand assessment in its broader, iterative context (see below).

1.    Identify and Operationally Define Outcomes
2.    Develop and Implement Assessment Methodology
3.    Establish and Utilize Rubrics (checklists, analytics, benchmarks, holistic and goal-specific tools)
4.    Analyze and Reflect Collectively on Results
5.    Evaluation Assessment Plan and Methods annually
6.    Use Findings to Generate Recommendations for Curricular and Pedagogical Improvements/Changes
7.    Engage Routinely, Iteratively, and Cyclically with the Process [goal of 100% participation by 2017 review]

The Dean congratulated Biology and Communications, and thanked all department chairs and program directors, as well as department-based assessment committees, for their efforts to ensure the College is engaged in data-driven decision-making for the benefit of our academic programs and our students. She closed by thanking all faculty for readjusting and helping students transition back to school following the recent hurricane.