USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Community college faculty perceptions and behaviors related to academic advising

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Community college faculty perceptions and behaviors related to academic advising
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
DeBate, Karl
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Student success
Persistence
Retention
Student services
Advisor
Dissertations, Academic -- Adult, Career & Higher Ed -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The primary propose of this study was to identify community college faculty's perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the self-contained campus academic advising center, the importance of the eight established NACADA advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of faculty at a community college with a self-contained advising system were examined. The study also investigated if perceptions and behaviors regarding advising vary among full-time and part-time faculty. The results of this study provide an overview of community college faculty perceptions and behaviors with regard to academic advising and the established NACADA advising goals. Specifically, over 75% faculty participants indicated that all eight of the NACADA advising goals were "important" or "very important". In addition, over 70% of faculty participants indicated that all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising should be part of the faculty role. Even though the institution examined in this study employs a self-contained advising structure, over 96% of faculty participants indicated that they had personally advised one or more students in the past year. While full-time and part-time faculty were generally in agreement, data did reveal several significant differences in perceptions. The findings also show a significant positive relationship between faculty perception of their role in the advising process and the number of students they personally advise on all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising.
Thesis:
Dissertation (EDD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Karl DeBate.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004520
usfldc handle - e14.4520
System ID:
SFS0027835:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Community College Faculty Per ceptions and Behaviors Related t o Academic Advising by Karl A. DeB ate A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Adult, Career and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Donald Dellow Ed.D. W. Robert Sullins, Ed.D. William H. Young, Ed.D. Thomas E. Mi ller, Ed.D. Date of Approval: May 5, 2010 Keywords: student success, persistence, retention student services, advisor Copyright 2010 Karl A. DeB ate

PAGE 2

Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Rita for helping me fulfill a lifelong dream. Your words of encouragement and support have been the driving energy needed to accomplish this research. Your refusal to let me give up is a big reason this project has been completed. My memories o f this journey are sweeter because of you. Also a special thanks to my parents Linda and Richard DeBate for believing in me and encouraging me to follow my dreams. Your love and support have helped more than you know.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I would like to express my appreciation for the guidance and contributions of a few special individuals while working on this dissertation. First, I would like to express my gratitude to my major professor, Dr. Donald Dellow. His encouragement, support and assistance wer e invaluable in making it possible to complete this study. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to each of encouragement and support helped keep me focused and on track, D r Sullins and Dr Miller for their very important contributions and enthusiastic support.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ iii Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ v Chapter 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................. 5 Research Questions ................................ ................................ .................. 5 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........... 6 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 Delimitations ................................ ................................ .............................. 8 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9 Organization of the Remaining Chapters ................................ ................... 9 Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ............... 10 The Community College ................................ ................................ .......... 10 Student Retention ................................ ................................ .................... 11 Academic Advising ................................ ................................ .................. 13 Academic Advising Models ................................ ................................ ...... 15 Models for Academic Advising Delivery ................................ ................... 17 Influence of Technology in Advising ................................ ........................ 19 Advisor Load ................................ ................................ ............................ 19 Part time Faculty ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 Overview of the Academic Advising Research ................................ ........ 21 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 Chapter 3 Method s ................................ ................................ ............................. 2 8 Restatement of the Problem ................................ ................................ .... 2 8 Research Design ................................ ................................ ..................... 2 9 Research Setting and Participants ................................ ........................... 2 9 Protection of Human Subjects ................................ ................................ 31 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................... 34 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ............................... 36 Chapter 4 Results ................................ ................................ ............................... 3 7 Overview of the Study ................................ ................................ .............. 3 7

PAGE 5

ii The Research Site ................................ ................................ ................... 3 7 T arget Population ................................ ................................ .................... 3 8 Participant Response Rate ................................ ................................ ...... 3 8 Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ 3 9 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 40 Advisor Load ................................ ................................ ............................ 54 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ............................... 62 Chapter 5 Summary ................................ ................................ ........................... 63 Summary of the Research Study ................................ ............................. 63 Overview of the Study ................................ ................................ .............. 64 Summary of the Findings ................................ ................................ ......... 65 Research question one ................................ ................................ 65 Research question two ................................ ................................ .. 66 Research question three ................................ ............................... 68 Research question four ................................ ................................ 70 Research question five ................................ ................................ .. 73 Advisor Load ................................ ................................ ............................ 75 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ........... 76 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ............ 81 Recommendations for Further Research ................................ ................. 82 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ............................... 83 List of References ................................ ................................ ............................... 86 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 97 Appen dix A : Informed Consent Form ................................ ....................... 98 Appendix B : Faculty perception s of advising survey .............................. 100 Appendix C : Letter of Invitation ................................ .............................. 105 Appendix D : Follow up E Mail Reminders ................................ ............. 106 Appendix E : USF IRB Letter ................................ ................................ .. 108 About the Author ................................ ................................ ...................... End Page

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1: Demographic Information ................................ .............................. 40 Table 2: Section 1: Acade mic Advising Center Performance Frequency Dist ribution ................................ ................................ .. 41 Table 3: Section 1: Co mbined Academic Advising Center Performance Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differ ences between Full time and Part time Faculty ................................ ................................ .......................... 42 Table 4: Section 2: Perceived Importa nce of Advising Goals Frequency Distribution ................................ ................................ .. 44 Table 5: Section 2: Combined Perceiv ed Importance of Advising Goals Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differences b etween Full time and Part time Faculty .................... 45 Table 6: Section 3: Advising Goals as Part of the Faculty Role Frequency Distribution ................................ ................................ .. 47 Table 7: Section 3: Combined Advisi ng Goals as Part of the Faculty Role Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differences b etween Full time and Part time Faculty .................... 48 Table 8: Section 4: Number of Students Advised Per Goal Frequency Distribution ................................ ................................ .................... 50 Table 9: Section 4: Combined Number of Students Advised Per Goal Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differences b etween Full time and Part time Faculty .................... 51 Table 10: Correlations between Faculty Perceptions and Behaviors ............ 53 Table 11: Advisor Load by Camp us ................................ .............................. 55 Table 12 : Section 1: Academic Advising Center Performance Mean Scores Separated by Campus ................................ ...................... 57

PAGE 7

iv Table 13: Section 2: Perceived Importance of Advising Goals Mean Scores Separated by Campus ................................ ...................... 58 Table 14: Section 3: Perceived Faculty Role in Advising Me an Scores Separated by Campus ................................ ................................ .. 60 Table 15: Section 4: Number of Students Advised by Faculty Me an Scores Separated by Campus ................................ ...................... 61 Table 16: Full time and Part time Faculty Perceptions Regardin g Advising Center Performance ................................ ....................... 66 Table 17: Full time and Part time Faculty Perceptions Regarding the Imp ortance of the Advising Goals ................................ ................. 68 Table 18: Full time and Part time Faculty Perceptions Regarding th e Faculty Role in Advising ................................ ................................ 70 Table 19: Full time and Part time Faculty Behaviors Regarding the Number of Students Advised Per Goal ................................ ......... 74 Table 20: Academic Advising Center Performance Cumulative Mean Scores and Studen t per Advisor Ratio by Campus ....................... 80

PAGE 8

v Community College Faculty Perceptions a nd Behaviors Related t o Academic Advising Karl A. DeBate Abstract The primary propose of this study was to identify community college contained campus academic advising center, the importance of the eight established NACADA advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of faculty at a community college with a self contained advising system were examined. The study also investigated if perceptions and behaviors regarding advising vary among full time and part time faculty. The results of this study provide an overview of community college faculty perceptions and behaviors with regard to academic advising and the established NACADA advising goals. Specifically, over 75% faculty par ticipants indicated that addition, over 70% of faculty participants indicated that all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising should be part of the faculty role. Even though the institution examined in this study employs a self contained advising structure, over 96% of faculty participants indicated that they had personally advised one or

PAGE 9

vi more students in the past year. While full time and part time faculty were genera lly in agreement, data did reveal several significant differences in perceptions. The findings also show a significant positive relationship between faculty perception of their role in the advising process and the number of students they personally advise on all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising

PAGE 10

1 Chapter 1 Introduction In the 21 st century, a college degree is becoming the minimum requirement to obtaining many well paying job s According to the U. S. Department of Education, a college degree is an important credential for entry into many occupations, and a lack of one significantly impacts lifetime earning potential (Bailey & Morest, 2006). The average expected lifetime earning s for a is significantly higher than that of a high school graduate (American Association of Community Colleges [AACC] 2009). Community colleges play a vital role in the higher education landscape in America as they ha ve built their activities around an open door policy by providing access to college to a wide rang e of students. Currently, 1,195 community colleges enroll a total of 11.5 million students nationwide ( AACC ). Additionally, c ommunity colleges are now within commuting distance to over 90% of the American population and represent 45% of the total number of undergraduates in this country (Boggs, 2004). Given the large number of students who attend these open door public institutions, it is not surprising that s tudent retention and success are key issues. While the value of higher education is clear, many students who enter community college fail to finish or transfer within ten years (Bailey & Morest, 2006).

PAGE 11

2 According to the American College Testing Program Inc (ACT), first year attrition rates at 2 year community colleges are approximately 50% and holding steady ( Horn & Berger, 2005; American College Testing [ACT] 200 6 ). In addition, i n many cases, the community college student is an at risk student facing al most insurmountable barriers to academic success ( Cohen & Brawer, 2003 ). Some of these barriers include family and work pressures, lack of adequate preparation, poor academic skills, language issues and lack of a connection to the college (McArthur, 2005; Tinto, 1990). Helping these unique students succeed is a central part of the mission of most community colleges With the increasing complexity of the education and career options at community colleges, student support services, specifically academic advis ing, will continue to play a crucial role in increasing student success and retention. For all students, having a clear educational goal and a delineated path towards its achievement is integral to academic success. Moreover, academic advising has been identified as a significant factor for increasing student retention ( Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1990 ; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Tuttle, 2000 ). The primary purpose of academic advising is to help students develop a meaning ful educational plan that is compatible with their life goals ( National Academic Advising Association [NACADA] 2009 ). When done correctly, academic advising can directly enhance student success and retention rates ( Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 19 91; Tinto, 199 0 ). Gordon, Habley Grites and Associates (200 8 ) list eight goals that encompass the basis

PAGE 12

3 for the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) Standards for Academic Advising. The core elements of effective advising include the following: 1. Assisting students in self understanding and self a cceptance (values clarification, understanding abilities, interests, and limitations) 2. Assisting students in considering their life goals by relating their interests, skills, abilities, and values to caree rs, the world of work, and the nature and purpose of higher education 3. Assisting students in developing an educational plan consistent with their life goals and objectives 4. Assisting students in developing decision making skills 5. Providing accurate informatio n about institutional policies, procedures, resources, and programs 6. Referring students to other institutional or community support services 7. Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards established goals and education plans 8. Providing in formation about students to the institution, college, academic departments, or some combination thereof. ( Gordon et al. p 40 41) The general organizational structure of academic advising programs in place at community colleges varies by institution. Hab ley (1988) identified seven delivery systems for advising which have been used to report data in ACT National Survey of Academic Advising. These seven systems include: (a) faculty only, (b) supplementary, (c) split, (d) dual, (e) total intake, (f) satellit e, and (g) self contained (Habley) These seven systems can be generally categorized as

PAGE 13

4 decentralized, centralized or split. Some institutions incorporate a decentralized structure in which the faculty or staff members advise students in their academic departments ( Frost 200 0 ) Other institutions have a centralized structure of academic advising with a dedicated advising center and a large staff of professional advisors advis ing all students A third category is the shared structure in which advising is split between a central advising unit and the faculty in acad emic departments Regardless of the advising structure, many community college students are not using the academic advising services available. According to the 2006 administration of the Commu nity College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), 89% of the respondents stated that academic advising is somewhat or very important (Community College Survey of Student Engagement [CCSSE] 2006). However, only 55% of community college students report using the academic advising services sometimes or often ( CCSSE ). Additionally, 43% of the students surveyed listed the faculty as their key source of academic advising information ( CCSSE ). Unfortunately, many community college faculty members have no advis or training and therefore may not know how to advise the student. Misinformation can lead to overwhelming setbacks, disappointment, frustration and eventual student departure (Deil Amen & Rosenbaum, 200 3 ). The research setting for this study employs a sel f contained advising system with a dedicated advising center and a large staff of professional academic advisors. However, many students are not using the academic advis ing services provided on campus and are instead seeking t he advice of the

PAGE 14

5 faculty ( SCC, 2008b ). While student interaction with the faculty is an important factor in student success (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1995 ) faculty members are not trained as academic advisors and the student retention rates remain low. As such, this study concerns itself with the perceptions and behaviors of community college faculty pertaining to academic advising at a college with a self contained advising center Purpose of the Study Based on the acknowledged value of academic advising coupled with the fact that many community college students are not seeing an advisor, but instead seek advice from faculty members t he primary propose of this study is to identify regarding the effecti veness of the campus academic advising center, the importance of the established NACADA advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of the faculty at a community college with a self contained advising system will be examined. The study also seeks to examine if and behaviors regarding advising vary among full time faculty and part time faculty. Research Questions The following research questions will guide this study: 1. What effectiveness of the College Academic Advising Center?

PAGE 15

6 2. importance of the eight advising goals as outlined by NACADA Standards for Academic Advising? 3. advising process? 4. Is there a difference between part time and full time faculty in their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the College Academic Advisi ng Center, importance of the eight advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process? 5. Is there a relationship between community college faculty engaging in academic advising and their perceptions of the College Academic Advising Center their perceived importance of the academic advising goals, and their perceived role in the advising process? Significance of the Study Academic advising is consistently one of the most effective strategies for retaining community college students ( Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto, 199 0 ; Tuttle, 2000 ). Having a clear academic goal and outlined path towards its achievement is vital to student academic success. The primary purpose of academic advising is to help students develop meaningful educati onal plans that are compatible wit h their life goals (NACADA, 2009 ). However, research suggests that community college students are not utilizing academic advising services ( CCSSE 200 7 ). Only slightly more than half of community college students report se eing an academic advisor sometimes or often ( CCSSE

PAGE 16

7 2006 ). There are several plausible explanations such as inconvenience, time constraints, scheduling issues, work and family responsibilities, to name a few. However, the college representatives that all s tudents interact with regularly are faculty. In addition according to the 2006 CCSSE, a large percentage of community college students cite the faculty as their best source of advising information Even though community college students report seeking academic ad vice from faculty the retention and graduation rates remain low. Therefore, it becomes important to gather an understanding of faculty perceptions and behaviors pertaining to the academic advising of community college students. Having this info rmation may help community colleges formulate a plan to capitalize on the student faculty interaction to direct students to the proper network of support that is available in hopes that they will persist and succeed in attaining their educational goals. Definition of Terms 1. Academic Success. The status of completing a fall, spring or summer term of study in satisfactory academic standing, or graduating. 2. Advisee. A student who meets with an advisor in pursuit of academic goals. 3. Advising. The process of inte raction between advisee and advisor that assists the advisee in identifying options and making decisions. 4. Advisor. The institutional representative authorized to assist students with academic planning, goal setting, and interpretation of institutional poli cies.

PAGE 17

8 5. Community College. A two year institution supported by public funds and accredited to award the Associate in Arts or Associate in Science as its high est degree (Cohen & Brawer, 2003 ). 6. Retention. The percentage of students who return the next term to continue their studies. Delimitations Delimitations are restrictions, which are under the control of the researcher, that affect the external validity and generalizability of the study. There are several potential audiences for the results of this investig ation. Immediate are the students, faculty, academic advisors, and administrators at the community college where the study takes place. The following are considered delimitations of the current study: 1. This study examined the perceptions and behaviors of academic advising by faculty members at only one urban, public community college in the southern United States Therefore, the results of this study may not be generalizable beyond this one particular community college. 2. The community college used in this study has self contained advising structure with dedicated academic advisors and does not utilize faculty advisors. The results and conclusions garnered from this investigation may be valuable to institutions with similar academic advising structures in pl ace.

PAGE 18

9 Limitations The following limitations may restrict the scope of the study: 1. Since the survey was web based, faculty may not check their e mail regularly and may not open the survey during the data collection window. 2. Similarly, faculty Internet connection may have been interrupted during the completion of the survey. 3. The survey gather ed self report ed data and faculty might have provide d socially desirable responses. 4. Respondents may have respond ed in a way they feel wil l be favored by Organization of the Remaining Chapter s The remain d er of the study will be presented as follows: Chapter 2 will include an extensive review of the literature regarding community college student retention as well and the current research related to academic advising. Chapter 3 will outline the research methodology. Chapter 4 will detail the data collection results and provide analysis. Chapter 5 will present recommendations and conclusions. This study was rev iewed and approved by the University of South Florida Human Subjects Institutional Review Board as well as the Institutional Review Board of the community college where the study took place The timeline for this project was 8 months from the approval date of the dissertation proposal.

PAGE 19

10 Chapter 2 Literature Review The purpose of this study was perceptions of the academic advising center, the importance of the established advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of faculty at a communi ty college with a self contained advising center was examined This chapter will provide a summary of the literature related to academic advising in the community college. The chapter begins with an overview of community co llege system in the United State s followed by a summary of the student retention issues. Then, the prevalent advising model s and common delivery methods are presented to provide a basic understanding of academic advising at community colleges. The chapter then specifically addresses the issues related to faculty perceptions and roles in the advising process. The Community C ollege year institutions of the burden of orienting first and second year students to higher education and to free the university to conduct research and teach advanced studies (Brint & Karab el, 1989). What began as relatively small institutions for traditional college age students has blossomed into a nationwide system of

PAGE 20

11 community colleges that are responsible for educating nearly half of all undergraduate students in the United States ( Bail ey & Morest 2006 ) Currently, the community colleges provide general education, prepare students for transfer to four year institutions, provide workforce development and skill training, and offer remedial courses for students not prepared for college l ev el work (Bailey & Morest ). Along w ith this expansion in services offered the community college student population changed significantly from predominately full time college age students to a population consisting of many part time, transfer, and adult s tudents who work full time ( AACC 200 9 ). Acc ording to Cohen and Brawer (2003 ), the community college student is an at risk student facing almost insurmountable barriers to academic success. Some of these barriers include being a first generation college st udent, having poor academic skills, family and work pressures, language issues and lack of a connection to the college to name a few (McArthur, 2005). In addition, Person, Rosenbaum and Deil Amen (2006) concluded that many 2 year college students simply h ave a difficult time understanding college requirements. Student R etention Community colleges offer programs for almost every segment of the population, and the dive rsity of the student body is a tribute to the institution s success at making higher education accessible (Deil Amen & Rosenbaum, 200 3 ). However, only 33% of two year college students pers ist to graduation ( CCSSE 2006 ). Similarly, the freshman to sophomore year national dropout rate

PAGE 21

12 for two year institutions is 47% ( CCSSE ). Finding ways t o improve community college student success is imperative due to the time expended and the money invested by both the institution and by the students (Deil Amen & Rosenbaum) In the current environment of accountability and budget constraints, student rete ntion plays a significant role in measuring community college effectiveness (Wild & Ebbers, 2002). For administrators, understanding the student retention issues may spell success or failure for state systems and individual community colleges (Wild & Ebber s). the more likely he/she is to persist (Tinto 1987 ). However, at community colleges developing this connection between the student and the campus is difficult. Most community college students come to campus for classes and leave as soon as classes are over (McArthur, 2005). The com m uter student typically returns to an environment where the support for continued education may be minimal and where a dozen other constituencies are time and attention (Stewart, Merril, & Saluri, 1985). For a residential student at a four year institution, dropping out is much more complicated and involves packing up, possibly breaking a lease and leaving friends (Stewart e t al ). For the community college student, dropping out simply involves not attending classes For the community college student, the classroom is the main point of contact with the college (Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar, & Fillpot, 2000). The faculty the authority figure, mentor, and role

PAGE 22

13 represents the most significant According to Tinto (1988), retention programs are most successful when they involve informal faculty student contact in order to help integrate students into the academic and social life of the c ampus. There is a strong positive relationship between student retention and the number of hours per week talking with faculty outside the c lassroom (Astin ). While much of the research on faculty student contact and its positive impact on retention focus on four year institutions (Astin, 1993, Tinto, 1987), Halpin (1990) applied a similar model at a two year college and concluded that ye ar college. According to Halpin, little can be done to influence ba institutional mechanisms to maximize student f aculty contact is likely to result in Acad emic A dvising The positive role faculty play in community college student retention cannot be overlooked ; h owever, the primary role of faculty is to facilitate learning. Another way to increase student retention is through a high quality academic advising program. More college campuses are turning to academic advising as a partial solution to the problem of student retention (Canonica, 2002). Resear ch (Backhus, 1989; Creamer, 2000 ; Fulle r, 1983; Habley, 1981; King, 199 3) support s t he n otion that academic advising positively affects student retention

PAGE 23

14 rates. Similarly, the most frequently cited benefit of quality academic advising is student retention (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto, 199 0 ; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Tuttle, 2000 ). Academic advising has existed in one form or another and has been an accepted and recognized institutional activity on campuses for several centuries (Geleski, 2008). Academic advising continues to evolve out of the need to interpret a mo re complex and varied curriculum to a more diverse student population. As the breadth and complexity of the curricula increases, the need for additional educational counseling and advising becomes more critical. What was once considered an academic function han dled exclusively by the faculty; academic advising has now become too complex and time consuming. Faculty were expected to fulfill their role as teachers, designers of the curriculum, researchers and publishers (Gordon, 199 2 ). This cleared the way for professional advisors to enter the higher education landscape Playing a central role in the evolution of academic advising is the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA). The NACADA was chartered in 1979 and is the only professional org anization for academic advisors in higher education The NACADA Statement of Core Values for Academic Advising have as much potential for influencing their development as does acad emic ACADA, 2009 p.1). The primary purpose of academic advising is to help students develop a meaningful educational plan that is compatible wit h their life goals (NACADA,

PAGE 24

15 2009 ). While advising programs at different institutions may vary, mos t subscribe to a common set of goals. Gordon Habley Grites and Associates (2008 ) outline the eight goals that encompass the basis for the NACADA standards for academic advising. Virtually unchanged since 1980, these core elements of effective advising in clude the following: 1. Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance (values clarification; understanding abilities, interests, and limitations) 2. Assisting students in considering their life goals by relating their interests, skills, abilities, and values to careers, the world of work, and the nature and purpose of higher education 3. Assisting students in developing an educational plan consistent with their life goals and objectives 4. Assisting students in developing decision making skills 5. Providing accurate information about institutional policies, procedures, resources, and programs 6. Referring students to other institutional or community support services 7. Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards established goals and educatio n plans 8. Providing information about students to the institution, college, academic departments, or some combination thereof. ( Gordon et al. pp. 40 41) Academic Advising Models Academic advising is often described using either the prescriptive or the developmental model. These models represent poles on a continuum defined by

PAGE 25

16 the nature of the student advisor relationship and the tasks associated with the role of the advisor (Croo & Childs 2000 ). The two approaches may coexist at the same campus and may be used by individual advisors depending on the student, institution, and program characteristics. Prescriptive advising is a traditional appro ach where the advisor is the authority figure providing answers to students questions The advisor is responsible for providing the student with accurate answers and the student is responsible for acting in accordance with the advice. While the prescripti ve model may be appropriate for certain students and certain issues, it tends to oversimplify questions that are symptomatic of t he larger issue students have (C rookston, 1972). According to Habley (1994), prescriptive models tend to fail because they focu s on course selection and scheduling rather than the goals and values underlying decisions about program choice. The developmental advising model emerged in the 1970s when Crooks t on developmental theory into the practice of academic advising. s developmental advising model require d advisors to be knowledgeable of student characteristics, developme ntal theory, college programs, and the success of past graduates. d five dimensions of practice in academic advising as well as the skill, knowledge, and attitudes required for each. The five dimensions include exploration of life goals, exploration of

PAGE 26

17 vocational goals, program choice, course choice, and scheduling course s ) Crookston (1972) dealt primarily with beliefs about student s and the advisor s role in decision making. According to Crookston (1972), developmental advising is based on the belief that advising is a shared responsibility of both the adviso decision making, is a very different experience than the prescriptive approach where the advisor makes the decision. Models for Academic Advising D elivery Habley (1988) identified seven delivery systems for advising that have been used to report data in the ACT National Survey of Academic Advising. These seven systems include: (a) faculty only, (b) supplementary, (c) split, (d) dual, (e) total intake, (f) satellite, and (g) self co ntained (Habley) The faculty only system involves assigning students to specific faculty members for advising. Students are typically assigned based on their major. Students that have not yet declared a major are assigned to faculty who either volunteer or are assigned to handle undeclared students. In this system, supervision of advisors is decentralized. T he supplementary system is similar to the faculty only system except there is an office that acts as a central clearinghouse and referral resource. T he office does not assign advisors, but may provide advisor training. The academic departments are still responsible for the supervision and evaluation of the faculty advisors.

PAGE 27

18 The split system divides the advising between the faculty and a professional advising office. Either students are assigned to a faculty advisor or the advising office based on certain characteristics. Often higher risk students are assigned to the advising office until certain pre established requirement s are met. Once the requirement s are met, the student is assigned to a faculty advisor. The dual model assigns two advisors for each student. A faculty advisor c major while an advising office provides more developmental advising issues. The total intake system assigns all students to a centralized advising office for a specific period or until certain criteria are met. After the initial intake advising is compl ete, the student is transferred to a faculty advisor in their major. The satellite system decentralizes advising to the individual colleges in the college setting. Each department has an office responsible for advising all students in that department. The satellite offices may or may not include faculty as advisors. The self contained system involves all advising taking place in a centralized advising center. A dean or director who is responsible for all advising functions on campus administers the unit Faculty is rarely involved in advising when the self contained system is in place. The self contained system is most prevalent at public two year institutions and least prevalent at public four year institutions ( Habley, 1993; Habley & Morales, 1998 b ). F or most institutions, retention is a key objective of the advising effort (Tuttle, 2000). While the model and structure of academic advising may var y

PAGE 28

19 from institution to institution, academic advising is consistently among the experiences rated lowest in s tudent satisfaction ( Habley & Morales, 1998a; Keup & Stolzenberg, 2004). Who advises and how advising services are delivered have been the major questions asked about academic advising in the past two decades (Tuttle, 2000 Person, Rosenbaum, & Deil Amen, 2006 ). Influence of T echnology in A dvising The recent expansion of distance education and the increasing availability of online academic information create the most recent challenges for advising. O nline advising has the potential to offer the busy community college student the flexibility to seek help at non traditional times. In addition, a utomated advising tools have reduced the clerical nature of the process, allowing more time for developmental advising. These automated systems are quicker and m ore accurate for prescriptive advising tasks, but humans are still needed to achieve deve lopmental advising goals (McCauley 2000). However, this advance in automation has the faculty and students questioning the overall purpose of advising (McCauley ). Som e students may be at a disadvantage simply because they do not know how to access such information (Person, Rosenbaum, & Deil Amen, 2006). The inability to access information appears to discourage some community college students and inhibit their ability t o plan their education (Person, et al ). Advisor Load The number of full time academic advisors available to students can ha ve a large impact on the overall success of academic advising. However, the field of

PAGE 29

20 advising has yet to produce definitive researc h on the relationship between advisor load and either student satisfaction or advisor effectiveness (Habley, 2004 a ). The current standards provide only very general guidelines on the issue g program However, there is no quantitative insight in to the meaning of adequately staffed (Habley). Research on advisor load has been limited to the National Surveys on Academic Advising conducted by ACT Inc. The 2004 edition of the ACT survey showed that the mean number of students assig ned to full time advisors was 3 75 :1 at two year public community colleges (Habley 2004b ). The experts in the field of advising state that t he target load for full time advisor s be 300:1 (Habley 2004b ). Part time Faculty Over the past several decades, community colleg es have greatly increased their use of part time faculty. At community colleges, part time faculty provides virtually half of all instruction (Jacoby, 2006). What began as a way to hire experts on a part time basis to augment the capabilities of existing f aculty has turned into a consequence of budgetary economies (L eslie & Gappa, 2002, Jacoby ). Several recent studies suggest that the increased use of part time faculty may adversely affect student graduation rate s and persistence. A study by Harrington and Schibik (2004 ) concluded that when freshmen at a large Midwestern university took a higher percentage of classes with part time faculty

PAGE 30

21 they were less likely to persist to graduation In addition, Benjamin (2002) found part time faculty to be relatively unavailable to students and utilized less challenging instructional methods. Jacoby (2006) examined the 2001 2002 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data and concluded t hat increases in the ratio of part time faculty at community colleges have a significant and negative impact upon graduation rates. Jacoby (2006) concluded part time facult y ratio will find this counterproductive if they are held accountable As community college enrollment continue to grow and state budgets continue to shrink, the reliance on part time faculty will likely continue. In order to improve teaching effectiveness and student success, Leslie and Gappa (2002) recommend investing in part rather than treating them like replaceable parts. Overview of the Academic Advising R esearch Research on academic advising includes the perspectives, attitudes and satisfaction of faculty advisors, staff advisors and students in a variety of academic settings. However, a majority of the research focuses on the needs of the students and the tasks provided by the advis ors (Wyatt, 200 6 ). There is very little research on the perception and opinions of faculty at colleges with self contained advising structures. In a quantitative study of 561 student s and 230 faculty members perceptions of advising at a four year institu tion, Eddy and Essarum (1989) found that while students and faculty viewed the advising process similarly, the two

PAGE 31

22 groups differed on what they saw as the needs to be addressed in advising. Students were more interested in references for employment and obtaining work related experiences while the faculty thought helping students with career planning, exploring graduate school possibilities, and assisting students in selecting a major were most important. The authors recommended more studies that co mpared student and faculty perceptions of advising. Kopera (1998) conducted a qualitative study of 16 professional advisors and faculty advisors at a large research university to explore and describe how they spend their time and what they did. The autho r concluded that both types of advisors used developmental advising in both their approach and tasks. Task s described included helping students plan their program of study, solving problems, providing information, personalizing the university, and advocati ng for their advisees. Although advisors reported that they enjoyed their jobs, they felt that they were unappreciated and unrecognized on campus. A 1999 study by Smerglia and Bouchet investigated the expectations of advising among 159 students and 26 faculty members in the sociology department of a state university. Three faculty members in this department who had release time to compensate for the time involved did all advising. Specifically, the study examined the student and fac ulty perceptions of the academic advisors level of responsibility for 42 advising tasks. The two groups agreed that normal advising tasks such as selecting courses and explaining university policy are the responsibility of the academic advisor. However,

PAGE 32

23 si gnificantly more students than faculty believed advisors should help with career information, graduate school requirements, and referrals to other offices. Dillon and Fisher (2000) used a quantitative survey along with focus groups to examine faculty advisor perspectives on faculty student advising interactions. Fifty faculty members at a medium sized university were surveyed, and additionally, 20 of those surveyed participated in one of two focus groups. Results sugges contribute to advising success. The authors also reported a concern that the time and importance of good advising were not sufficiently recognized by upper administrative personnel. Wood (2002) inv estigated the type of advising provided at a major state university. She compared the survey responses of full time s taff advisors in a centralized advising center, full time departmental advisors in academic units of at least 100 students part time facul ty advisors, and students to determine whether sta f f advisors or faculty advisors provided developmental or prescriptive advising. Wood found that while all advisors tend to use prescriptive advising methods most often, full time departmental advisors were more likely to use developmental advising then were full time staff advisors in the central advising center. The results from the student survey indicated that the departmental advisors were more helpful than advisors in the central advising unit who util ized prescriptive advising The author concluded that this finding was due to the advising caseloads are lower.

PAGE 33

2 4 Mottarella, Fritzsche, and Cerabino (2004) examined advising v ariables that contribute to overall student satisfaction. In this study, 468 students rated 48 scenarios in which the advising approach, relationship, gender, and type of advisor was manipulated. Results show that being known to the advisor, having a profe ssional advisor, and receiving warmth and support from the advisor were important factors to advisee satisfaction. more important than the advising approach. Wyatt (2006) investigated the self reported perceptions of how well staff advisors, faculty advisors, and students believed the NACADA goals for academic advising were being met at a public four year institution. The study participants included 51 faculty advisors, 5 staff advisors, and 111 students that completed a questionnaire. The author concluded that staff and faculty advisors believed they were meeting the NACADA advising goals more often that the students reported the advisors were meeting the goals. Overall, regarding how well the advisors were meeting the NACADA goals, the students rated the advisors closer t o the adequate rating than the w ell rating. Similarly, Allen and Smith (2008) examined the student satisfaction with faculty advising at a four year institution. The study also investigated the level of faculty satisfaction with the advising they provide. The authors received completed surveys from 171 instructional faculty members and 733 students. The authors concluded that students and faculty both agree on the importance of academic advising, but faculty do not assume responsibility for all advising. The

PAGE 34

25 authors also suggested that the results of this study support a dual model of academic advising and a student affairs and faculty partnership f barriers that impede the smooth transition of students from a community college to a four year university. This study examined the faculty and staff advisors that work closely with transfer students at both the community college and four year college. A total of 32 faculty and staff advisors completed the survey which included quantitative as well as qualitative items. The study concluded that the advisors agreed on the existence of barriers to effective advising and that the ir perceptions of the importan ce and practice of the role of an advisor contributes to the barriers. The barriers include advisor level of interest and training, access to accurate information, motivation and time limitations. Geleskie concluded that the advisors agree that these barri ers can be minimized with the support and cooperation of the administration together with the advisors in developing more of a developmental approach to advising. how institutional support services contribute to or hinder student success. Two rounds of interviews with 44 community college students were used to identify student use and knowledge of institutional services available and to compare the knowledge and use of those services among students that were succeeding and those that were falling behind. Academic advising was one of the support services examined in this study. The authors found t hat, although support services are open to all students, only those who come to the college with pre

PAGE 35

26 existing social and cultural resources could take advantage of them (Karp et al.). Specifically, students needed access to good information in order to be aware that academic advising was available to students. These findings support the finding of Person, Rosenbaum, and Deil Amen (2006), and further document the ways that community college structures can actually create barriers to student success. This pre sents a dilemma for community college students. Since the community colleges are presented as open access institutions, students unable to utilize support services interpret their failure as personal rather than structural (Karp et al.). Studies are inco nsistent with regard to what attribute of advising faculty are asked about. On some surveys, faculty rate the importance of various advising tasks (Dillon & Fisher, 2000) or the appropriateness of advising goals (Wyatt, 2006), on others, faculty rate the l evel of responsibility they have for certain kinds of advising (Smerglia & Bouchet, 1999). This lack of consistency makes it difficult to compare study results. For example, faculty may recognize that a particular kind of advising is important, but may not feel it is their responsibility to provide it. As noted earlier, research on advising at four year institutions seems to support the fact that students and faculty value advising and the that advisors feel unappreciated on campus. Fewer studies have loo ked at the academic advisor, faculty advisor, and student perspective and attitudes regarding advising at public two year community colleges. In addition, there is a lack of research

PAGE 36

27 that explores academic advising at institutions that utilize a self conta ined advising center. Conclusion It is difficult to dispute the positive impact that academic advising can have on student retention and success. In effect, the most frequently cited benefit of quality academic advising is student retention (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1990 ; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Tuttle, 2000). When students have clear educational goals and a delineated path towards their achievement, academic success can follow. Despite the amount that is known about the positive effect of academic advising, little change has occurred in the practice of advising stud ents (Erdman, 2004; Frost, 2000) Colleges and u niversities continue to use a variety of advising techniques with prescriptive advising as the most prevalent. At community colleges, the self contained delivery model remains the most commonly employed and the least researched. This present study will examine academic advising from the faculty viewpoint at a community college where the faculty has no formal advising responsibilities.

PAGE 37

28 Chapter 3 Method s The primary propose of this study was to identify the community college advising center, the importance of the established advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process In addition, the current advisin g behaviors of faculty at a community college with a self contained advising system were examined. A second purpose was to examine if there is a difference in perceptions and behavior s pertaining to advising between full time and part time community colleg e faculty. This chapter outlines the methods and procedures employed in this study. Included are the restatement of the problem, research design, description of the research setting and participants, instrumentation data collection procedures and statisti cal analysis The study was conducted by gathering data from faculty at a community college that utilizes a self contained advising structure. Restatement of the Problem Retention and graduation rates at the n ation s community colleges remain dreadfull y low (Cohen & Brawer 2003 ). Academic advising has been identified as a significant factor for increasing student retention, but students are not utilizing the advising services available. Specifically, only slightly more than half

PAGE 38

29 of community college students report seeing an academic advisor sometimes or often ( CCSSE 2006). Instead, many community college students list the faculty as their best source of advising information ( CCSSE ). However, many community colleges do not utilize or train faculty to provide advising to students and the retention rates remain low. Therefore, it becomes important to gain an understanding of faculty perceptions perceived role and behaviors pertaining to academic advising. Research Design This was a cross sectional s tudy using quantitative survey method s to determine the self reported perceptions and behaviors of community college faculty with regard to academic advising at a college with a self contained advising structure. A descriptive, cross sectional study will provide a snapshot of the variables included in this study at one particular point in time. This study also investigate d the relationship between full time faculty and part time faculty perceptions and behaviors concerning academic advising. Research Setting and Participants The research setting for this study was South Community College (pseudonym), a large, urban, multi campus community college in the south ern Unite d States. South Community College ( S CC ) is comprised of five campuses and in 200 8 200 9 ha d an unduplicated annual enrollment of 44,598 making it the fifth largest community college in the state (S CC, 200 8a ). In addition, S CC employs 1,278 instructional faculty members ( S CC ). Of these 1, 278 faculty members, 282 ( 22.1 % ) are full time and 996 ( 77.9 % ) are part time (S CC ). A

PAGE 39

30 union that handles collective bargaining issues represents the faculty at SCC The part time faculty are contract employees and must be rehired each academic year A self contained academic advising structure is in place at all five campuses with professional academic advisors serving all students. The professional academic advisors are full time employees of the college, are not teaching faculty, and are not represented by a union In addition, t here is no online system for student academic advising in place at SCC However, t he SCC Student Service web page includes advising guides for each program of study. The advising guides were created to assist students in fulfilling degree re quirements for their chosen major and are meant to supplement the advising process. The academic advising division is a part of the Student Services Department of each individual campus. Each campus has a Dean of Student Services to oversee the academic advising as well as other student services functions. There is no formal system of faculty advising on any of the campuses. The current faculty cont r act at SCC states that, f a student requests assistance placement testing or counseling, the faculty member shall refer the student to the Student Services Department at the specific campus ( SCC, 2007, p. 34 ). There is no additional mention of faculty advising in the current contract. The overall student to advisor ratio at SCC is 1,7 84 students per ful l time academic advisor. S outh C ommunity C ollege employs 25 full time academic advisors spread over the five campus es Since many students take classes on multiple campuses, it is difficult to calculate an accurate advisor to student ratio

PAGE 40

31 for each individ ual campus. The main campus at SCC has an annual enrollment of 20,545 students and 10 full time advisors. The downtown campus has 15,419 students and 3 full time advisors. The Southeast campus has 10,888 students and 3 full time advisors. The East campus h as 7,186 students and 2 advisors. The South campus has 2,833 students and 1 full time advisor. In addition, there are four advisors dedicated to the TRIO Federal Grant Program students. The remaining two advisor positions are assigned to the district administrative office and a satellite campus location. This study utilized a convenience sample of all instructional faculty members at S CC during the fall 2009 academic semester. Considering the small number of faculty, specifically full time faculty, a ll instructional faculty members were invited to participate in this study. In addition, b ased on the sensitive nature of this study, survey participants were assured of anonymity. Protection of Human Subjects This study was reviewed and approved by the University of South Florida Human Subjects Institutional Review Board as well as the South Community College Institutional Review Board. The survey cover letter stated that information collected will not be attributed to respondents. In addition, informed consent was attained before participants were granted access to the survey. Instrumentation The instrument developed for this study closely matches the goals section of the ACT instrument used in the six national surveys on academic advising. On both inst ruments, each goal for advising is listed with a four point Likert type

PAGE 41

32 b ). While there is no data on the reliability or validity of the ACT national survey, it has been used six times with similar results. Based on the similarity of the instrument in this study to the ACT survey, the study instrument is assumed to be a reliable measure. The items on the survey reflect community college faculty perceptions regarding the self contained advising center, the importance of the eight academic advising goals and the faculty role in the advising process. A five step process based on Dil was utilized to aid in the development of the final survey instrument (Dillman, 2000) The five steps include preliminary survey development, survey pilot, first survey revision, survey pretest, and refinement and implementati on of the instrument (Dillman ). The survey instrument was divided into four sections. Section I ask ed the respondents how well they believe the academic advising center at SCC is performing each of the eight NACADA advising goals. Section II asked the respondents how important they believe each of the eight NACADA advising goals are to SCC students. Section III asked the respondents to what extent Section IV asked the respond ents how frequently they advise students. Al l four sections of the survey include d e ach of the eight goal s for academi c advising listed with a Likert type scale from one to four for rating the effectiveness of the advising center, the importance of each ad vising goal, the faculty role in advising, and advising behaviors.

PAGE 42

33 The survey was web based and utilize d fixed response items. The advantages to using a web based survey include low post age and printing costs and the reduction of data entry errors. Utili zing a web based survey presents a certain degree of coverage bias due to individuals not having internet access (Dillman, 2000). However, since each faculty member is assigned an e mail address upon hiring and e mail is an approved method of communicatio n at the institution, these concerns were considered to be minimal. Data Collection Following the pilot testing of the survey, the full study began An e mail was sent to all instructional faculty members inviting them to partici pate in the study. This e mail identified the researcher along with the purpose of the study. This e mail also indicate d the approximate time needed to complete the survey, the deadline for completion, and contact information should any questions arise. The faculty member then cl ick ed a hyperlink to respond to the survey. The first page visible after clicking the hyperlink was a welcome statement with details regarding the required informed consent information. After reading and providing informed consent, the faculty member was take n to the first screen of the survey. After completing the survey he or she was directed to click the submit button. A final screen thanking them for their participation was displayed. Immediately prior to the deadline to respond, an e mail reminder w as sent to all faculty members. Since the survey was anonymous, this email thank ed those who completed the survey and ask those who have not yet responded to please respond. A third email reminder was sent the day before the deadline in

PAGE 43

34 an attempt to incre ase the survey response rate. Due to the low initial response rate, a forth email reminder was sent to all faculty with a final day to respond. Data Analysis The data gathered from the survey include d Likert type scale items and demographic information. All electronic data was kept under password protection and backed up on an external drive which was stored locked in a file cabinet when not in use. In addition, no identifiable information was requested. Questionnaire data supporting each research questio n was tabulated and analyzed individually. In addition, in keeping with the data from the ACT Sixth National Study, nominal data will be treated as interval data (Habley, 2004 b ). perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the College Academic Advising Center? This question was addressed by section one of the survey instrument. Likert type data was analyzed using frequ ency counts for each item in the effectiveness section of the survey In addition, chi square analyses were conducted to compare full time and part time faculty responses. perceptions regar ding the importance of the eight advising goals as outlined by NACADA Standards for Academic Advising? This question was addressed by section two of the survey instrument. Likert type data was analyzed using frequency counts for each item in the importance section of the survey. In addition, chi square analyses were conducted to compare full time and part time faculty responses

PAGE 44

35 Research q perceptions of their role in the advising process? This question was addressed by section three of the survey instrument. Likert type data was analyzed using frequency counts for each item in the faculty role section of the survey. In addition, chi square analyses were conducted to compare full time and part time facul ty responses. Research question 4 is: Is there a difference between part time and full time faculty in their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the College Academic Advising Center, importance of the eight advising goals and the role of faculty i n the advising process? This question was analyzed using a chi square analysis A significance level of p = <.05 was used Research question 5 is: Is there a difference between community college faculty engaging in academic advising and their perceptions of the existing advising center, their perceived importance of the academic advising goals, and their perceived role in the advising process? Section four of the survey instrument was used to determine the advising behaviors of the faculty. Likert type da ta was analyzed using frequency counts for each item in the faculty behaviors section of the survey A Pearson product moment correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between faculty advising behavior with each of the other section s of the survey. A significance level of p = <.05 was used.

PAGE 45

36 Conclusion The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of community college faculty perceptions an d behaviors regarding academic advising at an institution with a self contained advising model. Chapter 3 outlined the methods used in conducting this research. The study design, research setting, instrumentation, data collection and analysis were presented

PAGE 46

37 Chapter 4 Results Overview of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of faculty at one community college regarding the performance of the campus academic advising center, the importance of the established NACADA advis ing goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of faculty at a community college with a self contained advising structure were examined. A second purpose was to examine if there is a difference in pe rceptions and behaviors pertaining to advising between full time and part time community college faculty. All instructional faculty members at a large, urban, multi campus community college in the southern United States were invited to complete the online survey. This chapter provides an overview of the study, a summary of the quantitative analyses and the findings for the five research questions. The Research Site All research was conducted at South Community College (pseudonym). South Community College ( SCC) is comprised of five campuses and has an u nduplicated enrollment of 44,598 students (South Community College, 2008a). All five campuses employ a self contained academic advising center that handles

PAGE 47

38 all student advising. South Community College employe es 25 full time advisors spread over the five campuses. The overall student t o advisor ratio for SCC is 1,784 students for each full time academic advisor (South Community College, 2008b). In addition, there is no formal system of faculty advising in place on any requests assistance, placement testing or counseling, the faculty member shall Community College 2007, p. 34). The SCC Student Service web page includes advising guides for each program of study. The advising guides were created to assist students in fulfilling degree requirements for their chosen major and are meant to supplement the advising proce ss. Target Population The target population for the study consisted of all 1,278 instructional faculty members at SCC. Of these 1,278 faculty members, 282 (22.1%) are employed full time, and 996 (77.9%) are employed part time (South Community College, 200 8a). Participation in this study was voluntary and all responses were anonymous. Participants Response Rate A total of 102 faculty members completed and submitted an online survey, for an overall response rate of 8.0%. Of the 102 completed surveys, 79 we re from full time faculty members for a response rate of 28.0%. Twenty three part time faculty members completed the survey for a response rate of 2.3%. Sixty two (60.8%) faculty respondents were female and 40 were male (39.2%). In

PAGE 48

39 addition, approximately 40% of the respondents reported having taught at SCC for more than nine years (39.6%, n =40), while less than 10% reported teaching at SCC for less than 1 year (6.9%, n =7) (Table 1). Instrument The researcher developed a survey that used a Likert type scale to goals for effective academic advising. The items on the survey reflect the community college faculty perceptions regarding the campus academic advising center performance with regard to the eight NACADA goals for effective advising, the importance of the eight NACADA advising goals, and the faculty role in the advising process. This part of the instrument closely resembles the goals section of the American College Testing, Inc. survey instrument used in six national surveys on academic advising. Each goal for advising was listed with a four point Likert the goal.

PAGE 49

40 Table 1 Demographic Information Full Time Part Time Total n % n % N % 79 77.5 23 22.5 102 100 Gender Female 50 63.3 12 52.2 62 60.8 Male 29 36.7 11 47.8 40 39.2 Years Experience <1 5 6.3 2 8.7 7 6.9 1 3 12 15.2 5 21.7 17 16.7 4 6 22 27.8 7 30.4 29 28.4 7 9 5 6.3 3 13.0 8 7.8 >9 35 34.3 6 26.1 41 40.2 Campus Main 49 79.0 13 21.0 62 60.8 South East 11 84.6 2 15.4 13 12.7 East 10 76.9 3 23.1 13 12.7 Downtown 6 54.5 5 54.5 11 10.8 South 3 100.0 0 0.0 3 2.9 Findings Section One of the survey, questions 1 8, was used to answer research question one pertaining to faculty perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the college academic advising center with respect to the eight NACADA goals for effective academic advising. Faculty were asked to rate how well they believed the academic advising center at SCC was performing each of the eight NACADA goals for effective academic advising on a four point scale where 1 represented very poorly and 4 indicated very well The re sults of Section One of the survey are presented in Table 2. To better prepare the data for practical interpretation of faculty perceptions regarding the academic advising center performance at SCC, the very poorly and poorly scores were combined and t he well and very well scores were combined (Table 3).

PAGE 50

41 Table 2 Section 1: Academic Advising Center Performance Frequency Distribution (N = 102) Group Very Poorly n (%) Poorly n (%) Well n (%) Very Well n (%) Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 5(6.3) 40(50.6) 31(39.2) 3(3.8) Part Time 1(4.3) 8(34.8) 14(60.9) 0(0) Total 6(5.9) 48(47.1) 45(44.1) 3(2.9) Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 5(6.3) 35(44.3) 36(45.6) 3(3.8) Part Time 1(4.3) 9(39.1) 12(52.2) 1(4.3) Total 6(5.9) 44(43.1) 48(47.1) 4(3.9) Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 6(7.6) 31(39.2) 36(45.6) 6(7.6) Part Time 2(8.7) 6(26.1) 11(47.8) 4(17.4) Total 8(7.8) 37(36.3) 47(46.1) 10(9.8) Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 7(8.9) 45(57.0) 25(31.6) 2(2.5) Part Time 2(8.7) 9(39.1) 9(39.1) 3(13.0) Total 9(8.8) 54(52.9) 34(33.3) 5(4.9) Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 6(7.6) 30(38.0) 36(45.6) 7(8.9) Part Time 2(8.7) 6(26.1) 11(47.8) 4(17.4) Total 8(7.8) 36(35.3) 47(46.1) 11(10.8) Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 2(2.5) 28(35.4) 44(56.0) 5(6.3) Part Time 2(8.7) 6(26.2) 11(47.8) 4(17.4) Total 4(3.9) 34(33.3) 55(53.9) 9(8.8) Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 6(7.6) 36(45.6) 32(40.5) 5(6.3) Part Time 3(13.0) 9(39.1) 10(43.5) 1(4.3) Total 9(8.8) 45(44.1) 42(41.2) 6(5.9) Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 5(6.3) 36(45.6) 32(40.5) 6(7.6) Part Time 3(13.0) 3(13.0) 14(60.9) 3(13.0) Total 8(7.8) 39(38.2) 46(45.1) 9(8.8)

PAGE 51

42 Table 3 Section 1: Combined Academic Advising Center Performance Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differences Between Full time and Part time Faculty (N = 102) Group Very Poorly + Poorly n (%) Well + Very Well n (%) 2 p Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 45(57.0) 34(43.0) Part Time 9(39.1) 14(60.9) Total 54(52.9) 48(47.1) 2.274 .132 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 40(50.6) 39(49.4) Part Time 10(43.5) 13(56.5) Total 50(49.0) 52(51.0) .365 .546 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 37(46.8) 42(53.2) Part Time 8(34.8) 15(65.2) Total 45(44.1) 57(55.9) 1.050 .306 Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 52(65.8) 27(34.2) Part Time 11(47.8) 12(52.2) Total 63(61.8) 39(38.2) 2.443 .118 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 36(45.6) 43(54.4) Part Time 8(34.8) 15(65.2) Total 44(43.1) 58(56.9) .845 .358 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 30(38.0) 49(62.0) Part Time 8(34.8) 15(65.2) Total 38(37.3) 64(62.7) .078 .781 Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 42(53.2) 37(46.8) Part Time 12(52.2) 11(47.8) Total 54(52.9) 48(47.1) .007 .933 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 41(51.9) 38(48.1) Part Time 6(26.1) 17(73.9) Total 47(46.1) 55(53.9) 4.777 .029* *p<.05 Overall, with regard to the academic advising center performance on the community support service t institutional policies, procedures,

PAGE 52

43 students in developing decision 8% of the respondents Research question four investigated the relationship between full time and part adv ising. A chi square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between the perceptions of full time and part time faculty participants with regard to the academic advising center performance on the eight NACADA goals for effective advis information about students to the institution, college, academic departments, or time and part time faculty was statistically signific ant, X 2 (1, N =102) = 4.77, p < .05. Specifically, a higher percentage of part time faculty participants perceived the academic advising center performing better with regard to Goal 8 than did full time faculty participants. There were no statistically sign ificant differences observed between full time and part advising center performance on any of the other NACADA goals for effective advising. Section Two of the survey, questions 9 16, was used to answer resear ch question two regarding the importance faculty ascribe to each of the NACADA goals for effective academic advising. Faculty were asked to rate how important they perceived each of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising to be on a

PAGE 53

44 four point Likert 4. perception of the import ance of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising, Table 4 Section 2: Perceived Importance of Advising Goals Frequency Distribution (N = 102) Group Unimportant n (%) Of Little Importance n (%) Important n (%) Very Important n (%) Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 3(3.8) 14(17.7) 46(58.2) 16(20.3) Part Time 0(0.0) 5(21.7) 9(39.1) 9(39.1) Total 3(2.9) 19(18.6) 55(53.9) 25(24.5) Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 1(1.3) 3(3.8) 34(43.0) 41(51.9) Part Time 0(0.0) 3(13.0) 7(30.4) 13(56.5) Total 1(1.0) 6(5.9) 41(40.2) 54(52.9) Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 0(0.0) 2(2.5) 20(25.3) 57(72.2) Part Time 0(0.0) 2(8.7) 6(26.1) 15(65.2) Total 0(0.0) 4(3.9) 26(25.5) 72(70.6) Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 1(1.3) 18(22.8) 40(50.6) 20(25.3) Part Time 1(4.3) 3(13.0) 13(56.5) 6(26.1) Total 2(2.0) 21(20.6) 53(52.0) 26(25.5) Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 0(0.0) 2(2.5) 22(27.8) 55(69.6) Part Time 0(0.0) 2(8.7) 9(39.1) 12(52.2) Total 0(0) 4(3.9) 31(30.4) 67(65.7) Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 0(0.0) 1(1.3) 40(50.6) 38(48.1) Part Time 0(0.0) 3(13.0) 18(78.3) 2(8.7) Total 0(0.0) 4(3.9) 58(56.9) 40(39.2) Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 0(0.0) 1(1.3) 30(38.0) 48(60.8) Part Time 1(4.3) 1(4.3) 8(34.8) 13(56.5) Total 1(1.0) 2(2.0) 38(37.3) 61(59.8) Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 0(0.0) 5(6.3) 42(53.2) 32(40.5) Part Time 1(4.3) 3(13.0) 11(47.8) 8(34.8) Total 1(1.0) 8(7.8) 53(52.0) 40(39.2)

PAGE 54

45 Table 5 Section 2: Combined Perceived Importance of Advising Goals Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differences Between Full time and Part time Faculty (N = 102) Group Unimportant + Of Little Importance n (%) Important + Very Important n (%) 2 p Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 17(21.5) 62(78.5) Part Time 5(21.7) 18(78.3) Total 22(21.6) 80(78.4) .001 .982 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 4(5.1) 75(94.9) Part Time 3(13.0) 20(87.0) Total 7(6.9) 95(93.1) 1.775 .183 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 2(2.5) 77(97.5) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 4(3.9) 98(96.1) 1.796 .180 Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 19(34.1) 60(75.9) Part Time 4(17.4) 19(82.6) Total 23(22.5) 79(77.5) .452 .501 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 2(2.5) 77(97.5) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 4(3.9) 98(96.1) 1.796 .180 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 1(1.3) 78(98.7) Part Time 3(13.0) 20(87.0) Total 4(3.9) 98(96.1) 6.558 .010* Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 1(1.3) 78(98.7) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 3(2.9) 99(97.1) 3.445 .063 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 5(6.3) 74(93.7) Part Time 4(17.4) 19(82.6) Total 9(8.8) 93(91.2) 2.710 .100 *p<.05 Overall, 97.1% of faculty participants indicated that advising Goal 7, 96.1% of faculty participan

PAGE 55

46 students to other institutional or with 22.5% of the faculty participants responding negatively. A chi square test of independence was performed to address research question four regarding the relationship between the perceptions of full time and part time faculty participants with regard to the importance of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising. The greatest difference in perceptions between full time and part relationship between full time and part regard to Goal 6 was statistically significant, X 2 (1, N = 102) = 6.55, p < .05. While 98.7% of full time faculty partic time faculty participants also felt the same way. Over three fourths of both full time and part time faculty participants generally agreed that all eight of the NACADA goals for effect ive academic advising were Section Three of the survey, questions 17 24, was used to answer research question three regarding the extent to which faculty participants believed the NACADA goals for effective advising should be part of the SCC faculty role. A four point Likert

PAGE 56

47 survey are presented in Table 6. To better prepare the data for prac tical Table 6 Section 3: Advising Goals as Part of the Faculty Role Frequency Distribution (N = 102) Group Not a Role n (%) Rarely a Role n (%) Usually a Role n (%) Definitely a Role n (%) Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 0(0.0) 18(22.8) 41(51.9) 20(25.3) Part Time 0(0.0) 2(8.7) 16(69.6) 5(21.7) Total 0(0.0) 20(19.6) 57(55.9) 25(24.5) Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 0(0.0) 8(10.1) 36(45.6) 35(44.3) Part Time 0(0.0) 2(8.7) 12(52.2) 9(39.1) Total 0(0.0) 10(9.8) 48(47.1) 44(43.1) Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 1(1.3) 14(17.7) 36(45.6) 28(35.4) Part Time 3(13.0) 5(21.7) 8(34.8) 7(30.4) Total 4(3.9) 19(18.6) 44(43.1) 35(34.3) Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 0(0.0) 8(10.1) 43(54.4) 28(35.4) Part Time 0(0.0) 3(13.0) 10(43.5) 10(43.5) Total 0(0.0) 11(10.8) 53(52.0) 38(37.3) Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 2(2.5) 12(15.2) 34(43.0) 31(35.4) Part Time 0(0.0) 2(8.7) 14(60.9) 7(30.4) Total 2(2.0) 14(13.7) 48(47.1) 38(37.3) Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 0(0.0) 14(17.7) 41(51.9) 24(30.4) Part Time 2(8.7) 6(26.1) 11(47.8) 4(17.4) Total 2(2.0) 20(19.6) 52(51.0) 28(27.5) Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 1(1.3) 13(16.5) 36(45.6) 29(36.7) Part Time 2(8.7) 4(17.4) 8(34.8) 9(39.1) Total 3(2.9) 17(16.7) 44(43.1) 38(37.3) Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 2(2.5) 20(25.3) 28(35.4) 29(36.7) Part Time 1(4.3) 4(17.4) 8(34.8) 10(43.5) Total 3(2.9) 24(23.5) 36(35.3) 39(38.2)

PAGE 57

48 Table 7 Section 3: Combined Advising Goals as Part of the Faculty Role Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differences Between Full time and Part time Faculty (N = 102) Group Not a Role + Rarely a Role n (%) Usually a Role + Definitely a Role n (%) 2 p Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 18(22.8) 61(77.2) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 20(19.6) 82(80.4) 2.243 .134 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 8(10.1) 71(89.9) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 10(9.8) 92(90.2) .041 .839 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 15(19.0) 64(81.0) Part Time 8(34.8) 15(65.2) Total 23(22.5) 79(77.5) 2.545 .111 Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 8(10.1) 71(89.9) Part Time 3(13.0) 20(87) Total 11(10.8) 91(89.2) .158 .691 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 14(17.7) 65(82.3) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 16(15.7) 86(84.3) 1.097 .295 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 14(17.7) 65(82.3) Part Time 8(34.8) 15(65.2) Total 22(21.6) 80(78.4) 3.065 .080 Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 14(17.7) 65(82.3) Part Time 6(26.1) 17(73.9) Total 20(19.6) 82(80.4) .791 .374 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 22(27.8) 57(72.2) Part Time 5(21.7) 18(78.3) Total 27(26.5) 75(73.5) .342 .559 *p<.05 Results show that 90.2% of faculty participants indicated that Goal 2, abilities and values to careers, the world of work and the nature and purpose of

PAGE 58

49 goal that the highest numbe faculty participants responding negatively. Research question four investigated the relationship between full time and part advising. A chi square test of independence was performe d and revealed no statistically significant differences between the full time and part time faculty Section Four of the survey, questions 25 32 was used to address research question five regarding the relationship between faculty engaging in academic advising and their perceptions of the college advising center performance with regard to the NACADA goals for effective advising, the importance of the advising goals and their role in th e advising process. This section of the survey queried faculty regarding how many students they have actually advised on each of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising during the past year. A four point Likert presented in Table 8. To get a better picture of the overall faculty advising behaviors, the data on this section were collapsed to form two categories, faculty members that did not advise students and faculty members that advised one or more students (Table 9).

PAGE 59

50 Table 8 Section 4: Number of Students Advised Per Goal Frequency Distribution (N = 102) Group None n (%) 1 3 n (%) 4 6 n (%) >6 n (%) Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 7(8.9) 17(21.5) 14(17.7) 41(51.9) Part Time 2(8.7) 5(21.7) 6(26.1) 10(43.5) Total 9(8.8) 22(21.6) 20(19.6) 51(50.0) Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 3(3.8) 14(17.7) 12(15.2) 50(63.3) Part Time 1(4.3) 4(17.4) 7(30.4) 11(47.8) Total 4(3.9) 18(17.6) 19(18.6) 61(59.8) Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 10(12.7) 13(16.5) 17(21.5) 39(49.4) Part Time 4(17.4) 5(21.7) 5(21.7) 9(39.1) Total 14(13.7) 18(17.6) 22(21.6) 48(47.1) Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 4(5.1) 9(11.4) 11(13.9) 55(69.6) Part Time 2(8.7) 2(8.7) 2(8.7) 17(73.9) Total 6(5.9) 11(10.8) 13(12.7) 72(70.6) Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 3(3.8) 9(11.4) 11(13.9) 56(70.9) Part Time 3(13.0) 3(13.0) 7(30.4) 10(43.5) Total 6(5.9) 12(11.8) 18(17.6) 66(64.7) Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 8(10.1) 18(22.8) 18(22.8) 35(44.3) Part Time 4(17.4) 9(39.1) 2(8.7) 8(34.8) Total 12(11.8) 27(26.5) 20(19.6) 43(42.2) Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 11(13.9) 11(13.9) 22(27.8) 35(44.3) Part Time 5(21.7) 5(21.7) 4(17.4) 9(39.1) Total 16(15.7) 16(15.7) 26(25.5) 44(43.1) Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 11(13.9) 14(17.7) 8(10.1) 46(58.2) Part Time 4(17.4) 4(17.4) 5(21.7) 10(43.5) Total 15(14.7) 18(17.6) 13(12.7) 56(54.9)

PAGE 60

51 Table 9 Section 4: Combined Number of Students Advised Per Goal Frequency Distribution and Chi square Analysis of the Differences Between Full time and Part time Faculty (N = 102) Group None n (%) (1 to 3)+ (4 to 6)+(>6) n( %) 2 p Goal 1: Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance Full Time 7(8.9) 72(91.1) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 9(8.8) 93(91.2) .001 .980 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals Full Time 3(3.8) 76(96.2) Part Time 1(4.3) 22(95.7) Total 4(3.9) 98(96.1) .014 .905 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan Full Time 10(12.7) 69(87.3) Part Time 4(17.4) 19(82.6) Total 14(13.7) 88(86.3) .337 .562 Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills Full Time 4(5.1) 75(94.9) Part Time 2(8.7) 21(91.3) Total 6(5.9) 96(94.1) .452 .515 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information Full Time 3(3.8) 76(96.2) Part Time 3(13.0) 20(87.0) Total 6(5.9) 96(94.1) 2.751 .097 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services Full Time 8(10.1) 71(89.9) Part Time 4(17.4) 19(82.6) Total 12(11.8) 90(88.2) .906 .341 Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals Full Time 11(13.9) 68(86.1) Part Time 5(21.7) 18(78.3) Total 16(15.7) 86(84.3) .823 .364 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Departments Full Time 11(13.9) 68(86.1) Part Time 4(17.4) 19(82.6) Total 15(14.7) 87(85.3) .171 .679 *p<.05 The results of Section Four of the survey revealed that 96.1% of faculty participants indicated that they have personally advised one or more students relating interests, skills, abilities and values to careers, the world of work and the

PAGE 61

52 students in developing decision maki Research question four investigated the relationship between full time and part s regarding academic advising. A chi square test of independence was performe d and revealed no statistically significant difference between full time and part time faculty Corre lations were calculated to assess the relationship between faculty academic advising center performance on the eight NACADA goals for effective advising, importance of the advisin g goals and role of faculty in the advising process. A Pearson product moment correlation was computed to assess the relationship between the number of students faculty participants reported rceptions of the advising center performance on the eight NACADA goals for effective advising, the importance of the advising goals, and their role in the advising process (Table 10). Data revealed no statistically significant relationship between the nu mbers of students that faculty participants reported advising and their perceptions of the performance of the campus advising center at performing any of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising. However, there was a statistically significant positive correlation found between the number of students faculty participants reported advising and their perception of the importance of Advising

PAGE 62

53 academic departments, or some combina moderate, positive correlation between the number of students faculty participants reported advising and their perception of the importance of NACADA advising Goal 8, r = .246, N = 102, p = .013. Table 10 Correlations Between Faculty Perceptions and B ehaviors Number of students advised Advising center performance Importance of advising goals Faculty role in advising Goal 1: Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .013 1 Importance of advising goals .116 .325* 1 Faculty role in advising .439** .109 .380** 1 Goal 2: Assisting students in considering life goals Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .116 1 Importance of advising goals .013 .236* 1 Faculty role in advising .207* .144 .272* 1 Goal 3: assisting students in developing an educational plan Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .060 1 Importance of advising goals .011 .131 1 Faculty role in advising .303* .087 .007 1 Goal 4: Assisting students in developing decision making skills Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .012 1 Importance of advising goals .007 .390** 1 Faculty role in advising .373** .027 .182 1 Goal 5: Providing accurate information Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .057 1 Importance of advising goals .133 .060 1 Faculty role in advising .359** .067 .157 1 Goal 6: Referring students to other institutional or community support services Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .034 1 Importance of advising goals .003 .119 1 Faculty role in advising .411** .025 .229* 1 Goal 7: Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards goals Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .027 1 Importance of advising goals .170 .065 1 Faculty role in advising .341** .140 .008 1 Goal 8: Providing information about students to the institution/college/academic departments Number of students advised 1 Advising center performance .038 1 Importance of advising goals .246* .010 1 Faculty role in advising .526** .106 .395** 1 *p<.05; **p<.01 (2 tailed)

PAGE 63

54 In addition, a statistically significant positive correlation was observed between the number of students faculty participants reported advising and their perception of the faculty role in the advising process on all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising. The highest positive correlations were with the perception of their role in the students in self understanding and self r = .439, N = 102, p = r = .526, N = 102, p = <.001). There was a moderate, p ositive relationship with regard to the number of students faculty participants actually advised and faculty remaining six goals. Regardless of the fact that SCC employs a se lf contained advising structure and faculty members are not officially involved in the advising process, over 75% of the faculty participants at SCC indicated that advising should be part of their role and over 86% reported advising one of more students. These positive correlations observed between advising behaviors and perceptions of the importance of the NACADA goals for effective advising warrants additional research. Advisor Load The overall student to advisor ratio at SCC is 1,784 students per full time academic advisor (South Community College, 2008b). Since many students at SCC take classes on multiple campuses, calculating an accurate advisor to student ratio for each campus is difficult. The main campus at SCC has an

PAGE 64

55 annual enrollment of 20,545 students and 10 full time advisors for a ratio of 2,054 students per advisor. The downtown campus has 15,419 students and 3 full time advisors for a ratio of 5,139 students per advisor. The Southeast campus has 10,888 students and 3 full time advisors for a ratio of 3,629 students per advisor. The East campus has 7,186 students and 2 advisors for a ratio of 3,593 students per advisor. The South campus has 2,833 students and 1 full time advisor for a ratio of 2,833 students per advisor (Table 11). In additio n, there are four advisors dedicated specifically to the TRIO Federal Grant Program students. The remaining two advisor positions are assigned to the district administrative office and a satellite campus location. Table 11 Advisor Load by Campus Campus Advisors Students Student to Advisor Ratio All Campuses 25 44,598 1,784:1 Main Campus 10 20,545 2,054:1 Downtown Campus 3 15,419 5,139:1 Southeast Campus 3 10,888 3,629:1 East Campus 2 7,186 3,592:1 South Campus 1 2,833 2,833:1 TRIO Grant Students 4 Satellite Locations 1 District Office 1 Section One of this survey asked faculty participants to rate how well they believed the academic advising center at SCC was performing on each of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising. In keeping with the results of the ACT National Survey of Academic Advising, mean scores and cumulative mean scores were computed ( ACT 2006). The mean scores and cumulative mean scores for Section One of the survey, separated by the campus at which faculty p articipant reported teaching, are displayed in Table 12. Results reveal that the

PAGE 65

56 Southeast Campus and the Downtown Campus have the lowest cumulative mean scores on Section One of the survey indicating that the perceptions of faculty participants from these regarding the eight NACADA goals for effective advising. A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the campus at which the faculty participants teach on their rating of the advising center performance regarding the NACADA goals. There was not a significant effect of the campus at which the faculty participant reported teaching on the reported percept ions of faculty regarding the advising center performance, F (4, 97) = .711, p = .586. However, the two campuses with the lowest cumulative mean scores for advising center performance, the Southeast Campus and the Downtown Campus, also have the highest advisor to student ratios.

PAGE 66

57 Table 12 Section 1: Academic Advising Center Performance Mean Scores Separated by Campus (N=102) Campus Main Campus (n=62) Southeast Campus (n=13) East Campus (n=13) Downtown Campus (n=11) South Campus (n=3) Goal 1 Assisting Students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance 2.468 2.231 2.538 2.273 3.000 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals 2.435 2.462 2.615 2.545 3.000 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan 2.516 2.538 2.846 2.727 2.333 Goal 4: Assisting Students in Developing Decision Making Skills 2.371 2.154 2.538 2.091 2.667 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information 2.506 2.462 2.923 2.455 2.667 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services 2.635 2.584 2.846 2.545 2.667 Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals 2.484 2.154 2.615 2.273 2.667 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Dept. 2.484 2.538 2.692 2.636 3.000 Cumulative Mean 2.504 2.385 2.702 2.443 2.750 *p < .05, **p<.01 Section Two of this survey asked faculty participants to rate the perceived importance they ascribe to each of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising. The mean scores and cumulative mean scores for Section Two of the survey, separated by the camp us at which faculty participants reported teaching are displayed in Table 13. Results reveal that the Downtown Campus has the lowest cumulative mean scores on Section Two of the survey indicating that the faculty participants from the Downtown campus had the highest number of of the eight goals for effective advising. A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the campus at which faculty participa nts

PAGE 67

58 teach on their rating of the perceived importance of the NACADA goals. There was a significant effect of the campus at which the faculty participant reported teaching on the reported perceptions of the importance of the NACADA goals, F (4, 97) = 4.989, p = .001. Post Hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the Downtown Campus ( M = 2.955, SD = .779) was significantly different from the other campuses. As noted earlier, the Downtown Campus also has the hi ghest student to advisor ratio at 5,139 students per academic advisor. Table 13 Section 2: Perceived Importance of Advising Goals Mean Scores Separated by Campus Campus Main Campus ( n = 62) Southeast Campus ( n = 13) East Campus ( n = 13) Downtown Campus ( n = 11) South Campus ( n = 3) Goal 1 Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance 2.968 3.077 3.077 2.727 4.000 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals 3.435 3.538 3.538 3.182 4.000 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan 3.661 3.846 3.846 3.182 4.000 Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills 2.968 3.231 3.077 2.636 4.000 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information 3.661 3.538 3.692 3.273 4.000 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services 3.419 3.231 3.385 2.909 4.000 Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals 3.597 3.538 3.692 3.091 4.000 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Dept. 3.323 3.538 3.308 2.636 4.000 Cumulative Mean 3.379 3.442 3.452 2.955** 4.000 *p < .05, **p<.01

PAGE 68

59 Section Three of the survey investigated the extent that the faculty participants perceive the eight NACADA goals for effective advising to be part of the faculty role. The mean scores and cumulative mean scores for Section Three of the survey, separated by the campus at which faculty participants reported teaching are displayed in Table 14. Results reveal that the So uth Campus has the highest cumulative mean score ( M = 3.917, SD = .144) signifying the highest survey. However, due to the extremely low faculty response from the South Campus, these results may not be a true representation of the South C ampus faculty opinions. A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the campus at which the faculty participants teach on their rating of the faculty role in advising with regard to the NACADA goals. There was not a significant effect of the campus at which the faculty participant reported teaching on the reported perceptions of the faculty role in advising, F (4, 97) = 1.996, p = .101. The cumulative mean score of the four remaining campuses were not significantly different with regard to the faculty perceptions of their role in the advising process.

PAGE 69

60 Table 14 Section 3: Perceived Faculty Role in Advising Mean Scores Separated by Campus Campus Main Campus ( n = 62) Southeast Campus ( n = 13) East Campus ( n = 13) Downtown Campus ( n = 11) South Campus ( n = 3) Goal 1 Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance 2.887 3.231 3.308 3.273 3.667 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals 3.290 3.231 3.462 3.364 4.000 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan 3.145 3.000 2.923 2.818 3.667 Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills 3.242 3.154 3.308 3.273 4.000 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information 3.177 3.385 3.000 3.091 4.000 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services 3.065 2.769 3.154 2.818 4.000 Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals 3.177 2.923 3.231 2.909 4.000 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Dept. 3.032 3.308 2.923 3.091 4.000 Cumulative Mean 3.127 3.125 3.163 3.080 3.917 *p < .05, **p<.01 Section Four of the survey was interested in how many students each faculty participant indicated that he or she personally advised in the past year with regard to each of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising. The mean scores and cumulative mean s cores for Section Four of the survey, separated by the campus at with the faculty participant reported teaching are presented in Table 15. Similar to the results from Section Three of the survey, the South Campus had the highest cumulative mean score indic ating that the highest number of faculty participants from the South Campus indicated that they advised one or more students with regard to the NACADA goals for effective advising. However, due to the extremely low faculty response from the South

PAGE 70

61 Campus, t hese results may not be a true representation of the South Campus faculty advising behaviors. A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the campus at which the faculty participants teach on the number of students faculty parti cipant reported advising with regard to the NACADA goals. There was not a significant effect of the campus at which faculty participant reported teaching on the number of students faculty reported advising, F (4, 97) = 1.272, p = .286. The cumulative mean s core of the four remaining campuses were not significantly different with regard to the number of students faculty participants reported advising in the past year. Table 15 Section 4: Number of Students Advised by Faculty Mean Scores Separated by Campus Campus Main Campus ( n = 62) Southeast Campus ( n = 13) East Campus ( n = 13) Downtown Campus ( n = 11) South Campus ( n = 3) Goal 1 Assisting students in Self Understanding and Self Acceptance 2.984 3.462 2.923 3.364 4.000 Goal 2: Assisting Students in Considering Life Goals 3.355 3.308 3.077 3.455 4.000 Goal 3: Assisting Students in Developing an Education Plan 3.097 3.154 2.769 2.455 4.000 Goal 4: Assisting Students in developing Decision Making Skills 3.452 3.538 3.462 3.455 4.000 Goal 5: Providing Accurate Information 3.403 3.538 3.077 3.545 4.000 Goal 6: Referring Students to Other Institutional or Community Support Services 3.032 2.769 2.692 2.545 3.667 Goal 7: Assisting Students in Evaluating or Reevaluating Progress Towards Goals 3.016 3.154 2.769 2.364 4.000 Goal 8: Providing Information about Students to the Institution/College/Academic Dept. 3.065 3.308 2.769 3.091 3.667 Cumulative Mean 3.175 3.279 2.942 3.034 3.917 *p < .05, **p<.01

PAGE 71

62 Conclusion This chapter provided an overview of the quantitative analysis utilized to respond to each of the five research questions. The perceptions of full time and part time faculty participants with regard to the academic advising center performance regarding the eight NACADA goals for effective advising were presented. In addition, full time and part the importance of the NACADA goals for effective advising and their perceived role in the student academic advising process were also presented. This chapter also investigated the difference in perceptions and behavior between full time and part time faculty participants with regard to academic advising. Finally, faculty perceptions of the academic advising center performance on the NACADA goals for effective advising on each specific campus was examined and compared to the student to advisor ratio for each campus. Chapter 5 will provide a summary of the findings, implications for practice, limitations, implications for future research and a conclusion.

PAGE 72

63 Chapter 5 Summary Summary of the Research Study The first purpose of this study was to identify community college faculty perceptions regarding the performance of the campus academic advising center with regard to the eight NACADA goals for effective adv ising. A second purpose was to determine community college faculty perceptions as to the importance of the eight established NACADA goals for effective advising. A third purpose was to examine community college faculty perceptions regarding the role of fac ulty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of faculty members at a community college with a self contained advising structure were examined. The study also examined whether the perceptions and behaviors regarding academic adv ising differed by employment status as full time or part time. Data were collected from faculty at a large, urban, multi campus community college in the southern United States. The perceptions and behaviors of faculty participants were measured by a survey developed by the researcher. This chapter provides an overview of the research study, summary of the findings, implications for practice, limitations, implications for further research and conclusion.

PAGE 73

64 Overview of the Study This cross sectional study inv estigated the self reported perceptions and behaviors of community college faculty members with regard to academic advising at a community college with a self contained advising structure. This study also investigated the relationship between full time and part time faculty perceptions and behaviors concerning academic advising. The following five research questions were posed: 1. What are the community college faculty perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the College Academic Advising Center? 2. What are the community college faculty perceptions regarding the importance of the eight advising goals as outlined by NACADA Standards for Academic Advising? 3. What are the community college faculty perceptions of their role in the advising process? 4. Is there a diffe rence between part time and full time faculty in their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the College Academic Advising Center, importance of the eight advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process? 5. Is there a relationship between community college faculty engaging in academic advising and their perceptions of the College Academic Advising Center, their perceived importance of the academic advising goals, and their perceived role in the advising process?

PAGE 74

65 Summary of Findings The r esults of this study provide an overview of community college faculty established NACADA goals for effective advising. The five research questions are presented with a summary of findings. Research question one What are the community college faculty perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the College Academic Advising Center? effectiveness of the self contained academic advising center at SCC at performing each of the eight NACADA goals for effective academic advising. The to other institutional or community support servic making skills faculty participants indicating that they perceived the advising center performing advising, over half of faculty participants indicated that they perceived the ad (55.9%), 5 (56.9%), 6 (62.7%) and 8 (53.9%). On the remaining three goals, over half of faculty participants indicated that they perceived the advising center at

PAGE 75

66 and 7 (52.9%). Table 16 Full time and Part time Faculty Perceptions Regarding Advising Center Performance (N=102) NACADA Goals for effective advising Very Poorly + Poorly Very Well + Well Goal 1: Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 52.9% 47.1% Goal 2: Assisting students in considering life goals 49.0% 51.0% Goal 3: Assisting students in developing an educational plan 44.1% 55.9% Goal 4: Assisting students in developing decision making skills 61.8% 38.2% Goal 5: Providing accurate information 43.1% 56.9% Goal 6: Referring students to other institutional, or community support services 37.3% 62.7% Goal 7: Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards goals 52.9% 47.1% Goal 8: Providing information about the students to the Institution/college/academic departments 46.1% 53.9% The primary purpose of academic advising is to help students develop a meaningful educational plan that is compatible with their life goals (NACADA, 2009). For students, having a clear educational plan is vital to academic success. Of the eight established NACADA goals for effective advising, Goal 3 addresses the issue of assisting students in developing an educational plan consistent with their life goals. The results from Section One of this survey revealed that 55.9% of faculty participants perceived the Research question two What are the community college faculty perceptions regarding the importance of the eight advising goals as outlined by the NACADA Standards for Academic Advising? Research question two surveyed community college faculty opinions on the perceived importance of the eight established NACADA goals for effective advising. Results revealed that over 90% of faculty participants indicated that

PAGE 76

67 advising Goal 2 (93.1%), 3 (96.1%), 5 (96.1%), 6 (96.1%), 7 (97.1%), and 8 two goals, 78.4% of faculty participants nd 77.5% of faculty participants indicated that Goal 4 was evaluating or reevaluating progress towards participants signifying its importance. As previously stated, the primary purpose of academic advising is to help students develop a meaningful educational plan that is compatible with their life goals (NACADA, 2009). Goal 3 o n this survey addressed the issue of assisting students in developing an educational plan and Goa l 3, Section One of this survey revealed that only 55.9% of SCC faculty On all eight of the NACADA goals of effective advising data reveals a d ivergence between the faculty participants perception of the importance of each goal and the faculty participants perception of the advising center performance regarding that goal. Specifically, a higher percentage of faculty participants perceive the ad vising goals to be important or very important than perceive the advising center performing well or very well regarding each goal. It i s apparent from the results of S ection T wo of this survey that the faculty participants value academic advising a nd see its importance.

PAGE 77

68 Since SCC employees a self contained advising structure and the faculty participant value advising, they need to feel confident in referring students to the self contained advising center. Results of Section One revealed that the fac ulty NACADA goals for effective advising are split almost evenly between positive and negative responses. If SCC is going to continue with an entirely self contained advising stru perceptions of the advising center performance will be imperative. Table 17 Full time and Part time Faculty Perceptions Regarding the Importance of the Advising Goals (N=102) NACADA Goals for effective advising Unimportant + Of Little Importance Important + Very Important Goal 1: Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 21.6% 78.4% Goal 2: Assisting students in considering life goals 6.9% 93.1% Goal 3: Assisting students in developing an educational plan 3.9% 96.1% Goal 4: Assisting students in developing decision making skills 22.5% 77.5% Goal 5: Providing accurate information 3.9% 96.1% Goal 6: Referring students to other institutional, or community support services 3.9% 96.1% Goal 7: Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards goals 2.9% 97.1% Goal 8: Providing information about the students to the Institution/college/academic departments 8.8% 91.2% Research question three What are the community college faculty perceptions of their role in the advising process? Research question three surveyed community college faculty opinions on the perceived extent that the eight NACADA goals for effective advising should be part of faculty r ole. Overall, the data revealed that over 73% of faculty participants at SCC believe that all eight of the NACADA goals for effective

PAGE 78

69 college utilizes a self contained ad vising structure (Table 18). When a self contained advising structure is in place, the faculty is rarely involved in the advising of students (Habley & Morales, 1998b). While student interaction with the faculty is an important factor in student success (P ascarella & Terenzini, 1995), the faculty at SCC may not be trained as academic advisors. In addition, assistance, placement testing, or counseling, the faculty member shall refer t he College, 2007, p. 34). Although not specifically mentioned, it appears that referring students to other resources should be the action taken by faculty concerning student academi c advising issues. Goal 6 on this survey specifically addressed the issue of referring students to other institutional or community support services and 78.4% of faculty participants indicated that it should be culty. However, Section Four of the survey investigated how many students faculty participants reported personally advising and over 84% of the faculty participants indicated that they have personally advised one or more students on each of the eight NACAD A advising goals.

PAGE 79

70 Table 18 Full time and Part time Faculty Perceptions Regarding the Faculty Role in Advising (N=102) NACADA Goals for effective advising Not a Role + Rarely a Role Usually a Role + Definitely a Role Goal 1: Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 19.6% 80.4% Goal 2: Assisting students in considering life goals 9.8% 90.2% Goal 3: Assisting students in developing an educational plan 22.5% 77.5% Goal 4: Assisting students in developing decision making skills 10.8% 89.2% Goal 5: Providing accurate information 15.7% 84.3% Goal 6: Referring students to other institutional, or community support services 21.6% 78.4% Goal 7: Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards goals 19.6% 80.4% Goal 8: Providing information about the students to the Institution/college/academic departments 26.5% 73.5% Research question four Is there a difference between part time faculty and full time faculty in their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the College Advising Center, importance of the eight NACADA advising goals and the role of faculty in the advising process? Research question four investigated the difference between full time and part time faculty perceptions of the coll ege academic advising center performance on each of the NACADA goals for effective advising, the importance of the advising goals and the faculty role in the advising process. While full time and part ; data did revealed several statistically significant differences in perceptions. the academic advising center performance on the eight NACADA goals for effective advising. Resul ts indicate that a higher percentage of part time than full

PAGE 80

71 significant difference was observed wi information about students to the institution, college, departments, or some time faculty participants believed the advising center was p academic departments. Previous research suggests that full time faculty spend more time on campus, interact with more students, and are more connec ted to the college than part time faculty (Jacoby, 2006). Further research might investigate what information part time faculty members have about the advising center. Specifically, is the significant difference between full time and part time faculty memb ers the result of not having as much interaction and discussion with students about the advising center? Regarding Section Two of the survey examining faculty opinions on the perceived importance of the eight established NACADA goals for effective advisi ng, the only statistically significant difference between full time and part time faculty parti time and part time faculty participan ts believe that all eight of the NACADA goals of advising has been identified as a significant factor for increasing student

PAGE 81

72 retention (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Ti nto, 1990; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Tutle, 2000). The results from Section Two of this survey indicate that a large percentage of both full time and part time faculty participants at SCC also see the importance of academic advising. With regard to Sect ion Three of the survey examining faculty role in the advising process, the data revealed no statistically significant differences between full time and part eight NACADA goals for effective advising. Ov erall, results indicate that over 70% of both full time and part time faculty participants believe that all eight of the NACADA goals of effective academic advising should be part of the faculty role. While over 70% of the faculty participants see the impo rtance of the NACADA goals for effective advising and believe that advising should be part of the faculty role, whether they would be willing to take on the additional responsibility of advising students needs to be investigated. Similarly, on Section Fou r of the survey regarding the number of students each faculty participant reported he or she personally advised on each of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising in the past year, the data revealed no statistically significant difference between ful l time and part time faculty participants advising behaviors. Overall, the results indicate that over 84% of the full time and part time faculty participants have personally advised one or more students in the past year regarding each of the NACADA goals f or effective advising. When done correctly, academic advising can directly enhance student success and retention (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto

PAGE 82

73 Goodsell Love & Russo 1993). Further research might investigate what type of advising info rmation the faculty is disseminating to the students. The faculty at SCC may not be trained as academic advisors and misinformation can lead to devastating setback for students (Deil Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003). Research question five Is there a relationshi p between community college faculty engaging in academic advising and their perceptions of the existing advising center, their perceived importance of the academic advising goals, and their perceived role in the advising process? Research question five su rveyed faculty regarding how many students each faculty participant reported he or she personally advised on each of the eight NACADA goals for effective advising in the past year. In addition, this research question investigated whether there was a relati onship between faculty perceptions and behaviors regarding advising on each of the NACADA goals for effective advising. Ninety six percent of faculty participants indicated that they ting students in considering their life goals by relating interests, skills, abilities and values to careers, the world of work and the nature and purpose of higher In keeping with the results from Section Three of the survey, Goal 2 is also the goal that the highest percentage of faculty participants indicated should most likely to be part of the faculty role. Overall, over 84% of the faculty participants indicated that they had personally advised one or more students on each of th e eight NACADA goals for effective advising in the past year.

PAGE 83

74 Table 19 Full time and Part time Faculty Behaviors Regarding the Number of Students Advised Per Goal (N=102) NACADA Goals for effective advising No Students Advised One or More Students Advised Goal 1: Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 8.8% 91.2% Goal 2: Assisting students in considering life goals 3.9% 96.1% Goal 3: Assisting students in developing an educational plan 13.7% 86.3% Goal 4: Assisting students in developing decision making skills 5.9% 94.1% Goal 5: Providing accurate information 5.9% 94.1% Goal 6: Referring students to other institutional, or community support services 11.8% 88.2% Goal 7: Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards goals 15.7% 84.3% Goal 8: Providing information about the students to the Institution/college/academic departments 14.7% 85.3% The results of the Pearson product moment correlation revealed a positive process and the number of students they personally advised on all eight of the NACADA goals for ef fective advising. Specifically, the greater faculty participants perceived each of the advising goals to be part of the faculty role, the more students they reported advising with regard to that goal. The results of a recent SCC supported student survey revealed that only 9% of students surveyed listed an academic advisor as their best source of academic advising while 38% of students surveyed listed faculty as their best source of academic advising (South Community College, 2008b). The students at SCC ar e approaching the faculty for academic advising and are not always being referred to the campus academic advising center. One possible reason for faculty participants not referring students to the academic advising center may be related to the information gathered in Section One of this survey regarding faculty

PAGE 84

75 regard to the NACADA goals for effective advising. With regard to six of the eight advising goals, the faculty particip In addition, section three of the survey revealed that over 78% of faculty participants believe all eight of the NACAD A goals for effective advising Advisor Load The recommended student to advisor ratio for pu blic two year institutions is 30 0 students per full time advisor (Habley, 2004a). The current overall stu dent to advisor ra tio at SCC is much high er at 1,784 students per academic advisor. When accounting for the fact that many students at SCC take classes on multiple campuses, the ratio for each individual campus is even higher. With regard to the faculty pa advising centers at performing the eight NACADA goals for effective advising, the Section One of the survey are t he same two campuses with the highest student to advisor ratios. The Downtown Campus and the Southeast Campus have a student to advisor ratio of 5,139 and 3,629 students per academic advisors respectively. This extremely high student to advisor ratio at th e Downtown and Southeast Campuses may be partially responsible for the low perceptions that faculty participants at these campuses have regarding the advising center performance on the NACADA goals for effective advising.

PAGE 85

76 The Downtown Campus faculty parti importance of the NACADA goals for effective advising revealed a significantly lower cumulative mean score than the other four campuses. In addition, the lowest cumulative mean score regarding faculty role in advising. Although not statically significant, the faculty participants from the Downtown Campus had a higher regarding f aculty role in advising. Simply stated, the data revealed that faculty participants from the Downtown Campus had a lower perception of the importance of the advising goals and a lower perception of the role of faculty in the advising process than the other four SCC campuses. Whether these findings are directly related to the fact that the Downtown Campus has the highest student to advisor ratio will need to be investigated further. Implications for P ractice The results of this study offer several possible implications for practice for community colleges with a self contained academic advising structure. One implication is to provide the faculty with a detailed description and protocol concerning their role in the student advising process. Since the results of this study indicate that over 73% of faculty participants at SCC believe that all eight NACADA goals for effective advising should be part of the faculty role and over 84% have reported personally advisin g students in the past year, information needs to be offered that clearly explains the policies and procedures regarding the faculty role in the student advising process. The current SCC faculty contract

PAGE 86

77 is very vague with regard to faculty advising and si requests assistance, placement testing or counseling, the faculty member shall Community College, 2007, p. 34). The college has a trained staff of ac ademic advisors in the self contained advising centers on each campus to handle student academic advising issues. The faculty responsibility regarding their role in student academic advising should be clarified. When a student approaches a faculty member w ith an academic advising type question, the faculty member should have a clear understanding of their role in the advising process. In addition, if the faculty member is aware of the advising center procedures and services they may be able to take a more a ctive approach and inform the students of the advising services available on campus before the need arises. According to Astin (1993), the faculty represents a significant aspect of student undergraduate development. Similarly, Tinto (1988) noted that fa culty student interaction is a key contributor to student integration to the college and likely they are to persist (Tinto, 1987). Therefore, maintaining the student faculty c ontact is vital to community college student success. However, when it comes to the complexities of academic advising, the professional advisors are trained to handle student needs. Any misinformation that the student receives can lead to overwhelming setb acks, disappointment, frustration and eventual student departure from the college (Deil Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003).

PAGE 87

78 A second implication is to i mprove the communication between academic advisors and faculty. According to the findings of this study, with the exception of Goal 6 with 62.7% of faculty participants responding positively, and Goal 4 with 61.8% of faculty participants responding negatively, on the remaining five goals sp lit between positive and negative responses. The results of Section Four of this survey revealed that over 84% of the faculty participants at SCC have reported personally advising one or more students on all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising In addition, a recent SCC sponsored student survey revealed that academic advising was rated one the lowest of the student services on campus with only 58% of students indicating satisfaction with advising services (South Community College, 2008b). One p otential way to improve faculty perceptions regarding the advising center performance and encourage the faculty to refer students is to improve the communication between the academic advisors and the faculty. Having open communication channels between advi sors and faculty will help ensure that advisors are providing the students with accurate and up to date information. Assuring students receive accurate and center performance as well. Working to improve the student satisfaction with the advising center may also help improve the faculty perception of the advising center as meeting the NACADA advising goals and needs of the students. Open communication would also provide the faculty with a better understanding of the challenges and issues that the advisors face when dealing with students.

PAGE 88

79 Ultimately, improving the communication between the academic advisors and faculty may influence the faculty to refer students to the campus advisin g center and the professional academic advisors rather than advise students themselves. A third implication is to hire more trained academic advisors in order to improve the student to advisor ratio. The student to advisor ratio at SCC is 1,784 students p er academic advisor. This ratio is substantially higher than the NACADA recommended ratio for public two year colleges of 300 students per advisor (Habley, 2004a). Results of this study reveal that the cumulative mean tions as to the performance of the campus advising center regarding the eight NACADA goals for effective advising was lowest on the two campuses with the highest student to advisor ratio (Table 20). In addition, the results of a separate internal SCC stude nt survey reveal that one of the biggest reported problems with the campus advising centers is abnormally long wait times to see an advisor (South Community College, 2008b). Having more trained academic advisors may make it easier for students to be advise d in the self contained advising center and therefore not seek advising from the faculty. This may have a domino effect and subsequently improve the student and faculty perceptions of the campus advising center and therefore encourage the faculty to refer students to the advising center rather than personally advising.

PAGE 89

80 Table 20 Section 1: Academic Advising Center Performance Cumulative Mean Scores and Students per Advisor by Campus Campus Main Campus (N=62) Southeast Campus (N=13) East Campus (N=13) Downtown Campus (N=11) South Campus (N=3) Cumulative Mean (ranking) 2.504 (3) 2.385 (5) 2.702 (2) 2.443 (4) 2.750 (1) Students per Advisor (ranking) 2,054 (1) 3,629 (4) 3,593 (3) 5,139 (5) 2,833 (2) A forth implication is to explore methods to improve part time faculty are increasing their reliance on part time faculty to meet demand caused by the rapidly increasing enrollments (Jacoby, 2006). In addition, several recent studies suggest that the increased use of part time faculty may adversely affect student graduation rates and persistence (Harrington & Schibik, 2004, Benjamin, 2002, Jacoby, 2006). The extremely low response rate of part time faculty in this study may be indicative of their lack of connection to the college. Finding ways to increase part time faculty connection to the college may lead to a better overall experience for faculty members and the students they ser ve. Similarly, the initial surveys along with the subsequent reminders were sent to part time faculty mail address. Improving the connection and relationship between part time faculty and the college may improve the communicatio n between administration and part time faculty as well as part time faculty and students. Investing in part than treating them like replaceable parts may improve student success (Leslie & Gappa, 2002).

PAGE 90

81 Limitations of the Study As listed in a previous chapter, there were some limitations to this study. The findings of this study are applicable only to faculty and staff at SCC. Faculty cente r with regard to the NACADA advising goals, the advising goals, and the addition, full time and part time faculty participants may have had different experiences in their teach ing careers based upon the status of their positions and years of experience. These differences may have affected the way in which faculty participants responded to the survey questions. A noteworthy limitation of this study was the low number of particip ants. A total of 282 full time faculty members received three separate requests to participate in the study; however, only 79 actually completed the survey which equates to a return rate of 28.0%. More disappointing was the fact that 996 part time faculty members also received three separate requests to participate in the study; however, only 23 actually completed the survey which was a return rate of only 2.3%. Overall, of the 1,278 total faculty members invited to participate, only 102 voluntarily complet ed the survey for an overall response rate of 8.0%. This response rate is very low and may affect the findings discussed in this chapter. While the extremely low response rate among part time faculty is potentially detrimental to this study, it may be a s ign of other, more alarming issues for community colleges. When hired, all new part time faculty members at SCC are issued an official college e mail address. This college e mail address is

PAGE 91

82 an official means of communication between the administration and faculty and also between faculty and students. The extremely low response rate among part time faculty may indicate that part time faculty members are not monitoring their official e mail account. Another possible reason for the low response rate among par t time faculty members may be that they do not feel a connection to the college. Previous research indicates that part time faculty members at community colleges feel marginalized and left out of college business (Jacoby, 2006). The low response by part ti me faculty at SCC may reinforce this lack of connectedness among part time faculty and present a larger problem for the college. With the rapid growth of community colleges coinciding with shrinking budgets, the reliance on part time faculty will likely gr ow. Recommendations for Further Research This study offers insight into the faculty perceptions and behaviors regarding academic advising at a community college with a self contained advising structure. However, given the limited research in this area, th e results of this study suggest several topics for future research: 1. A similar research study that includes a larger sample of community college faculty members at multiple institutions with a self contained advising structure may offer more insight into community college faculty advising perceptions and behaviors 2. A qualitative study to gather the community college faculty member recommendations for improving the campus academic advising center performance with regard to the eight NACADA advising goals.

PAGE 92

83 3. A similar research study that examines the perceptions of academic advisors with regard to the NACADA advising goals and the faculty role in the advising process. 4. A qualitative study to ascertain what activities are actually being conducted during the faculty advising sessions with students. 5. A qualitative study that explores the student perceptions of advising and the campus academic advising center. That is, what influences them to seek advising from the faculty versus the ca mpus advising center. Conclusion The community college will continue to play a vital role in the higher education landscape in America. These affordable and convenient, open door institutions continue to attract large numbers of students. Helping these st udents succeed continues to present a challenge for community college leaders. In addition President Obama has recently committed $12 billion to a community college initiative designed to boost graduation rates, improve facilities and develop new technolo gies ( Kellogg 2009). One method to help increase community college student retention and graduation rates is through a quality academic advising program. A cademic advising has been acknowledged as a significant factor for increasing student success (Astin 1993, Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991, Tinto, 1990, Tutle, 2000). In addition, academic advising presents an opportunity for all students to meet with a concerned representative of the college. The challenge is to create an academic advising system the stu dents and faculty view as essential, not peripheral, to the overall educational

PAGE 93

84 experience (Hunter & White, 2004). However, research reveals that a large percentage of community college students are seeking academic advising advice from faculty members who may not be trained as academic advisors (CCSSE, 2006). This study investigated the self reported perceptions of faculty members at one community college as to the performance of the college advising center with regard to the NACADA goals for effective advising, the importance of the NACADA advising goals, and the role of the faculty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of faculty members at a community college with a self contained advising system were examined. The results of this research study offer an insight into the faculty participants perceptions and behaviors regarding academic advising. Whil e the faculty at SCC is not directly responsible for advising students, the results of this study revealed that a large majority of both full time and part time faculty participants are advising students concerning all eight of the NACADA goals for effecti ve advising. In addition, a majority of the faculty participants at SCC believe that all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising should be part of the faculty role even though the college employs a self contained advising structure. While this s tudy revealed a small number of statistically significant differences between full time and part extremely low response rate among the part time faculty may have affected the results in a negative way. Finding a way to gather more part time faculty perceptions may add to the overall results of this study Part time

PAGE 94

85 faculty will continue to play a vital role in community college teaching so finding ways to increase their connection to the college may ultim ately help improve student retention rates (Jacoby, 2006). There is little argument that academic advising is central to the ultimate goal of community colleges. At institutions with a self contained advising structure, the performance, reputation and su pport of the academic advising center should be paramount to an institution s mission. This study offered some insight into the community colle ge faculty perceptions and behaviors with regard to academic advising. Further research at institutions with a similar advising structure would provide a richer view of how to enhance the advising process and ultimately improve student success.

PAGE 95

86 List of References American Associati on of Community Colleges [AACC] (2009) Retrieved Marc h 1, 2009 from http://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index.htm. American College Testing [ACT] (2006). National colleg iate retention & persistence to degree rates. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/retain_2006.pdf Allen, J. M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (5), 397 411. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Liberal Education, 79 4 15. Backhus, D. (1989). Centralized intrusive advising and undergraduate retention. NACADA Journal 9 ( 1 ), 39 45. Bailey, T. W., & Morest, V. S. (2006). Defending the community college equity agenda Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Unive rsity Press. Benjamin, E. (2002). How overall reliance upon contingent appointments diminishes faculty involvement in student learning. Peer Review, 5 (1), 4 10.

PAGE 96

87 Boggs, G. R. (2004). Community colleges in a perfect storm. Change, 36 (6), 6 11. Brint, S. G. & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream : Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in america, 1900 1985 New York: Oxford University Press. Canonica, J. N. (2002). Meeting the first year advising needs of non traditional male and female students enrolled in a Mid Atlantic community college. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from Dissertations & Thesis: Full Text Database (Publication no. AAT 3067766) Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Principles for good practice in undergrad uate education. AAHE Bulletin 39(7), 3 7. Co hen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003 ). The American community college San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). (2006). Act on fact: 2006 findings Community College Leadership Program: Austin, TX.

PAGE 97

8 8 Community College Survey of Student Success (CCSSE). (2007). Committing to The University of Texas at Austin. Community College Leadership Program, Community C ollege Survey of Student Engagement, Austin: TX Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.ccsse.org/publications/2007NatlRpt final.pdf. Creamer, D G. (2000). Use of theory in academic advising. In V.N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Academic Advising: A c omprehensive handbook (pp. 18 34). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of College Student Personnel 13 (1) 12 17. Deil Amen, R., Rosnebaum, J. E. (2003). The social prerequisi tes of success: can college structure reduce the need for social know how? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586 (120), 120 143. Dillman, D. A (2000). Mail and internet surveys : The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc Dillon, R. K., & Fisher, B. J. (2000). Faculty as part of the advising equation: An inquiry into faculty viewpoints on advising. NACADA Journal, 20 (1), 16 23.

PAGE 98

89 Eddy, J. P., & Essarum, C. C. (1989). Student and facu lty perceptions of a university academic advising process. The College Student Affairs Journal 9 (2), 6 13. Erdman, K. (2004). Faculty advisors' perceptions of a developmental advising model at a Midwestern land grant university. Dissertation Abstracts Int ernational (UMI No. 3127826) Frost, S. H. (2000). Historical and philosophical foundations for academic advising. In V.N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Academic Advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 3 17). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Fuller, A. G. (1983). A strategy to improve retention. NACADA Journal 3 (1), 65 72 Geleskie, E. M. (2008). Advisors' perceptions of barriers to a smooth transition from a community college to a four year university Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indi ana University of Pennsylvania Indiana. Gordon, V. N. (1992 ). Handbook of academic advising Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Gordon, V. N., Habley, W. R., Grites, T. J., & Associates. (2008). Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 99

90 Habley, W. R. (1981). Academic advising: Critical link in student retention. NASPA Journal, 28 (4), 45 50. Habley, W. R. (1988). Introduction and overview. In W. R. Habley (Ed.), The status and future of academic advising : Problems and promise (pp. 1 10) Iowa City: ACT National Center for the Advancement of Educational Practices. Habley, W. R. (1993). The organization and effectiveness of academic advising in community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, (82), 33 45. Habley, W. R. (1994). Fire! (ready, aim): Is criticism of faculty advising warranted? NACADA Journal, 14 (2), 25 34. Habley, W. R. (2004 a ). Advisor load. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources We b site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/advisorload.htm Habley, W. R. (2004 b ). The status of academic advising: Findings from the ACT sixth national study Manhattan, KS: Nationa l Academic Advising Association. Habley, W. R. & Morale s, R. H. (1998a) Current practices in academic advising: Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association.

PAGE 100

91 Habley, W. R., & Morales, R. H. (1998 b ). Advising models: Goal achievement and program effectiveness. NACADA Journal, 18 (1), 35 41. Hagedorn, L., Maxwell, W., Rodriguez, P., Hocevar, D., & Fillpot, J. (2000). Peer and student faculty relations in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24 (7), 587 599. Halpin, R. L. (1990). An application of the T into model to the analysis of freshman persistence in a community college. Community College Review, 17 (4) 22 32. Harrington, C. & Schibik, T. (200 4 ). Caveat emptor: Is there a relationship between part time f aculty utilization and student learning retention Association for Institutional Research Files On Line, 91, Retrieved April 1 20 10, from: http://airweb.org/page.asp?page=73&apppage=85&id=94. Horn, L. & Berger, R. (2005). College persistence on the rise? Changes in 5 year degree completion and postsecondary persistence rates between 1994 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/das/epubs/2005156/persistence3.asp Hunter, M. S., White, E. R. (2004). Could fixing academic advising fix higher education? About Campus 9(1), 20 25.

PAGE 101

92 Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of Part Time Faculty Employment on Community College Graduation Rates. Journal of Higher Education 77 (6), 1081 1 103. Do support services at community colleges encourage success or reproduce disadvantage? An exploratory study of students in two community colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 10. Community College Research Ce nter. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Kellogg, A. P., Tomsho, R. (2009, July 14). Obama plans community college initiative. The Wall Street Journal Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.online.wsj.com Keup, J. R., & Stolzenberg, E. B. (2004). The 2003 Your First College Year Survey: Exploring the academic and personal experiences of first year students (Monograph No. 40). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition. King, M. C. (1993). Academic advising: Organizing and delivering services for student success. New Direction s for Community Colleges, (82), 21 32

PAGE 102

93 Kopera, A. T. (1998). The role of the academic advisor in a public university. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 9826089) Kramer, G. L. Childs, M. W. (2000). The "e" factor in delivering advising and student services Manhattan, Kansas: NAC ADA Monograph Series 7 Leslie, D., Gappa, J. (2002). Part time faculty: Competent and committed. New Directions for Community Colleges, 118 59 67. McArthur, R. C. (2005). Faculty based advising: An important facto r in community college retention. Community College Review, 32 (4), 1 19. McCauley, M.E. (2000). Technology resources that support advising. In V.N. Gordon & W.R. Habley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (238 248). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Motterella, K. E., Fritzsche, B. A., & Cerabino, K. C. (2004). What do students want in advising? A policy capturing study. NACADA Journal, 24 (1 & 2), 48 61. National Academic Advising Association [NACADA] (2009). Advising Definitions NACADA Clearinghouse: Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/R esearch_Related/definitions.htm

PAGE 103

94 National Academic Advising Association [ NACADA ] (2003). Paper presented to the Task force on defining academic advising Retrieved November 1, 2009, from NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/Research_Related/definitions.htm O'Banion, T. (1972). An academic advising model. Junior College Journal, 42, 62 69. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research San F rancisco: Jossey Bass Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1995). The impact of college on students: Myths, rational m yths, and some other things that may not be true. NACADA Journal, 15 (2), 26 33. Person, A. E., Rosenbaum, J. E., & Deil Amen, R. (2006). Student planning and information problems in different college structures Teachers College Record, 108 374 396. Smerg lia, V. L., & Bouchet, N. M. (1999). Meeting upper needs: A developmental study of student and faculty opinion NACADA Journal, 19 (1), 29 34.

PAGE 104

95 South Community College (2007). Agreement between South Community College and Faculty United Services Organization. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from the South Community College Web Site: http://www.scc.edu/dao/hr/emprelations/files/E2FB33B1F9EF4E4BA8FE516 A01592F91.PDF S outh C ommunity C ollege (200 8a ). South Community College Fact Book 2008 Retrieved March 1, 2009, from the South Community College Web Site: http://www.hccfl.edu/dao/spa ir mis/ir/factbooks.aspx South Community College, (2008b). Task Force Finding: Final Report Student Services Program Review Retrieved November 1, 2009, from t he South Community College Web Site: http://www.scc.edu/media/71007/studservfa08%20.pdf Stewart, S., Merril, M., Saluri, D. (1985). Students who commute In Noel R. Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention (pp. 162 182). San Francisco: Jo ssey Bass. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college : Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59 439 455.

PAGE 105

96 Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 2 (1) 35 48. Tinto, V., Goodsell Love, A., & Russo, P. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79 16 21. Tuttle, K. N. (2000). Academic advising In L. K. Johnsrud & V. J. Rosser (Eds.) Understanding the work and career paths of midlevel administrators ( New D irections for Higher Education No. 111 p p. 15 24 ). Jossey Bass. Wild, L., Ebbers, L. (2002). Rethinking student retention in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 26 (6), 503 519. Wood, K. D. (2002). Developmental verses prescriptive advising: An investigation of advising delivery at a ma jor university. Masters Abstracts International, 41(04), 885. (UMI No. 1412163). Wyatt, J. L. (2006). Student, staff advisor, and faculty advisor perceptions of academic advising Unpublished doctoral dissertation North Carolina State Univers ity Raleigh.

PAGE 106

97 Appendices

PAGE 107

98 Appendix A: Informed Consent Form Researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) study many topics. To do this, we need the help of people who agree to take part in a research study. This form tells you about this research study. We are asking you to take part in a research study that is called: Community College Faculty Perceptions and Behaviors Related to Academic Advising The person who is in charge of this research study is Karl DeBate. This pe rson is called the Principal Investigator. However, other research staff may be involved and can act on behalf of the person in charge. The research will be done via an online survey. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to Identify the academic advising center, the importance of the NACADA advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process. This study is being complete as a Doctoral Dissertation. Study Procedures If you t ake part in this study, you will be asked to Complete an online survey Alternatives You have the alternative to choose not to participate in this research study. Benefits Risks or Discomfort This research is considered to be minimal risk. That means that the risks associated with this study are the same as what you face every day. There are no known additional risks to those who take part in this study.

PAGE 108

99 Appendix A: (Continued) Confidentiality We must keep your study records as confidential as possible. All data will be stored under password protection in a locked file Data will be held for 2 years before being destroyed There is no identifiable information being gathered We may publish what we learn from this study. If we do, we will not let anyone know your name. We will not publish anything else that would let people know who you are. Voluntary Participation You should only take part in this study if you want to vol unteer. You should not feel that there is any pressure to take part in the study, to please the investigator or the research staff. You are free to participate in this research or withdraw at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits you ar e entitled to receive if you stop taking part in this study. Your decision to participate or not to participate will not affect your job status. Questions, concerns, or complaints If you have any questions, concerns or complaints about this study, call Ka rl DeBate at 813 746 9246 Consent to Take Part in this Research Study It is up to you to decide whether you want to take part in this study. If you want I freely give my consen t to take part in this study. I understand that by completing the online survey form I am agreeing to take part in research.

PAGE 109

100 Appendix B: Faculty perception of advising survey Faculty Perceptions of Advising Survey Section I. How well do you believe the academic advising center at S CC is performing each of the following advising goals 1=Very Poorly 2=Poorly 3=Well 4=Very Well Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in considering their life goals by relating interests, skills, abilities and values to careers, the world of work and the nature and purpose of higher education: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in developing an educational plan consistent with their life goals and objectives: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in developing decision making skills: 1 2 3 4 Providing accurate information about institutional policies, procedures, resources, and programs: 1 2 3 4 Referring students to other institutional or comm unity support services: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards established goals and educational plans: 1 2 3 4 Providing information about students to the institution, college, academic departments, or some combinati on thereof: 1 2 3 4

PAGE 110

101 Appendix B: (Continued) Section II. How important do you believe each of the following goals of academic advising are? 1=Unimportant 2=Of little importance 3=Important 4=Very Important Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in considering their life goals by relating interests, skills, abilities and values to careers, the world of work and the nature and purpose of higher education: 1 2 3 4 Assisting studen ts in developing an educational plan consistent with their life goals and objectives: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in developing decision making skills: 1 2 3 4 Providing accurate information about institutional policies, procedures, resources, and progr ams: 1 2 3 4 Referring students to other institutional or community support services: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards established goals and educational plans: 1 2 3 4 Providing information about students to the institution, college, academic departments, or some combination thereof: 1 2 3 4

PAGE 111

102 Appendix B: (Continued) Section III. To what extent do you believe the following advising goals should be part of the S 1=Not a Role 2=Rarely a Role 3=Usually a Role 4=Definitely a role Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in considering their life goals by relating interests, skills, abilities and values to careers, the world of wo rk and the nature and purpose of higher education: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in developing an educational plan consistent with their life goals and objectives: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in developing decision making skills: 1 2 3 4 Providing accurate information about institutional policies, procedures, resources, and programs: 1 2 3 4 Referring students to other institutional or community support services: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards establish ed goals and educational plans: 1 2 3 4 Providing information about students to the institution, college, academic departments, or some combination thereof: 1 2 3 4

PAGE 112

103 Appendix B : (Continued) Section IV. In the past year, how many students d id you advise o n each of the following goals? 1=None 2=1 3 Students 3=4 6 Students 4=More than 6 Students Assisting students in self understanding and self acceptance 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in considering their life goals by relating interests, ski lls, abilities and values to careers, the world of work and the nature and purpose of higher education: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in developing an educational plan consistent with their life goals and objectives: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in developing decision making skills: 1 2 3 4 Providing accurate information about institutional policies, procedures, resources, and programs: 1 2 3 4 Referring students to other institutional or community support services: 1 2 3 4 Assisting students in evaluating or reevaluating progress towards established goals and educational plans: 1 2 3 4 Providing information about students to the institution, college, academic departments, or some combination thereof: 1 2 3 4

PAGE 113

104 Appendix B : (Continued) Secti on V. Please provide the following information : Employment Status: Full time Part time Sex: Male Female Campus: MC SE EC DC SC How many years have you taught at SCC: <1 1 3 4 6 7 9 >9

PAGE 114

105 Appendix C : Letter of Invitation September 2009 Dear SCC Faculty, You have been selected to be a participant in a research study on academic advising. Mr. Karl DeBate, as part of a doctoral dissertation, is conducting this research. Your participation is voluntary and any information gathered will be anonymou s and kept confidential. The online survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. What is it? perceptions regarding the academic advising center, the importance of the role of the faculty in the academic advising process. How do I participate? Follow the link below and read the informed consent document. By responding to the survey electronically you are verifying that you: Read and understood the informed consent Give your voluntary consent to participate How long will it take? The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please complete the survey before Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Link to the Survey: www.surveymonkey.com What if I have questions? Please feel free to contact Karl DeBate at 813 746 9246 or at kdebate@mail.usf.edu Thank you in advance for your time.

PAGE 115

106 Appendix D : Follow up E mail Reminders October 2009 Dear SCC Faculty, Two weeks ago, you received an invitation to participate in a research study on academic advising at the community college. If you have already completed the survey, thanks! If you have not, there are still a few days remaining. Your participation is vo luntary and any information gathered will be anonymous and kept confidential. The online survey should take approximately 5 10 minutes to complete. Please follow the link below to complete the survey. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2foPUDdVwQSsIoO nJ1QR19A_3d_ 3d Thank you in advance for your help and support. Sincerely, Karl DeBate kdebate@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 116

107 Appendix D : ( Continued ) October 2009 Dear S CC Faculty, Sorry for the intrusion, but this is the final reminder. If you have already completed the academic advising survey, thanks a bunch! If you have not, this is your last chance to participate in a research study on academic advising at the community colle ge. Your participation is voluntary and any information gathered will be anonymous and kept confidential. The online survey should only take 5 10 minutes to complete. Please follow the link below to complete the survey. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.as px?sm=_2foPUDdVwQSsIoOnJ1QR19A_3d_ 3d Thank you in advance for your help and support. Sincerely, Karl DeBate kdebate@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 117

108 Appendix E: USF IRB Letter

PAGE 118

109 Appendix E: (Continued)

PAGE 119

About the Author from Frostburg State University in 1988 and a Masters Degree in Education from Frostburg State University in 1989. He started teaching physical education at the Pennsylvania State University in 1989. Mr DeBate then spent 15 years as a Lecturer in the Department of Kinesiology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In 2004, he made the transition to the community college and served as Department Head and Instructor at Tho mas Nelson Community College in Hampton, Virginia. Currently, Mr DeBate is the Program Manager and Instructor in the Physical Education Department at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida. Mr. DeBate began his doctoral studies in the School of Education at the College of William and Mary before transferring to the University of South Florida to complete his graduate studies.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004520
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
DeBate, Karl.
0 245
Community college faculty perceptions and behaviors related to academic advising
h [electronic resource] /
by Karl DeBate.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2010.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
502
Dissertation (EDD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The primary propose of this study was to identify community college faculty's perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the self-contained campus academic advising center, the importance of the eight established NACADA advising goals, and the role of faculty in the advising process. In addition, the current advising behaviors of faculty at a community college with a self-contained advising system were examined. The study also investigated if perceptions and behaviors regarding advising vary among full-time and part-time faculty. The results of this study provide an overview of community college faculty perceptions and behaviors with regard to academic advising and the established NACADA advising goals. Specifically, over 75% faculty participants indicated that all eight of the NACADA advising goals were "important" or "very important". In addition, over 70% of faculty participants indicated that all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising should be part of the faculty role. Even though the institution examined in this study employs a self-contained advising structure, over 96% of faculty participants indicated that they had personally advised one or more students in the past year. While full-time and part-time faculty were generally in agreement, data did reveal several significant differences in perceptions. The findings also show a significant positive relationship between faculty perception of their role in the advising process and the number of students they personally advise on all eight of the NACADA goals for effective advising.
590
Advisor: Donald Dellow, Ed.D.
653
Student success
Persistence
Retention
Student services
Advisor
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Adult, Career & Higher Ed
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4520