Dual Advising Model for FSU

Model Description

Based on extensive feedback from faculty, students, and staff, and examination of institutional evidence and national best practice, Frostburg State University will be implementing a dual advising model for undergraduate students. In this model, students will have two advisors: "A departmental advisor for the major and a staff member in a central office for general education issues, college policies, and academic procedures" (Pardee, 2000). Undecided students would be served by the central advising office until they declare a major. This model is most common at small-to-midsize institutions.

All advising models have strengths and limitations. This advising model was chosen based on how the strengths would best serve FSU's students and how we would be able to address and mitigate the limitations. 

Structural Implications for FSU 

Implementing this model will require that we:

• Centralize all professional advising services through reporting lines to a centralized advising office. Academic advisors who report to the office would provide academic advising services to all students, with possibly some exceptions, for all majors. Actual office locations for some advisors may continue to be located in close proximity to students in the colleges.
• Assign each student a faculty mentor who will provide advising support in addition to their primary role advisor.

Other structural implications include:

• All professional advising would need to be centralized under a single Director or Executive Director role.
• Current advising positions that report to departmental or college structures would have to be reorganized along with resources supporting those positions
• Lateral liaison relationships would have to be established and managed between academic departments and central offices
• Differences in job duties and descriptions would need to be standardized

Model Strengths

The model has the following strengths:

• Provides undecided students the services they need
• Allows for contact with faculty and staff advisors
• Staff advisors can be less specialized than than faculty advisors
• Costs may be reduced with meaningful role delineation 
• The centralized advising function has the following strengths:
  • Trained staff
  • Consistent quality of advising
  • No duplication of services
  • Easy general accessibility (One-Stop)
  • On site supervision
• The decentralized faculty mentoring role has the following strengths:
  • Proximity of mentoring services to classroom and curriculum
  • Ensures student connection with faculty
  • Provides strong discipline-specific information and support
  • Mentoring relationships for student professional development

Role Distinction

As we implement this model, one of the central issues that must be addressed is the role distinctions between academic advisors (staff) and faculty mentors. In general, the literature supports the need for both types of advisors, but suggests that establishing strong relationships between students and faculty is an essential element of effective retention programs (Light, 2001). The role of faculty is generally that of a discipline-specific mentor as opposed to a traditional full-service professional advisor (Light, 2001; Reinarz, 2000).

Faculty advisors struggle with issues of accessibility, maintaining up to date on campus policies and procedures, and having the time and effort to dedicate to more intrusive and holistic approaches of advising. They are also rarely provided with the training, resources, and support structures necessary to facilitate success in these more comprehensive advising roles. While the latter can be addressed through intentional effort on the part of the institution, the issues of diffusion of attention and time availability seriously limit the potential for faculty to meet all of the needs of students in the role of a primary role academic advisor.

Consequently, there is a need to articulate the different roles and responsibilities of both full-time advisors and faculty mentors. Based on a review of previous data collected at FSU and our analysis, we suggest the following role distinctions. These have been aligned with proposed learning outcomes and training outcomes as indicated.

It is important that terms used to describe roles are clear and consistent with the roles being played. This must be done to avoid confusion for students, faculty, and staff. The term academic advisor is best suited to the role of the staff advisor. This is because the role of this individuals is more aligned with the current role of academic advisors as it is articulated by NACADA and other professional organizations. The faculty role is more consistent with a mentoring role. To use the term advisor for both could create confusion. The coach term is being utilized elsewhere on campus and, so, it could also create confusion. We recommend use of the term mentor for the faculty role.

We envision a structure where students would have a full-time primary role advisor who supports them throughout their academic career along with a faculty mentor that provides increasing support in specific aspects of the advising relationship as each student progresses towards the culmination of the program. Very likely this will mean that the responsibility to approve students for registration could shift as the student reaches the junior/senior year and the role of the faculty Mentor becomes more pronounced.

In order to address issues of communication, it is recommended that academic advisors specialize in a specific area of advising while still serving as generalist. Advisors would develop and maintain liaison relationships with the departments and programs related to their specialties and attend department meetings, participate in curriculum committee meetings, meet with department chairs and program coordinators, etc. on a regular basis to insure effective communication.

Model Limitations

The model has the following limitations:

• Requires communication and cooperation between the decentralized faculty role and the centralized advising role
• Boundaries of responsibility between the roles may be ill-defined
• Students may just go to whomever they like best
• Students must go to two places to get answers to their questions
• The centralized advising function has the following limitations
  • Limited contact with departments and faculty
  • Need for high communication and collaboration
• The faculty mentoring role has the following limitations:
  • Advisor availability
  • Variability of faculty commitment and skill, combined with accountability limitations, results inconsistent quality
  • Generally used to save costs, which results in limited resources for advising
  • Distracts faculty from other concerns (seeking tenure) without rewarding involvement
  • No incentive for collaboration

Addressing the Limitations

We can mitigate the limitations of the dual model through purposeful implementation:

• While reporting lines would need to be addressed, the actual physical location of services may remain decentralized.
• Centralized academic advisors would need to meet regularly with faculty mentors and departments to stay on top of changes and manage relationships to avoid limitations due to poor coordination and collaboration.
• The Academic Advising Council, consisting of faculty and full-time advisors with representation from other stakeholders, would promote communication and collaboration
• The central advising office should have representatives on various curriculum committees and the Academic Standards Subcommittee to remain current on curriculum and academic policy
• An overarching structure would need to exist to ensure that training and accountability for faculty mentors is consistent and collaboration is taking place
• Faculty mentor roles would not be required of all faculty to avoid the limitations of individual commitment and skill. This would require addressing workload issues for those who take on this additional role to incentivize those who do it. In doing so, we need to deal with the issue of advising as a teaching role as opposed to reassigning it to service.
• Advisor and mentoring roles would need to be assessed and evaluated and improvement processes and reward structures implemented to insure accountability and continuous improvement
• Job descriptions for advisor would need to be standardized. We recommend a career ladder that allows for advisors to be developed internally and advanced in their career through education, training, and experience.
• Advisor and mentor roles would need to be clearly articulated and managed

Implementation Timeline

Due to the budget implications associated with CoVid 19, a phased implementation will be necessary.

Fall 2021:

• New advising staff are hired in central office to begin implementation of the new advising model. Current staff outside of office remain in place to serve other students in old model.
• All new first-time, full-time students (FTS)are assigned an academic advisor from the office.
• Current and transfer students from Sophomore to Senior continue under the current model
• Training begins for staff advisors. Faculty assist in the training of advisors

Fall 2022:

• Existing staff outside of central office are either reallocated or split time between previous position and new position.
• Additional staff advising positions are hired as needed.
• All new FTS are assigned an academic advisor from the office.
• Current and transfer students from Junior to Senior continue under the current model
• Training begins for faculty mentors
• Faculty mentors are assigned as needed

Fall 2023:

• All current staff have been converted to central reporting.
• Additional staff advising positions are hired as needed.
• All new FTS are assigned an academic advisor from the office.
• Current senior and senior transfer students continue under the current model
• Faculty mentors are assigned to junior students

Fall 2024

• Additional staff advising positions are hired as needed.
• All students are advised based on the new model

Exceptions

Exceptions to this model may need to occur in some programs or with some student populations. Implementation of this model will allow these exceptions to be purposeful and be based on the best way to meet the needs of the students and programs in a way that is consistent with the intentions of the model.  

Administrative oversight

The advising structure would be vertically organized with all staff advising personnel directly reporting to the Director of Academic Advising. This position would oversee the central advising office and supervise directors in related offices. Dean’s office would oversee the faculty mentor role in each of the colleges.

Option 1:

An advising council would coordinate the work of advising at the institution. Members of the advising council would include key advising constituencies across campus. The Director of academic advising would oversee the training, coordination and support of academic advisors directly and faculty mentors in the academic departments in collaboration with the Dean’s Offices in the colleges.

Option 2:

The individuals with faculty mentoring oversight responsibilities from the colleges and the Director of Academic Advising would report to the Associate Provost with responsibilities for advising. The Associate Provost would chair the academic advising counsel. This counsel would include key advising constituencies across campus. This Director of academic advising would also oversee the training, coordination and support of faculty mentors in the academic departments in collaboration with college advising leadership structures in the colleges. The Associate Provost would also oversee the training, coordination and support of faculty mentors in collaboration with the Associate Deans and academic advisors with the Director of Academic Advising.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we recommend the implementation of a dual model of advising with full time professional advisors housed in a central advising office that provide comprehensive holistic advising services for all students from enrollment to graduation. As students commit to an academic discipline, they would also be assigned a faculty mentor who would assist as discipline specific and career-oriented mentors. These individuals would work in a collaborative way to ensure student success under the direction of a vertically integrated advising leadership structure that works collaboratively with college leadership to ensure high quality advising experiences for all students.

References

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pardee, C. F. (2000). Organizational Models for Academic Advising. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & Associates (Eds.),  Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook  (pp. 192-209).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reinarz, A. (2000). Delivering academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, Habley, W. R., and Associates (Ed.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 210-219). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.