Academic advising offers a guaranteed opportunity for students and faculty or staff to interact while providing guidance and support. Dillon and Fisher (2000) investigated faculty advisors’ perceptions of faculty-student interactions. Fifty participants completed a survey questionnaire pertaining to demographics and eight Likert-scale and eight open-ended questions on advising. Additionally, a limited number of participants were invited to participate in a focus group. Seventy-eight percent of the participants addressed factors that contribute to positive and successful advisor-student interactions including preparation by both the advisor and student for
the session; advisor knowledge; time commitment for advising; and the “courtesy, kindness, and friendliness between advisors and students” (Dillon & Fisher, 2000, p. 18). A component of a successful student-advisor relationship is “the advisee thinks of [the advisor and themselves] as a team” (Dillon & Fisher, 2000, p. 18), highlighting the importance of a strong relationship between students and faculty. Furthermore, Dillon and Fisher (2000) asked faculty advisors to list the characteristics they thought students were interested in an academic advising relationship. Faculty believed students wanted advisors who were knowledgeable about requirements, provided course and degree guidance, and were caring and easily accessible (Dillon & Fisher, 2000). The results from the study emphasize the importance of faculty attitudes and behaviors, as well as institutional knowledge, to the advising process.
Possessing institutional knowledge is central to the guidance of students, and faculty and staff agree that academic advisors should provide a myriad of services to students (McAnulty, O’Connor, and Sklare, 1987). Faculty recognize academic planning is a vital aspect of academic advising, but believe career and personal issues are not the responsibility of academic advisors (Creeden, 1990). In contrast, Smerglia and Bouchet’s (1999) research stresses the importance of faculty advisors in a multitude of roles in higher education. The research sought to understand student and faculty expectations of academic advising. With focus on faculty, 26 members completed a questionnaire focused on teaching and academic advising experiences, as well as a modified version of the Guinn and Mitchell’s (1986) Advising Role and Responsibility Inventory. The researchers found that 96 percent of faculty participants believed advisors should be able and willing to provide information and refer students to campus resources for assistance (Smerglia & Bouchet, 1999). In addition, faculty felt advisors hold responsibility for communicating students’ needs to the institution (84 percent), assisting students with providing information about job
markets (84.6 percent), and developing decision-making skills (56 percent) (Smerglia & Bouchet, 1999). Smerglia and Bouchet’s (1999) results show that although there was differentiation in level of responsiblity for specific tasks between the student and faculty participants, faculty recognized the impact advisors have on students and their educational journey. Faculty and advisors willingness to support students through academic advising and the different iterations of the process provides needed direction through the complicated field of higher education.
Staff members address a broad range of student needs and recognize the uniqueness of each student and their experiences (Schmitt & Duggan, 2011). Schmitt & Duggan (2011) researched support staff members interactions with undergraduate students in an effort to increase academic success and persistence at a community college. Interviews, observations, and focus groups were used to examine 14 administrative support members’ interactions with students and their personal thoughts regarding their exchanges and impact. The researchers found that classified staff “(a) address[ed] a broad range of student needs, (b) recognize[d] students have personal barriers that hinder achieving their academic goals, (c) contribute[d] to the educational process, (d) deal[t] with institutional barriers that impede their work with students, and (e) experience[d] personal satisfaction as a result of student interactions” (Schmitt & Duggan, 2011, p. 183). Classified staff demonstrate how to navigate technology and reference materials, as well as explain policies, procedures, and campus and college jargon. In their interviews, Schmitt and Duggan (2007) found that staff members wanted students to ‘“... feel they have gotten an answer’” (p. 184) to any issue or quandary. Staff members attitudes and behaviors were focused on the support of helping students achieve their goals, immediately, such as the answer to a question or solving a quick technical issue, or long term, like graduation (Schmitt & Duggan, 2011). Understanding the
complexities of higher education enables faculty and staff to support students attempting to succeed in an unknown environment
Similarly, Waife (2018) explored the institutional interventions used to support low- income students towards degree completion. Through individual interviews with staff members and students from low-income backgrounds, as well as a review of institutional documents, Waife (2018) found significant impact from institutional supported interventions and professional initiated interventions. Professional initiated interventions, or actions surpassing job requirements, included advocating for additional resources, using money or free time to assist students, and providing encouragement to connect with others, highlight the efforts above and beyond daily responsibilities staff members use to help students persist (Waife, 2018). Bridge programs, functions of the financial aid office, development of a retention committee and early alert system, and targeted recruitment efforts were classified as institutional initiated interventions, or interventions included in responsibilities of an office (Waife, 2018). These efforts, determined as impactful for low-income students’ persistence, emphasized institutional efforts and solutions for handling challenges related to low-income students’ degree completion. Institutional initiated interventions and professional initiated interventions would not be possible without the support of the staff members who oversee them, highlighting the contributions of staff are necessary to aiding students in achieving their educational goals.
Knowing the importance of advising to the success of students, Novak (2017) assessed the impact of academic advising for undecided students at a community college. Through implemented strategies, the research focused on increasing undecided students’ interaction with the advising program and improving the quality of those interactions to increase student success. The mixed-methods design and analysis supports that the intervention was successful; advisors
made changes to their advising strategies and practices throughout the intervention to improve connectivity to undecided students (Novak, 2017). “Personalized communication with clear expectations” (p. 119) impacted student engagement, and throughout the study, advisors contact with students became increasingly targeted and specific, connecting with aspects of intrusive advising (Novak, 2017). Advisors connected more with their advisees during the intervention resulting in an increase in retention, maintenance of GPA, and course completion (Novak, 2017). Additionally, advisors changed their methods of interacting with students outside of the research intervention; day-to-day work transformed as a result of the learning and development occurring throughout the pilot. The intervention resulted in a preemptive form of academic advising, with advisors connecting with students in proactive ways, leading to changed advisor practices and increased student communication (Novak, 2017).