PROJECT ADVISE - Montclair State University · · 2012-05-17PROJECT ADVISE Evaluating ... at Montclair State University . Final Report . May 2011 . Prepared for: Dr. Joan Ficke,

PROJECT ADVISE

E v a l u a t i n g U n d e r g r a d u a t e A c a d e m i c A d v i s i n g a t M o n t c l a i r S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

F i n a l R e p o r t

M a y 2 0 1 1

Prepared for: Dr. Joan Ficke, Dean of the Graduate School

Prepared by: Dr. Faye Allard and Dr. Sangeeta Parashar

Contact:

Department of Sociology

304 Dickson Hall

Montclair State University

1 Normal Avenue

Montclair, NJ 07043

Phone:

Dr. Allard: 973-655-7944

Dr. Parashar: 973-655-7168

Fax: 973-655-5389

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Spring 2011 PROJECT ADVISE

2

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5

3. METHODOLOGY 5

3.1 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE 5

3.2 FOCUS GROUPS 5

4. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS FROM THE ONLINE SURVEY 6

4.1 OVERVIEW: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 6

4.2 WHO SOUGHT ACADEMIC ADVISING? 6

4.3 REASONS FOR NOT SEEKING ACADEMIC ADVISING 7

4.4 WHAT KIND OF ACADEMIC ADVISING DID STUDENTS SEEK? 8

4.5 SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF ADVISING RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES 11

4.6 GENERAL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF ACADEMIC ADVISING 13

4.7 IMPORTANCE OF ACADEMIC ADVISING 15

5.1 OVERVIEW 16

5.2 GENERAL FINDINGS 16

5.2A VARIETY OF ACADEMIC ADVISING RESOURCES USED 16

5.2B WHEN STUDENTS SOUGHT HELP 17

5.2C ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITIES OF STUDENTS AND ADVISORS 17

5.2D CONSPIRACY THEORIES 18

5.2E A “ONE STOP” VERSUS A “SPECIALIZED” ADVISING SYSTEM 18

5.3 FACULTY ADVISORS 19

5.3A CASE STUDY ONE: A MODEL ADVISOR FOR MIKE 19

5.3B CASE STUDY TWO: LACK OF RESPONSE AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE - AN ALL TOO COMMON COMPLAINT FOR CHRIS

19

5.3C READY, WILLING AND ABLE: OPTING IN TO BE A FACULTY ADVISOR 20

5.3D A LACK OF TRAINING AMONG FACULTY ADVISORS 20

5.3E PROACTIVITY AMONG FACULTY ADVISORS 21

5.4 CENTER FOR ACADEMIC ADVISING AND ADULT LEARNING (CAAAL) 22

5.5 EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FUND (EOF) PROGRAM ADVISING 22

5.6 ATHLETE ADVISING 23

5.7 NEW STUDENT SEMINAR (GNED 199) 23

5.8 MAJOR REQUIREMENTS 24

5.9 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS 25

5.10 TRANSFER STUDENTS 26

5.11 UNDECLARED STUDENTS 26


3

6. CONCLUSION 28

6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 28

6.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 29

6.2A FACULTY ADVISORS 29

6.2B CENTER FOR ACADEMIC ADVISING AND ADULT LEARNING (CAAAL) 29

6.2C NEW STUDENT SEMINAR IMPROVEMENTS 29

6.2D DEPARTMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS 29

6.2E GENERAL SUGGESTIONS 30

6.3 LIMITATIONS 30

7. APPENDICES 31

7.1 APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 31

7.2 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS OF ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE 34

7.3 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS OF FOCUS GROUPS 39


4

1. Introduction

Montclair State University has undergone a series of major transformations in the last ten years resulting in a

massive expansion in the number of students, faculty, campus buildings, degrees, and certifications offered. As

the university continues on its exciting path of growth and development, it is critical that extant systems adapt to

the changing needs this expansion has brought. One such area is academic advising that unarguably plays a

central role in the overall success of students, the building blocks of any educational institution. And,

spearheading this process are advisors, ―the only link the student has with the institution‖ and who have ―a

profound effect on the student's academic career and the student's level of satisfaction with his [or her] college

choice‖ (Heisserer & Parette, 2002, pg. 3).1

Despite almost universal agreement that academic advising is essential for a successful college career, there is no

universal ―one best way‖ heralded by educators to structure it. Indeed, a range of approaches have been

adopted: while some advocate that advisors should be ―prescriptive‖ with their students and place responsibility

upon faculty to proactively deliver this advice, others feel that advising is more than just telling students what to

study in order to graduate. Indeed, Crookston (1994) argues that advising includes developing students’ skills and

attitudes as well as fostering intellectual and personal growth.2 Such a model envisions a cooperative relationship

between faculty and student that slowly empowers the latter to make academic decisions independently. Another

recent paradigm takes an ―academic-centered approach‖ that encourages students to get the most out of

curriculum offerings and emphasizes an established course sequence in order to maximize student learning. These

three approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, nor are they the only forms of advising, but depending on

their size and mission statements, higher educational institutions tend to be characterized by one or a

combination of these methods.

At Montclair State University, academic advising takes multiple routes including faculty advisors, the Center for

Academic Advising and Adult Learning (CAAAL), specialized athletic advising, the Educational Opportunity Fund

(EOF) program advisors, and a host of other people and offices who serve to help guide students through their

academic journey. Yet, very little is really known about the advising experiences of MSU undergraduate students.

Using two distinct methodologies, this study fills an important gap by seeking to better understand why students

at Montclair State University choose the advising route they do. It focuses on students’ understanding of what

resources are available to them and their perceptions of how useful these resources would be, while also allowing

them to provide feedback from their own experiences of the academic advising system.

Overall, results indicate that students are not always aware of the various academic advising resources available

to them. Furthermore, whether or not students are aware of resources, they often rely on informal advising

practices, notably using unassigned faculty members and peers as a means to garner information. Finally,

students are somewhat mixed in their satisfaction with the formal advising system provided by Montclair State

University; 61% of students reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied, though many had valuable

suggestions on how to further improve the system. On the other hand, a significant minority were extremely

unhappy with their advising experiences, with variations across academic class and college.

1 Heisserer, D. L., & P. Parette. (2002). ―Advising at-risk students in college and university settings.‖ College Student Journal 36: 69–83. 2 Crookson, B.B. (1994). “A Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching.” NACADA Journal 14(2): 5-9.


5

2. Research Questions

The overall objective of this study was to understand how undergraduates at Montclair State University experience

the academic advising system. In order to best understand this issue, we asked the three following sub-questions:

1. How do Montclair State University undergraduates negotiate the academic advising resources available to them?

2. Why do students choose to use the academic advising resources, if any, available to them? a. Where do they get their knowledge about the resources? b. What factors shape their decision-making?

3. What are the consequences of students using the academic advising resources in the manner they choose? a. What do students suggest the administration should do to improve the academic advising system?

3. Methodology

This research utilized a multi-method two-phased approach that involved an online quantitative survey followed

by in-depth focus groups. The online survey is included in Appendix A, while detailed respondent characteristics

for both samples are in Appendix B (survey) and Appendix C (focus groups).

3.1 Online Questionnaire The first phase of the research involved an online questionnaire sent to all Montclair State undergraduates via the

university’s listserv system. This voluntary sample survey contained seven closed and five open-ended questions

touching on issues such as types of academic advising resources used and student satisfaction with them. In total,

3,331 students responded to the survey, a robust response rate of 25.5%. The collected data allowed us to make

broad generalizations about academic advising and as well as helped generate a sample and discussion questions

for the second phase of the project, the focus groups. A description of the survey respondents (gender, race,

academic class, GPA, and college) is in Appendix B. Statistical analysis was carried out in STATA 11, and in

keeping with the methodological strategy adopted by MSU’s Office of Institutional Research, is unweighted.

3.2 Focus Groups Using the information collected from the online survey, major themes were extrapolated and subsequently formed

the basis of the focus group discussion questions. A total of 103 students, carefully sampled to include

representatives from each of the academic classes and colleges as well as students with a variety of GPA,

participated in eight different one hour-long focus groups that ranged in size from 8 -18 students. Efforts were

made to ensure that gender and racial/ethnic groups were fairly represented. A description of the respondents is

included in Appendix C. The data from these sessions was coded and major generalizations were then made.


6

4. Quantitative Findings from the Online Survey

4.1 Overview: Respondent Characteristics

13,197 undergraduate students were emailed a link to the online survey of which 3,331 responded, resulting in a

robust response rate of 25.5%. A statistical comparison across respondents and non-respondents (9,866 students)

indicates that, typical of most academic surveys, respondents were:

a. full-time students

b. more women

c. older students, in terms of age as well as academic class, i.e., proportionately more juniors and seniors

with a higher number of accumulated credits

d. students with higher GPA

In terms of colleges, a higher percent of CSAM, SBUS, and CART students responded than was expected. Finally,

differences in response rates across race/ethnicity and admission status were not statistically significant. A

detailed breakdown of respondent characteristics is included in Appendix B.

4.2 Who Sought Academic Advising? During their entire academic career at Montclair State, out of 3,321 respondents, 88.02% (n = 2,923) contacted

someone for academic advising, with expectedly a higher percent of seniors, women, and declared majors.

According to Figure 1, statistically significant variations are evident across academic classes and colleges.

Compared to 91.3% CEHS and 91.13% CSAM students, 84.66% CART students utilized an advising route, with

predictably more juniors and seniors (although this was not clearly evident in SBUS). Only 65.82% of CART

freshmen (next highest was approximately 80% freshmen in CEHS/CHSS) approached anyone, probably because of

the clear tightly structured course sequence provided by some departments in the college that reduced the need

for formal advising (mentioned to open-ended responses/focus groups). Percentages for Figure 1 are in Table 1.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CEHS CHSS CSAM CART SBSUS Undeclared

Figure 1: Percent Distribution of Students Who Contacted Anyone for Academic Advising By Academic Class and College

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Total


7

Table 1: Percent Distribution of Students Contacting Anyone for Academic Advising By Academic Class and College

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Total % (n= 2,923)

CEHS 79.55 89.16 88.89 95.47 91.30 (514)

CHSS 79.69 83.42 89.73 92.59 88.40 (945)

CSAM 85.59 87.63 92.86 94.79 91.13 (524)

CART 65.82 75.26 88.24 93.01 84.66 (458)

SBUS 82.35 72.97 94.95 88.89 88.58 (287)

Undeclared 72.35 91.14 - - 78.31 (195)

There is no statistically significant relationship between GPA and seeking advice in the survey results, although

focus groups indicated that students with lower GPA preferred more academic advising, while those with higher

GPA had successfully learned (and often preferred) to navigate the system on their own.

4.3 Reasons for Not Seeking Academic Advising 11.98% (n = 398) students did not contact anyone at Montclair State University for advising purposes at this point

of their career. In open-ended responses, they cited various reasons, a few of which are listed below:

a. A general opinion (based on feedback from other students) was that formal academic advising was not

useful. According to these student mentors, academic advisors ―confuse them… do not give them helpful

information,‖ and often asked them to ―take unnecessary classes‖ that ―postpones graduation‖—a

―conspiracy theory‖ that also emerged in several focus group.

b. ―Never felt the need to be advised‖

c. Undeclared and hence, ―trying to figure things out myself.‖

d. They will contact an advisor once they start taking major-related courses. Signing up for Gen Ed courses

did not require any formal advising.

e. Relevant information was available on the university and/or department websites, English Major Audit

(EMA), and WESS’s ―Analysis of Academic Progress‖ tool. In open-ended survey responses and focus

groups, students commented that WESS was particularly helpful and ―self-explanatory,‖ with many feeling

they could successfully graduate based on that tool only.

f. Not knowing who to contact, where to go, or what in fact ―academic advising‖ was, with a suggestion that

advisors’ names and contact should be easily accessible on WESS.

g. ―Just too lazy.‖

h. Commuter and a few transfer students highlighted scheduling inconvenience that they resolved through

student peer-mentoring and/or emailing professors directly.

i. Difficulty in setting up appointments with ―not easy to reach‖ or ―rude‖ advisors (faculty as well as

CAAAL) who often did not return calls or emails.

j. Reliance on friends or family members who attended MSU.

k. Some felt they needed to ―prepare‖ for advising meetings and often felt ―intimidated‖ or ―inadequate.‖

l. A couple indicated that they plan to transfer out of MSU and hence, did not feel the need to meet anyone.

m. ―Great deal of choice‖ and clear sequence in major courses reduced the need for academic advising.


8

4.4 What Kind of Academic Advising did Students Seek?

Throughout their academic career at MSU, close to half of the respondents utilized two (25.31%) or three (23.51%)

advising resources. (The number of resources ever used or used in the past year ranged from 0 to 10 because

students checked all the options that applied to them.) Variations across college and academic class were

statistically significant. As highlighted in Section 4.2, fewer CART and more CEHS/CSAM students as well as

seniors than freshman indicated using more number of resources.

In our analysis, we identified two channels of advising: (1) formal channels that are officially identified and

assigned by the university and (2) informal channels sought out and/or created by students, including unassigned

faculty members, department administrative assistants, and other students. According to Figure 2, a majority of

students used formal channels of advising such as assigned department faculty advisors and the Center for

Academic Advising and Adult Learning (CAAAL) and/or attended the New Student Seminar (GNED 199) during their

entire stay at Montclair State University as well as during the past year. While a high percent of declared majors

from all academic classes approached assigned faculty advisors, the utilization of CAAAL and New Student Seminar

was more restricted to entering cohorts.

Importantly, there is high reliance on informal channels, i.e., unassigned faculty members and other students,

that is quite comparable to CAAAL and the New Student Seminar. This result will be discussed in further sections.

0

20

40

60

8056.80

16.26 12.00

5.15 2.25 1.67 2.49 2.25

42.35

12.82

31.54

70.13

28.16 33.04

5.93 3.34 2.93 3.41 3.78

53.49

16.67

40.88

Figure 2: Percent Distribution of Students Who Have Relied On Various Academic Advising Resources, Ever and Past Year

Past Year Ever


9

Table 2: Percent Distribution of Undergraduate Students That Have Relied on Various Academic Advising Resources Ever, By Academic Class

Academic Advising Resource Freshman

(n = 430)

Sophomore

(n = 493)

Junior

(n = 856)

Senior

(n = 1,154)

Major Department Faculty Advisor 48.84 64.91 72.20 78.77

Center for Academic Advising and Adult Learning 21.86 32.25 28.62 28.42

New Student Experience Advisor 60.00 46.04 27.45 21.58

Educational Opportunity Fund Program Advisor 5.81 6.49 6.54 5.29

Health Career Programs Advisor 3.49 4.87 2.80 3.03

Honors Program Advisor 3.95 4.46 1.87 2.69

Disability Resource Advisor 3.02 4.06 2.92 3.64

Athletic Advisor 6.28 5.07 2.22 3.47

Unassigned Faculty Member 34.19 43.41 53.39 65.08

Department Administrative Assistant 7.44 12.78 15.52 22.70

Other Students 49.53 42.80 37.50 39.34

Others (Please specify) 4.42 4.87 5.26 7.28

Table 3: Percent Distribution of Undergraduate Students That Have Relied on Various Academic Advising Resources in the Past Year, By Academic Class

Academic Advising Resource Freshman

(n = 430)

Sophomore

(n = 493)

Junior

(n = 856)

Senior

(n = 1,154)

Major Department Faculty Advisor 46.51 53.75 58.88 60.40

Center for Academic Advising and Adult Learning 15.81 25.76 18.22 10.92

New Student Experience Advisor 53.94 11.97 4.56 1.91

Educational Opportunity Fund Program Advisor 6.74 6.09 5.84 3.64

Health Career Programs Advisor 3.02 3.45 1.75 1.82

Honors Program Advisor 3.49 2.84 0.93 1.04

Disability Resource Advisor 3.49 2.64 1.64 2.69

Athletic Advisor 4.88 3.45 1.29 1.47

Unassigned Faculty Member 30.23 31.44 40.04 50.26

Department Administrative Assistant 8.14 9.94 12.73 15.86

Other Students 44.65 34.28 30.02 26.60

Others (Please specify) 3.72 4.26 4.91 6.07

Tables 2 and 3 build upon patterns observed in Figure 1: as expected, usage of faculty advisors increased with

academic class; a higher percent of freshmen and sophomores utilized CAAAL and the New Student Seminar

because these resources are specifically geared toward them. There was little variation for the other formal

resources (EOF Program, Health Career Program Advisor, Honors Program Advisor, Disability Resource Advisor, and

Athletics Advisor) by academic class, i.e., the percent of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors utilizing each

resource ever as well as in the past year was relatively similar.


10

An interesting observation in Figure 2 as well as Table 2 (resources ever used) and Table 3 (resources used in the

past year) that was corroborated by open-ended survey responses and focus groups is that students frequently

sought out informal channels of advising. Predictably, usage (ever and in the past year) of unassigned faculty

members and department administrative assistants increased with increasing academic class. This could be due to

familiarity through longer interaction or graduating students (juniors and seniors) seek mentorship from trusted

faculty members about future career plans, graduate school, etc.

On the other hand, patterns for reliance on student mentors by academic class were the reverse of those observed

for unassigned faculty members. During the past year, almost half of all freshmen respondents (44.65%) used their

social network of peers compared to seniors (26.6%); a similar pattern was observed for ―ever visited.‖ One could

speculate that entering cohorts obtain advice such as what courses to sign up for, in what order, and with whom

by asking around before approaching formal channels. On the other hand, because seniors are closer to

graduating, they may not require such information and may often be the peer mentors themselves.

According to Table 4 below, compared to students from other colleges, only half (49.65%) of SBUS students

approached their assigned department advisors (or even unassigned faculty members) during the past year,

possibly because they received advisement from specific individuals recruited for academic advising. Although

fewer CART students report seeking out any kind of advising resources, among those who do, 73.26% visited their

assigned faculty advisors in the past year, but not CAAAL advisors (9.57% for CART and 9.34% for CEHS).

Table 4: Percent Distribution of Undergraduate Students That Have Relied on Various Academic Advising Resources in the Past Year, By College

Academic Advising Resource CEHS

(n = 514)

CHSS

(n = 948)

CSAM

(n = 527)

CART

(n = 460)

SBUS

(n = 288)

Major Department Faculty Advisor 56.61 56.12 58.63 73.26 49.65

Center for Academic Advising and Adult Learning 9.34 19.51 17.27 9.57 15.97

New Student Experience Advisor 7.39 9.92 14.99 9.78 5.90

Educational Opportunity Fund Program Advisor 5.45 5.70 5.31 2.39 5.90

Health Career Programs Advisor 1.75 0.32 9.49 0.43 0.35

Honors Program Advisor 0.58 1.79 1.71 2.17 1.74

Disability Resource Advisor 1.56 2.85 0.95 4.35 1.74

Athletic Advisor 3.50 1.37 2.66 1.09 2.08

Unassigned Faculty Member 46.69 44.94 42.13 42.17 35.76

Department Administrative Assistant 11.87 12.66 10.25 18.26 15.28

Other Students 30.54 28.90 35.10 35.00 26.39

Others (Please specify) 5.84 5.38 3.04 5.65 5.56

On the other hand, in terms of informal advising, more CSAM (35.10%) and CART (35%) students confer with their

peer network, while SBUS (26.39%) and CHSS (28.90%) are less likely to. Compared to other colleges, almost half

of all CEHS (46.69%) and CHSS (44.94%) respondents visited an unassigned faculty advisor, but were among the

lowest to visit assigned faculty advisors. Finally, CART (18.26%) and SBUS (15.28%) students frequently interacted

with department administrative assistants (e.g., signing up for courses, oversubscription, etc.) probably due to the

tightly sequenced course plan for both colleges.


11

Finally, in general, students reported visiting these advising resources around 1-5 times ever and in the past year.

Patterns across colleges for ―resources used in the past year‖ instead of ―resources ever used‖ are relatively

similar. Results for the latter are available request. Sample sizes per cell became too small to disaggregate the

data by academic class and college.

4.5 Satisfaction with Quality of Advising Received from Individual Resources According to Figure 3, in general, a majority of students were satisfied with the quality of advising they received

from formal individual resources, particularly assigned department faculty advisors, CAAAL, and New Student

Seminar (in that order). These channels of advising, however, also had the highest levels of dissatisfaction

relative to others. Although a higher percent of students were ―neutral‖ rather than ―satisfied‖ with advising

received from the EOF Program, Health Career Programs, Honors Program, Disability Resource, and Athletic

Department, these resources received ―top marks‖ in open-ended survey responses and focus groups. They also

had the lowest percentages for ―dissatisfaction,‖ particularly the EOF and Athletics advisors.

Finally, an overwhelming percent of students reported being satisfied with the quality of advising they received

from informal resources such as unassigned faculty members, students, and department administrative assistants,

particularly the first group (corroborated in the focus groups and Section 4.4). In fact, satisfaction level for

quality of advice received from informal channels was significantly higher than for formal channels. Finally, there

were no specific patterns by academic class across these resources (freshmen were as satisfied as seniors).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 3: Percent Distribution of Satisfaction with Quality of Academic Advising Provided By Various Resources, Past Year

Satisfied/Very Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied


12

Statistically significant results for satisfaction with the quality of advising provided by selected resources, namely

formal channels (assigned faculty advisors and CAAAL) and informal channels (other unassigned faculty members)

across various colleges are presented in Figures 4, 5, and 6 below. Results for other programs (EOF, Health

Program Advisors, etc.) were not significant, and hence, not included in the report.

According to Figure 4, more CSAM (68.41%) and CART (70.12%) students were satisfied with the quality of advising

they received from their assigned faculty members. As mentioned earlier, although fewer CART students seek

academic advising, quite a few of those who do were satisfied with their experience. On the other hand, as

Figure 5 indicates, responses towards CAAAL advisors were very varied: CSAM students indicated greatest

satisfaction, CART and CHSS the least. In fact, compared to the other colleges, the highest level of dissatisfaction

for formal channels was expressed by CHSS students: faculty advisors (22.38%) and CAAAL advisors (24.79%).

0

20

40

60

80

CEHS CHSS CSAM CART SBUS

61 62 68 70

62

20 16 19 18 19 20 22

12 12 19

Figure 4: Percent Distribution of Satisfaction with Quality of Academic Advising Provided

by Assigned Faculty Advisors, By College


0

20

40

60

80


62 60

71

58 62

31 25 23

29 32

7

16

6 13

6

Figure 5: Percent Distribution of Satisfaction with Quality of Academic Advising Provided by

CAAAL Advisors, By College



13

An important point that emerges from Figures 4 and 6 is that although a high percent of CHSS (and SBUS) students

expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of advising provided by assigned faculty advisors, they were generally

satisfied with other unassigned faculty members whom they sought out on their own. One could speculate that

students may not remain passive when discontented by the formal advising services they receive, but may try to

enhance their academic experiences by relying on other available informal channels.

4.6 General Satisfaction with Quality of Academic Advising

Figure 7 highlights the fact that 61.25% (20.34% ―very satisfied‖ and 40.91% ―satisfied‖) of all respondents were

satisfied with the general academic advising resources provided by MSU. While there were variations by college,

those by academic class were not statistically significant.

0

20

40

60

80

100


77 82 79 76

81

13 13 15 17 13 9

5 5 7 6

Figure 6: Percent Distribution of Satisfaction with Quality of Academic Advising Provided by Other

Unassigned Faculty Members, By College


Very satisfied 20%

Satisfied 41%

Neutral 24%

Dissatisfied 10%

Very dissatisfied 5%

Figure 7: Percent Distribution of Satisfaction with Academic Advising Resources Provided by Montclair State University

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied


14

As highlighted in previous sections, and supported by mean scores from Table 5 below, students in SBUS, CSAM,

and CART were more satisfied than those from CEHS and CHSS, although focus groups revealed sharply divided

responses from students belonging to different departments in CSAM. Lower scores indicate greater satisfaction.

Table 5: Mean Student Satisfaction Scores with Academic Advising Resources, by College.

CEHS CHSS CSAM CART SBUS Undeclared

2.46 2.46 2.29 2.38 2.25 2.15

Dedicated academic advisors recruited by SBUS (supplemented by informal channels such as peer student

mentoring) partly contributed to the overall satisfaction expressed by business majors. CART students’ usage of

online resources such as department websites and a clearly outlined course sequence positively influenced their

experience with academic advising, although as discussed in Section 4.2, it reduced the percent of students

seeking academic advising. Figure 8 highlights college-level variations in the percent of student satisfaction with

academic advising provided by Montclair State.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

CEHS CHSS CSAM CART SBUS Undeclared

57.59 57.75 61.18 61.37

67.59 70.26

24.71 24.63 23.95 25.22

20.21 23.08

17.71 17.62

11.69 13.6 12.2

6.67

Figure 8: Percent Distribution of Student Satisfaction with Academic Advising Resources Provided, By College



15

4.7 Importance of Academic Advising

According to Figure 9, among students who did seek academic advising for any type, approximately 87% are aware

of its importance in achieving their education goals (59% stated it as ―very important‖ and 28% ―important‖).

There were, however, no statistically significant variations by academic class, college, or even GPA.

Very important 59%

Important 28%

Neutral 10%

Unimportant 2%

Very unimportant 1%

Figure 9: Percent Distribution of Importance of Academic Advising for Achieving Educational Goals

Very important

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

Very unimportant


16

5. Qualitative Findings from the Focus Groups

5.1 Overview This section of the report is based on qualitative findings from the focus groups and supplemented by open-ended

answers received from the online questionnaire. 103 students, representing all colleges, academic classes, and a

variety of GPAs, participated in the focus groups. A detailed breakdown of the sample characteristics is included

in Appendix C at the end of the report.

Findings are organized in two parts; first, a general overview will be provided, followed by specific thematically

arranged findings and case studies.

5.2 General Findings

Students reported a wide range of experiences, from very positive to extremely negative, with academic advising

at Montclair State University. Many also suggested ways to improve the system, but for the most part,

acknowledged that they also had a key responsibility in making the process work.

5.2a Variety of Academic Advising Resources Used

Students used a wide variety of resources to negotiate their academic progress. Predictably, as also highlighted

by the survey responses presented earlier, assigned faculty advisors, department chairs, and the Center for

Academic Advising and Adult Learning (CAAAL) were most frequently used, but students also drew upon a large

range of unconventional advising resources including, but not limited to:

alumni, siblings, parents and other relatives, department administrators, deans, graduate student interns,

tutoring clubs, writing center, psychology club, veterans affairs office, student government association,

community assistants, OIT employees, advocacy center, campus recreation personnel, Greek society

advisors, admissions department, bursars office, financial aid office, Christian group leaders, the Global

Education/ study abroad center, Disney College Program department, staff at counseling and psychological

services, and even self-help books on graduating college.3

A key finding of the focus groups (that was also supported by the open-ended responses on the questionnaire) is

that nearly all participants had, for the most part, navigated the academic advising system by figuring things out

for themselves. Students often used WESS, the ―Analysis of Academic Progress,‖ university and department

websites, and ―rate my professor.com‖ to make decisions about their academic progress and general direction.

Importantly, as indicated in the list above, they frequently relied upon friends, family members also at MSU, and

more academically advanced students for help. Indeed, using peer student advice was one of the most relied

upon informal methods students used to garner academic advice. Among other things, students used other

students to learn about sequencing (in other words, what courses to take when and in what order), major and Gen

Ed requirements, and also which professors to take and which to avoid.

3 These sources of academic advising may be incorrectly or informally described because they were drawn verbatim from focus groups and the open-ended questionnaire.


17

5.2b When Students Sought Help

Most students preferred to try and work out answers for themselves wherever possible and only sought advising

help when they couldn’t proceed themselves. Focus groups (and open-ended survey responses in Section 4.3)

indicate that many used the online tools provided by university and department websites to do so. However,

when students’ questions and issues could not be resolved by websites alone, most declared majors turned to

faculty advisors for help. Unfortunately, this was where many students felt there was room for improvement in

the academic advising system. As one student put it, “I feel totally on my own.‖ Faculty advisors will be

explored in more detail in Section 5.3.

It is worth noting that not all students used assigned faculty advisors to find answers to their questions. Often

they were forced to seek other channels of advisement. A frequent complaint among focus group attendees (also

indicated in open-ended survey responses) was that assigned faculty advisors were either not responsive—ignoring

emails, phone calls or being dismissive in person—or simply were not knowledgeable enough to help them solve

their problems. Additionally, some students did not know who their faculty advisors were, or they had not yet

been assigned. When faced with these access hurdles, quite a few students used department chairs,

administrative staff, and professors with whom they had developed a personal relationship to stand in as advisors.

Some majors, such as broadcasting (CART) and business (SBUS), had specialized dedicated advisors whose sole job

is to advise students. Generally, these advisors were well received by students in those majors and provided

positive academic advising experiences (also reflected in the high level of satisfaction expressed in Section 4.6 for

both colleges). Students stated that they felt it was good to have a ―go-to‖ ―one-stop‖ advisor who was able to

deal with all their concerns, although some felt that these dedicated advisors were so overburdened with student

questions that they had little time for each student.

5.2c Assumed Responsibilities of Students and Advisors

A vast majority of students in the focus groups felt that it was their responsibility to seek advice and solve

problems that they encountered in their academic career. This was reflected in the heavy reliance upon online

information such as that provided by WESS, the ―Analysis of Academic Progress‖ and university/department

websites. However, a few students stated, ―given the tuition they were paying, they would expect much more

handholding, personalization and guidance than they were receiving.‖ Interestingly, students who made these

statements were those with some the lowest GPAs in the focus groups.

On the whole, most students disagreed with the viewpoint above and stated, ―they were adults and this is how it

works in the real world.” Regardless of their perspective on this issue, students in the focus groups seemed to

find middle ground and agreed that should they have a problem, it should be easy to locate someone who is

efficient, supportive, and responsive to their needs. Many felt that as it stood right now, this was not the case.

Quite a few students in both the focus groups and the open-ended survey questions promoted the idea of requiring

all students to see an academic advisor at some point in their educational career.

Some advocated this ought to be before registering for classes every semester;

Several suggested having a meeting at the start or end of each semester or yearly;


18

Others felt that a required meeting with an advisor at the time of their graduation was important so that

post college plans could be discussed.

In all of these aforementioned cases, students felt that meetings should be mandatory. Some students wanted

outreach, but in a less rigid and required fashion, and simply wanted faculty and other advisors to encourage more

regular meetings by reaching out via email; most agreed that this should be done at least once a semester.

Other students in the focus group argued strongly against the idea of mandatory meetings, and liked the autonomy

of being able to select their own courses without having to see an advisor. Some stated that requiring them to see

an advisor who was not helpful and couldn’t solve their problems was a ―waste of everyone’s time.‖

5.2d Conspiracy Theories

Several students felt that Montclair State University was ―out to get their money‖ and that the administration

consciously suppressed academic advising, or in extreme cases, offered bad advice in order to get more tuition

money from them. This ―conspiracy theory‖ was a surprisingly common attitude students held about the

university and one that they used to explain many of the problems they encountered such as being shut out of key

classes and/or receiving bad or no academic advice. Indeed, a small number of students expressed that they

didn’t think the feedback they provided in the open-ended online survey questions would be read (or even

addressed) by any administrator or that the system would really change for the better.

5.2e A “One Stop” Versus a “Specialized” Advising System

There was no consensus among students on whether academic advising should be streamlined to a ―one-stop‖

office that would deal with all academic advising problems, or if it should remain fragmented and specialized as it

stands now. Students who suggested having a streamlined version generally wanted the convenience of knowing

exactly who to go to when they had questions, which as detailed in this section and beyond, is a problem that

many students had experienced with the current advising system. Certainly, upon hearing how the Broadcasting

department works (one dedicated advisor for all students), many students from other majors stated that they

wished their department emulated this model. Conversely, a significant number of students preferred the more

complex (more fragmented) advising system familiar to them because they liked having multiple chances to forge

relationships with faculty and staff, especially since they felt that not every advisor was helpful or welcoming to

them. They also liked having the opportunity to get more detailed advice about programs and requirements, and

felt this specialized information would ultimately help them in the long run.


19

5.3 Faculty Advisors

Students had vastly different experiences with their faculty advisors, ranging from the good (faculty who reached

out to students, gave good academic and career/mentoring advice) to the bad (faculty that never responded to

students’ repeated emails, didn’t turn up for meetings, or gave inaccurate or misleading advice). The two cases

studies below represent some of the best and worst faculty advising experiences at Montclair State University:

5.3a Case Study One: A Model Advisor for Mike

Mike4, an adult student, was proactively emailed by his assigned faculty advisor after he was admitted to

MSU and they met during the summer prior to his first semester. During this time, his advisor got to know

Mike’s goals and future plans and reviewed his course choices, besides helping him map out a four-year

plan that was specifically tailored to Mike’s career aims and academic interests. Mike and his advisor

continued to meet regularly, usually once or twice a semester for the entirety of his college career, and

he made good and constant academic progress. Mike recently graduated and his advisor helped him apply

for and find jobs in the field he was interested in during his last semester at Montclair State University.

The other students in the focus group where Mike shared this story were genuinely amazed that academic

advising could be like this. In fact, after this meeting, one focus group participant contacted this faculty

member to ask if s/he could also be his/her advisee. Unfortunately, the faculty member declined stating

that she had too many students whom she advised and was already overburdened.

5.3b Case Study Two: Lack of Response and Lack of Knowledge - an all too Common Complaint for Chris4

―When I visited my assigned advisor from my major department, I had more knowledge of what I needed

to accomplish than he did. When I met with my advisor he had no clue we even offered American Sign

Language courses, nor did he know that it would cover my language requirements. Also I was never made

aware of the multicultural awareness courses in which all students are required to partake in. If I had

known when being admitted to this school I would’ve taken a course that would’ve qualified for both my

multicultural requirements and one of my social Gen Eds. Also, when asking my advisor if it would be

possible for me to double major in Business Marketing and Business Management, he had no clue, nor did

he have an answer to who he could send me to that would have a clue. I was very dissatisfied with his

knowledge and it nearly took him three weeks to respond to my email, just to wait another two weeks to

set an appointment. Also when asking him about transferring credits, he was unhelpful and not even

worth meeting with. I have to say, thankfully I was able to understand my requirements by myself without

the need for an advisor or else I would’ve been at Montclair State University for another semester as he

was of NO help.‖

4 Names have been changed to protect identities


20

5.3c Ready, Willing and Able: Opting in to be a Faculty Advisor

One of the most common complaints heard during this study is a perception that some faculty advisors simply do

not care about the students. Students felt that at a minimum, advisors should at least acknowledge student

concerns, even if it is to say they cannot help or are too busy to help. The following quote taken verbatim from

an open ended survey response epitomizes this criticism:

“Academic advisors should in all cases respond to phone calls and emails. I cannot count how many times

I have tried to contact individuals in my own department and outside departments, and never received

any response. It’s extremely frustrating for the students to be disregarded and have our questions and

concerns deemed unimportant.”

Furthermore students highlighted the lack of availability of some faculty advisors, stating that most are only on

campus two days a week and, compounding this problem, offered limited office hours for advising. This was often

frustrating for students who commute and those self-described ―evening students‖ that often work full time.

Consequently, many students were strongly in favor of allowing faculty who want to advise to serve as advisors.

Some students even went as far as to suggest hiring a dedicated faculty member for each department who only

dealt with advising and related student problems. Others, however, pointed out the potential problems with

having an ―opt-in‖ faculty advising system, stating that good advisors are already highly in demand (as

demonstrated in Case Study 1) and further reducing the number of advisors might worsen this problem.

5.3d A Lack of Training among Faculty Advisors

There was deep concern among students about receiving inaccurate advice from faculty advisors. Some horror

stories about not being able to graduate on time because of ―bad advice‖ were shared in the focus groups and also

appeared in the open ended survey responses. Here is a typical ―bad advice‖ story:

“I have had several advisors that have given me wrong information that has set me back [from

graduation] quite a bit here at Montclair State University. I feel very strongly about how unreliable the

advisors I have encountered have been. I feel as though there should be many people on campus that I

can speak to that can provide me with guidance for my future as well as correct information about my

major and about my course load.”

Even for those students who hadn’t received ―bad advice‖ as yet, simply the threat of getting incorrect

information from faculty advisors was enough to put them off going to see someone. Some students systematically

double-checked the advice given by one faculty member with another faculty member’s advice, the university or

department website, and/or with peers to ensure accuracy. Furthermore, multiple students mentioned the dread

of seeing faculty advisors as they often left meetings even more confused and unsure of whether they were on

track to graduate on time. This was frustrating, but also deeply stressful, to students.


21

Hence, there were many calls by participants to better train faculty advisors. Most students stated that they

would be happy even if additional training simply consisted of where to find the answers to students’ questions or

knowing who to send them to. Students especially wanted faculty to be up-to-date with major requirements:

“When programs are being revised and updated, faculty members who are also advising should be aware

of possible changes, so that students do not take classes that will become “free credits” due to updates

in the program’s requirements.”

As mentioned in previous sub-sections, in light of ―bad advice‖ meted out or ―no advice‖ offered, it is not

surprising that some student asked for more accountability from their advisors.

―My first advisor never emailed me back or returned my phone calls, so I never met with him… I’d love to

put in a complaint, but I don’t know where.”

Suggestions were made that there should be a formal evaluation system of faculty advisors whereby students could

directly provide feedback to the university about their experiences, some envisioning forms like teaching

evaluations. Others wanted a more informal system, with a few students suggesting a website ―rate my

advisor.com‖ modeled on the popular site, rate my professor.com.

5.3e Proactivity among Faculty Advisors

There was some disagreement as to how proactive faculty advisors should be, but generally students felt that it

would really help to receive at least one email each semester from their advisors. This email need only let them

know who their faculty advisor is (often students didn’t know, as was also indicated in the open-ended survey

question about why students had not approached anyone for academic advising) and when and where they were

available. Most students said that while they probably wouldn’t need to visit their faculty advisor every semester,

it would be nice to know whom they should reach out to and that they would be welcomed when they did.

Some students suggested a higher level of proactivity and requested that faculty advisors should make a concerted

effort to get to know their students well and have more of a personal relationship with them. For them, this

meant faculty advisors being aware of, and then considering, their interests and long-term goals to help them pick

classes that would help towards these goals. Some students wanted their advisors to know and address them by

name and remember previous conversations. A small but significant number of students also stated that they

wanted faculty advisors to provide mentoring and career advice, rather than just what courses to sign up for.

Basically, all students in the focus group felt that faculty advisors should be friendly and willing to help when

approached. Students did not want to feel like they were being rushed out of a faculty advisor’s office and

bottom line, simply wanted prompt and courteous responses to requests for help.


22

5.4 Center for Academic Advising and Adult Learning (CAAAL)

Advising experiences at the Center for Academic Advising and Adult Learning (CAAAL) were mixed. Some students

were very happy with the advising they received, as one student states, “having achieved much in the past 3

years, I feel I could not have accomplished as much without my advisors [at CAAAL].‖ Another reports ―they are

excellent at what they do and truly care about the students.‖

On the whole, however, students generally had a negative experience with CAAAL, with many reporting difficulty

accessing advisors, especially when making appointments, which often involved a long wait, or in some cases,

cancelled appointments. Unfortunately, more than a few students pointed out the hostility of the CAAAL office

staff, though most conceded that the advisers themselves were friendly. A student states: “I was very satisfied

with the advising, but dissatisfied with the availability of the advisors.” Another frequent complaint was that

after waiting to get an appointment, students then felt rushed through the advising procedure, and as such, felt

that their treatment at CAAAL was impersonal and that they were not important or valued. As one student

succinctly put it “I [felt] like a number.”

Suggestions on improving this service mostly revolved around increasing the ease of making an appointment and

being seen by an advisor. Quite a few students recommended that there should be an option to make

appointments online; many wanted more walk-in appointments. And, for students with jobs, there was a request

for earlier and later appointment times.

5.5 Educational Opportunity Fund (EOF) Program Advising Students in the Educational Opportunity Fund (EOF) Program generally had the most positive advising experiences

compared to other resources. Students who participated in the EOF Program spoke of how they felt supported

from day one, and were forced to get to know an advisor who took a constant interest in their academic goings on.

EOF students have monthly mandatory meetings with advisors, and while some didn’t feel they needed such

constant attention, most appreciated it. Comments such as the one below were the norm when it came to

student’s assessment of the EOF advising they received:

“MSU is an amazing school and I am honored to be a student here. I thank God every day I was accepted

into EOF because without that program it would be near impossible for me to achieve my goals and strive

to succeed.”

“Mainly, I speak to my EOF advisor and he has always been amazing help and roots me on for my

academic achievements.”

The only complaints EOF students had was that as they understood it, they were not allowed to seek advisement

outside of the EOF program, which in some cases, stymied their ability to solve specific problems.


23

5.6 Athlete Advising

Athletes are also generally satisfied regarding their academic experiences, although less universally than the EOF

Program students. On the whole, they spoke of helpful dedicated advisors that helped them make decisions about

classes and map out course plans. After receiving poor treatment or advice from faculty advisors, some athletes

relied solely on their athletic advisors and indicated that they liked having a ―fall back‖ advisor.

“I would like to …explain how amazing my experience with my athletic adviser is… they have been

fantastic thus far and I know they will continue to be there when I needed them.”

Not all athletes were happy, however. Some spoke of a lack of knowledge about major/departmental

requirements and a few students highlighted their experiences of ―being enrolled in the wrong classes‖ in their

freshmen and sophomore years. One student reported a conflict of opinion between his athletic advisor and his

faculty advisor about his ability to graduate.

5.7 New Student Seminar (GNED 199) Many students had strong feelings about the New Student Seminar, which is grounded in academic advisement.

Experiences varied wildly as to what students learned in this mandatory course and the course requirements. Most

students felt that it was a wasted opportunity where the university could give them the skills and knowledge they

needed to successfully negotiate their academic experience. Here are the suggestions that students in the focus

groups felt should be included in New Student Seminar course:

There were strong recommendations that every student in the New Student Seminar course should be taught how

to use a variety of features on WESS. This not only included being shown how to navigate the WESS website, but

also how to research/prepare multiple schedules for different class combinations, should they get ―locked out‖ of

classes—a common constant complaint, and then register for classes. A second WESS feature students wanted to

learn was how to obtain an ―Analysis of Academic Progress.‖ Furthermore, some stated that the ―Analysis of

Academic Progress‖ was very confusing to them and additional training on how to correctly read and interpret the

document would be very useful. Surprisingly, not all students in the focus groups knew about the ―Analysis of

Academic Progress‖ function, and many said that they had found out about this tool a few years into their

academic career, which many felt was too late. A third and final WESS feature students wanted to be shown was

where to find their assigned faculty advisor, and if they did not have one, who to contact in order to sort this issue

(a recurring theme that was also raised in the open-ended survey responses). Students, therefore, strongly

advocated clear and useful WESS instruction in their New Student Seminar.

Another issue that students wanted some direction in GNED 199 was help negotiating the Montclair State

University website. While there was quite some disagreement about how user-friendly it was, many spoke about

their peers showing them useful tools (such as the careers website and the academic calendar). Additionally,

some students detailed how they stumbled on handy information by accident and how this should not be the case.

They wanted to know where to find information that could help them, or at least how to search for it efficiently

on the website. Students spoke highly of Montclair State University website’s A-Z listing, but generally disliked

the search function as they felt it often provided them with an overabundance of unhelpful information.


24

Finally, while students acknowledged that it would be difficult for every New Student Seminar instructor to know

everything about every major, they felt it would be extremely useful to furnish them with fact sheets on major

course sequencing and pre-requisites for required courses, or at least point them to these materials online.

5.8 Major Requirements Students agreed that it was very important to be provided with an up-to-date, clear course sequence list and a set

of requirements for their major. Most felt that this should be available on each department’s website (some

students highlighted how this information was not available online, or that the requirements posted were out of

date, in one unfortunate case, delaying a student’s graduation by a whole year). To that point, many students

stated that having a four year course plan, which detailed semester by semester what course they should take

(not only for their major but also the Gen Ed requirements), would be extremely useful. This was something

students’ felt an advisor can, and should, help them with. Transfer students spoke of this kind of four-year plan at

their previous institution and were disappointed that something similar did not exist at Montclair State University.

For students who had declared a major, there was a great desire to know which courses were going to be offered

and in what semester so that they could create a 4-year plan or simply plan the next few semesters. In many

cases, some courses are offered only in the fall or spring semesters, and sometimes courses are offered every

other year or less frequently, but this information is not made publicly known. Students felt a lack of this

knowledge prevented them from making wise course choices that sometimes set them back for graduation.

Science majors (CSAM), in particular, felt this was a real issue for them.

“I know of many people who did not graduate on time simply because no one ever told them they needed

to do X, Y, and Z in order to graduate by a specific time, and that Z class was only offered once every 3

years in the fall, and they were trying to graduate in the spring. The school needs to work with

departments to get classes that everyone needs offered more often, and not just one section at some

ridiculous time.”

Compounding this problem whereby students lacked information to make good course decisions, was the

unavailability of courses: students were extremely unhappy and indeed very vocal about the lack of seats in key

courses. They felt especially concerned about a lack of seats in courses that were pre-requisites for other courses,

making it impossible for them to progress in their major. The same situation was made about required Gen Ed

courses (especially the interdisciplinary requirement). Students reported that they were frequently ―shut out‖

and that key courses filled very quickly - in some cases before some even had a chance to register. They were

extremely concerned about this matter as it seriously delayed their academic progress and for some, graduation.

In some cases, students felt the whole system of registration was very unfair and there was some animosity

towards those students who had registration priorities, especially athletes. Very few students approached their

advisors for help with this issue, preferring to take matters into their own hands, either by contacting professors

and chairs directly for permits or, astoundingly, getting other students with higher registration priorities than

them to ―hold‖ a spot in a class for them. (A student would successfully register, and then co-ordinate dropping

the class, that, another student simultaneously logged on to WESS, would then pick up.) Unfortunately, these


25

tactics did not always work. A surprising amount of students were not aware that they could request permits

directly from professors, and even for those who did know, a large number still were not granted permits to enter.

After complaints about faculty advisors being nonresponsive, this was the issue that students felt most strongly

about. Some used the lack of availability in key courses as evidence that the university was ―out to get them for

their money.‖ In fact, tales of students staying an additional semester or two in order to get into a class were

rampant among the student body.

5.9 Communication between Departments

Students who had double majors, were pursuing minors, or were changing majors detailed the frustration and

difficulties they experienced going between departments to sort out and/or solve problems. Many stated that

there was little to no communication between departments and described how they felt that the buck was passed

from one department to another without any commitment to finding an adequate solution:

“I feel like the advisors here don’t collaborate with one another. There was a period of time where I had

to speak to three different advisors about the same problem and every one told me something different.

This made for a lot of confusion when I was trying to choose classes.”

“The advisors will ask you to see another advisor who, in turn, ask you to go back to the original

advisor.”

Specifically, quite a few students encountered problems with their audits and graduation. Some double majors

found themselves in positions where they had been told they could graduate by one department, and then found

out that the other department required them to do more courses before they were eligible to graduate. In a few

cases, this resulted in extra semesters being spent at Montclair State University. In one case, athletes spoke of

their athletic advisors’ advice regarding requirements and graduation contradicting that provided by their faculty

advisers. When conflicting advice is given, students often did not know who or where to turn to in order to get

definitive information on their situation.

“There was very poor communication between advisors and registrar for graduation and audit purposes.”

Another area where students felt faculty advisors lacked communication and understanding was the General

Education requirements. Conversely, advisors at CAAAL and elsewhere could not answer specific questions

pertaining to major requirements. Students seemed to understand that this was the nature of having a specialized

system, but sometimes felt that they were let down because neither faculty nor CAAAL advisors appeared to know

where to point the students when they couldn’t answer questions outside of their field of expertise. Echoing

sentiments expressed earlier, students felt all advisors should be trained more on these requirements.


26

5.10 Transfer Students

Transfer students reported very specific academic advising problems, and as such, it is necessary to highlight their

particular issues. While experiences varied and some transfer students were extremely satisfied—some especially

liked the workshops and orientation provided to them, while others reported having needs that simply were not

met by their assigned advisors. In particular, transfer students stated that transferring and getting credit for

courses taken at their previous institutions was a difficult, confusing, and lengthy process that significantly varied

by department. In some cases (and departments), this was done swiftly and efficiently, while others were

referred to multiple people in a quest to solve their issues and answer their questions. Many transfer students

spoke of a need for specialized transfer student advisors for their first year at Montclair State University, who

could deal with problems particular to them, as highlighted by this student’s suggestion:

“Having been a transfer student, I suspected that I received even less advisement than other students

upon my arrival. Treating transfer students differently than incoming freshmen may seem appropriate in

some instances, considering the high number of transfer students at this state university, and the

likelihood that their transfer credits often do no easily adapt to the traditional advising model. There

should be a much more extensive effort to help such students to develop an individual academic plan.”

Transfer students also spoke of being particularly prone to being ―shut out‖ of classes in their first semester, as

registration often took place before they were enrolled. Many immediately fell behind on their required courses

and experienced a general sense of feeling let down by Montclair State University. This problem is heightened by

the fact that transfer students reported being assigned to a faculty advisor, rather than a new student/freshman

advisor, who is better trained to help with the transition. For undeclared transfer students, this was a serious

issue: without a major, they were not assigned an advisor and many did not know where else to turn for help.

Once again, students saw a solution in specifically trained, dedicated transfer advisors that would help them with

common issues involved with moving from one institution to another.

5.11 Undeclared Students

Undeclared students also spoke of specific advising problems they faced at Montclair State University. First,

undeclared students highlighted the difficulty of not having an assigned faculty advisor and as such not having a

designated ―go-to‖ person that they could build a relationship with. Echoing the finding outlined previously, when

undeclared students tried to reach out for help, quite a few were dissatisfied with the response from those they

expected to help them, stating that they felt pushed aside and unwanted:

“When I was undeclared, I received little to no motivation, guidance, or support in terms of possible academic

pursuits or possibilities. I constantly felt like I was 'taking up their time' when I really just needed help.”

Second, some undeclared students spoke about how they were forced into classes and given very little choice by

freshmen advisors, which subsequently pushed them back in terms of obtaining required courses. It also alienated

them from the educational experience as often these courses were of little to no interest in them. Students

stated they felt like they were powerless and were being shunted into bad classes that no one else would take.

Undeclared students wanted more control over the classes they took as freshmen and did not want to have a

freshman advisor select the courses for them – they wanted guidance, not pressure. Furthermore, they were


27

frustrated at receiving incorrect information about Gen Ed requirements and how such courses might transfer into

their major requirements, as demonstrated by this anecdote;

“At freshman orientation an advisor helped me make my schedule for my first semester. I was undeclared

and she told me to take certain available Gen Ed courses because I would "need them no matter what I

chose as my major." When I decided to apply for the education program, I had to take 15 credits over in

"education" form (i.e. Educational Psychology) because the psychology course she told me to take didn't

count. This experience cost me a lot of money in tuition and made me stay here an extra year.”

Undeclared students also spoke of the difficulty and stress of actually selecting a major, and highlighted the lack

of guidance they received during this important decision:

“Sometimes a student could be faced with a problem of not knowing what major to declare because

sometimes it’s overwhelming… choosing a major needs some sort of professional guidance because in as

much as it may just be a decision it is also a lifeline decision that goes towards being careers and our own

future.”

Undeclared students made some additional suggestions as to what may help their academic progress. They spoke

of a need to learn how to use WESS and the ―Analysis of Academic Progress‖ immediately so they could decide

how best to fulfill GNED requirements for themselves or in conjunction with a freshman advisor. In their mind,

this would help them negotiate the system and make worthwhile course choices while investigating possible major

options. Some students suggested that undeclared majors should be provided with a list of recommended classes

for them to take so that they could explore different majors, yet complete Gen Ed requirements and get credit

towards a certain major.


28

6. Conclusion

This section is split into three distinct parts: an executive summary of the key findings; a list of student

suggestions as to how to improve academic advising at Montclair State University; and limitations of this study.

6.1 Executive Summary

Survey as well as focus group data clearly indicates that a majority of students (87%) thought academic advising is

important in order to achieve their educational goals and it was their responsibility to seek it. Approximately nine

out of ten students contacted someone for academic advice at least once in their academic career at Montclair

State University. The resources used for academic advising were diverse, ranging from the formal options offered

by the university to the informal and ad hoc solutions implemented by students.

The three most popular forms of formal advising sought by students were assigned faculty advisors, the Center for

Academic Advising and Learning (CAAAL), and the New Student Experience advisors. A significant number of

students, however, preferred to ―advise themselves,‖ relying upon informal channels of advising, particularly

peers and online resources, notably WESS. Most sought formal advising help only when they couldn’t solve a

problem on their own.

Generally, a majority of students (approximately 60%) were satisfied with the main formal academic advising

resources Montclair State University provided, though satisfaction levels varied by college and academic class.

Specialized advisors such as those employed by the Athletic department and Educational Opportunity Fund (EOF)

program were generally well received. However, students reported being more satisfied with the informal routes

of advising, namely unassigned faculty advisors, department administrative assistants, and other students.

A sizable minority were dissatisfied with the university’s formal advising resources. Generally, transfer and

undeclared students, while having mixed satisfaction levels, generally felt that their unique needs were not

adequately met by the existing advising system. A large number of students held a ―conspiracy theory,‖ which

posited that the university deliberately offered substandard advising in order to delay graduation and earn greater

revenue. Students pointed to a paucity of seats in key courses and a lack of support from advisors about this issue

as evidence. Furthermore, students expressed high levels of dissatisfaction towards unresponsive/poorly trained

faculty advisors; the appointment making process and front-end interactions at the Center for Academic Advising

and Adult Learning (CAAAL); and communication between departments on academic matters. One can speculate

that a consequence of this dissatisfaction is that students are less likely to return to these formal advising options

after a bad experience, and instead, turn to the informal resources available to them.


29

6.2 Suggestions for Improvement

Students made many suggestions of how academic advising at Montclair State University could be improved. Here

is a summary of these ideas:

6.2a Faculty Advisors

1. Respond and acknowledge students emails and telephone calls, even if it is to say they cannot help.

2. Mandatory emails from faculty advisors to students once a semester introducing themselves and outlining

availability and contact information.

3. Increase accountability for faculty advisors by introducing a formal evaluation system

4. Increase academic advising training among faculty advisors:

a. Faculty should be briefed every semester on departmental requirements

b. Faculty should be informed about the existence and whereabouts of other advising resources they

can refer their students to.

5. Only allow faculty who want to advise to perform advisory duties.

6.2b Center for Academic Advising and Adult Learning (CAAAL)

1. Make the appointment system available online

2. Extend the hours available for consultation to allow for those students who work

3. Increase the number of walk-in appointments available

4. Improve front-end public relations

6.2c New Student Seminar Improvements

1. Empower students with tools they can use independently to advise themselves.

2. Make this course standardized so that the requirements and curricular taught is more universal. The

curriculum should include the following material:

a. Train students how to use WESS in order to:

i. Search and register for classes.

ii. Provide instruction on how to construct multiple schedules in case of being shut out of

classes.

iii. How to access and correctly interpret the ―Analysis of Academic Progress‖

iv. Identify and locate their faculty advisor, and if none, assign who to go to for advice

b. Orientation of the Montclair State University website (including, but limited to, careers website,

advising resources, academic calendars, and online forms)

c. Basic information for each major, such as a one page factsheet with a sequence/4 year plan that

details requirements.

6.2d Departmental Improvements

1. Provide up-to-date and clear requirements both in paper form and on websites.

2. Provide ―ideal case‖ four year plans and course sequences

3. Provide information about when courses (especially required courses) are offered, including what

semester (i.e., Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter), and where applicable, if they are offered on a yearly/bi

yearly or semester basis.


30

6.2e General Suggestions

1. Create additional sections in required courses that fill up fast and are pre-requisites for other courses.

This was particularly crucial for students in the physical and biological sciences.

2. Improve communications between departments and different advisory sources, especially between faculty

advisors and those advising on the Gen Ed requirements.

3. Introduce dedicated advisors for transfer students who have specialized training in the transfer credit

process and the unique needs of these students.

4. Introduce specialized, dedicated advisors for undeclared students.

a. Encourage greater liaison between freshmen advisors and new undeclared student in choosing

classes.

b. Avoid pushing undeclared students into courses that do not match their interests.

c. Provide undeclared students with advising tools they can use independently, such as WESS and the

university website, so they can make more informed decisions for themselves.

d. Have fact sheets on recommended classes for exploration of all majors. This will allow students to

experience a particular major while making smart GNED decisions, such as ―double dip‖ courses.

6.3 Limitations

1. Like all voluntary opinion research, the online questionnaire and the focus group may attract participants

who hold extreme views about academic advising. Market research studies demonstrate that respondents

that are vested in an issue often have a disproportionate high response rate.

2. The online survey is not ―weighted‖ to reflect the demographic make-up of the school. A disproportionate

number of older, female, high achieving, and full-time students are represented.

3. Finally, an academic advising category tapping into ―department chairs, associate deans, deans, and other

senior administrative officers‖ should have been included in the online survey. The use of these resources

emerged in open-ended responses and focus groups.

In conclusion, using two distinct methodologies, this study has taken a first important step towards seeking to

better understand why students at Montclair State University choose the advising route they do. By tapping into

students’ understanding of what resources are available to them and their perceptions of how useful these

resources would be, the report concludes with student feedback regarding the constantly evolving system.

Although there were mixed views about a ―one best way‖ to structure academic advising, most students were

quick to point out the crucial role it played in their overall success. They overwhelmingly agreed that should they

have a problem, it should be easy to locate advisors who are efficient, supportive, and responsive to their needs.


31

7. Appendices

7.1 Appendix A: Online Survey Questionnaire

We want to gratefully acknowledge technical advice from Dr. Steven Johnson.

Q. 1

Have you ever contacted anyone at Montclair State University for academic advising? (Answer “Yes” even if

once)

Yes (Go to Q. 2)

No (Skip to Q. 2A)

Q. 2A (For those who answered ―No‖ for Q. 1)

Please tell us why you haven’t contacted anyone at MSU for academic advising up to this point in your career.

Open ended response:

Q. 3A (For those who answered ―No‖ for Q. 1)

Would you seek academic advising if things were different? What would need to change?


Q. 2 (For those who answered ―Yes‖ for Q. 1)

Over your entire career at MSU, please indicate all of the individuals/offices you have relied upon for

academic advising?

Assigned Faculty Advisor from your Major Department

Another Faculty Member, Not your Assigned Advisor

Department Administrative Assistant

Center for Academic Advising and Adult Learning

New Student Experience Advisor

Educational Opportunity Fund Program Advisor

Health Career Programs Advisor

Honors Program Advisor

Disability Resources Advisor

Athletic Department Advisor

Another Student

Other (please indicate below)

Other Academic Advising resources you’ve used at any time during the course of your entire MSU career.



32

Q. 3

During only the past academic year, please indicate all of the individuals/offices you have relied upon for

academic advising?

Assigned Faculty Advisor from your Major Department





Educational Opportunity Fund Program Advisor





Another Student

Other (please indicate below)

Other Academic Advising resources you’ve used only during the past academic year.


Q. 4

Since first enrolling at MSU, approximately how many times have you visited each of the following

individuals/offices for academic advising? (Check all that apply)

0, Did not visit 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

Assigned Faculty Advisor from your Major

Department





Educational Opportunity Fund Program Adv.





Another Student

Other


33

Q. 5

Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the quality of academic advising that you received from each of

the resources. Check all that apply.

Very

Satisfied

Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very

Dissatisfied

N/A Did

not visit

Assigned Faculty Advisor from your

Major Department

Another Faculty Member, Not your

Assigned Advisor

Department Administrative

Assistant

Center for Academic Advising and

Adult Learning


Educational Opportunity Fund

Program Advisor





Another Student

Q. 6

In general, how satisfied are you with the academic advising resources provided by Montclair State

University?

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Q. 7

Please indicate how important you feel academic advising is in helping you to achieve your educational goals.

Very Important Important Neutral Not important Not at all important

Q. 9

Please use this space for any additional comments or suggestions you may have concerning academic advising

at MSU.


Do you want to be included in the drawing for an iPad?

Yes No

Can we contact you to participate in a focus group on academic advising for a chance to earn a $20 bookstore

gift card?

Yes No


34

7.2 Appendix B: Sample Characteristics of Online Questionnaire

Approximate

Academic Class

Number of

Participants

Freshman 559

Sophomore 587

Junior 946

Senior 1239

Total 3,331

Freshmen 17%

Sophomores 18%

Juniors 28%

Seniors 37%

Figure B1: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Approximate Academic Standing, Online Questionnaire

Freshmen

Sophomores

Juniors

Seniors


35

College Number of

Participants

CEHS 563

CHSS 1,072

CSAM 578

CART 543

SBUS 325

SCG 250

Total 3,331

CEHS, 17%

CHSS, 32% CSM; 20%

CART, 16%

SBUS, 10%

SCG, 8%

Figure B2: Percent Distribution of Respondents by College, Online Questionnaire

CEHS

CHSS

CSAM

CART

SBUS

SCG


36

Grade Point

Average

Number of

Participants

Less than 1 15

1 - 1.99 95

2 – 2.99 951

3 – 3.499 1104

Greater than 3.5 1010

Total 3,331

Less than 1 0%

1 - 1.99 3%

2 – 2.99 30%

3 – 3.499 35%

Greater than 3.5 32%

Figure B3: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Grade Point Average, Online Questionnaire

Less than 1

1 - 1.99

2 – 2.99

3 – 3.499

Greater than 3.5


37

Gender: Number of

Participants

Females 2,248

Males 1,083

Total 3,331

Female, 67%

Male, 33%

Figure B4: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Gender, Online Questionnaire

Female

Male


38

Race/Ethnicity: Number of

Participants

White 1,670

Black/African-American 303

Hispanic 695

Asian 226

Unknown 306

Non-residents 75

Multiple 47

American

Indian/Alaskan Native 5

Hawaiian 4

Total 3,331

White 50%

Black/African-American

9%

Hispanic 21%

Asian 7%

Unknown 9%

Non-residents 2% Multiple

2%

Figure B5: Percent Distribution of Respondents' Race/Ethnicity, Online Questionnaire

White


Hispanic

Asian

Unknown

Non-residents

Multiple


39

7.3 Appendix C: Sample Characteristics of Focus Groups

Approximate

Academic Class

Number of

Participants

Freshman 20

Sophomore 22

Junior 28

Senior 32

Total 103

Freshmen 20%

Sophomores 21% Juniors

27%

Seniors 32%

Figure C1: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Approximate Academic Standing, Focus Groups

Freshmen

Sophomores

Juniors

Seniors


40

College Number of

Participants

CEHS 13

CHSS 34

CSAM 21

CART 11

SBUS 14

SCG 10

Total 103

CEHS, 13%

CHSS, 33%

CSM; 20%

CART, 11%

SBUS, 13%

SCG, 10%

Figure C2: Percent Distribution of Respondents by College, Focus Groups

CEHS

CHSS

CSAM

CART

SBUS

SCG


41

Grade Point

Average

Number of

Participants

Less than 1 3

1 - 1.99 2

2 – 2.99 22

3 – 3.499 38

Greater than 3.5 38

Total 103

Less than 1 3%

1 - 1.99 2%

2 – 2.99 21%

3 – 3.499 37%

Greater than 3.5 37%

Figure C3: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Grade Point Average, Focus Groups

Less than 1

1 - 1.99

2 – 2.99

3 – 3.499

Greater than 3.5


42

Gender: Number of

Participants

Females 71

Males 32

Total 103

Female, 69%

Male, 31%

Figure C4: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Gender, Focus Groups

Female

Male


43

Race/Ethnicity: Number of

Participants

White 42

Black/African-American 20

Hispanic 19

Asian 9

Unknown 9

Non-residents 3

Multiple 1

Total 103

White 41%


19%

Hispanic 18%

Asian 9%

Unknown 9%

Non-residents 3%

Multiple 1%

Figure C5: Percent Distribution of Respondents' Race/Ethnicity, Focus Groups

White


Hispanic

Asian

Unknown

Non-residents

Multiple

Documents

PROJECT ADVISE - Montclair State University · · 2012-05-17PROJECT ADVISE Evaluating ... at Montclair State University . Final Report . May 2011 . Prepared for: Dr. Joan Ficke,