Undecided/Exploratory Students and Persistence Web viewOf course, faculty advisors can ... (NACE) indicating that ... I am a music fan in the truest sense of the word being short for

UEPC – FYAC Proposal Supplement 3

Saint Mary’s College of CA - First Year Advising Cohorts Spring 2012

Exploring Major Choices with First Year Students:A Resource Guide for FYAC Faculty

Table of ContentsI. Activities For You and Your FYAC as a Group

MyRoadCareer Development Exploration WorkshopUpper Division Student Panel“Taking Stock”

II. Resources to Work One-on-One with StudentsAcademic Advising Center Choosing a Major WorkshopsContinuing the MyRoad ConversationContinuing the “Taking Stock” Conversation

III. Support Services on CampusCareer Development Center One-on-OneAdvising Center Coordinators One-on-One

IV. Putting the Pieces TogetherSuggested TimelineSee the Big Picture“The Relationship Between College and Work,” D. Asher

V. Exploring the Larger Context of First Year Students and Major ChoiceStatistics for Declared Majors at Saint Mary’s College“The Targeted Advising Model for Undecided Students,” by P. Cate “Using the Transformative,” by K. Kincanon“Undecided/Exploratory Students and Persistence,” D. Spright

VI. Appendix(A1) “Student Handout: Setting Up Your MyRoad Account”(A2) MyRoad Exploration Results(A3) Selecting a College Major Table of Contents(A4) “Taking Stock”(A5) Academic Advising Center Workshop Sample (available Spring 2012)(A6) MyRoad Conversation Starters for FYAC Faculty at SMC(A7) “Task Analysis Worksheet”(A8) Statistics from SMC Regarding Major Declaration and Changing

FYAC Faculty – Exploring Major Choices with First Year StudentsC. Van Gilder – Spring 2012

1

(A9) “How to Read Your Academic Evaluation”(A10) Career Development Center Four-Year Plan(A11) “Do Majors Really Matter?” by S. Welz

I. Activities For Your FYAC as a Group

MyRoad WebsiteThe MyRoad website is a website to which SMC subscribes on behalf of all of its students. There are several major components that are relevant for college students.* These two are:

1) “I.D. Me”In this portion of the website, students can explore their preferences and traits through personality and interest assessments. These are not definitive, of course, but you should explain to the students that the quizzes are meant to be thought provoking. If they find themselves vehemently disagreeing with the results of one or more of the assessment tools, that should still be a valuable occasion for self-reflection and decision making.

Please keep in mind that one of the drawbacks (and strengths?) of this type of major/career planning tool is that it is based on self-assessment. The most cleverly constructed instrument can still only measure what the student knows and believes to be true about herself. Often the role of the academic advisor is to encourage students into new self-perceptions that include a realistic assessment of their aptitude for a particular field of study, for example.

2) “Explore Majors”Once having completed these self-assessment instruments, the students are led to explore a variety of majors that might mesh well with their results. Again, if you have students who feel they have already chosen a major and have nothing to gain from these exercises, invite (insist?!) them to see this as an exercise in self-exploration that may in fact affirm their existing choice, or could open up new variations on a well-established theme in their lives. Please note that since SMC is a small liberal arts school, there are definitely majors listed in the MyRoad catalog that we do not offer, such as many different forms of Engineering majors. You will need to guide the students to seeking alternative choices within the liberal arts context.

3) “Research Careers”The structure of the website links the information on majors to possible careers often associated with that major. Research indicates that some students find it easier to approach the question of “which major is right for me” through thinking about career options, while others find it easier to proceed from major choice to career possibilities. Certainly, most students need to toggle between each of these paths of thought throughout their undergraduate careers. On the MyRoad website they can work from either direction, starting with a career that they find interesting to search out majors that develop relevant skills or vice versa.

*Your students may see that there is a portion of the MyRoad website tailored to high school students in the process of selecting a college, they simply need to navigate out of this section and back into the section on selecting a major, etc..

Suggestion: Demonstrate the MyRoad site to your FYAC as a group or request that a facilitator be sent from the Office of Academic Advising and Achievement to get you started. Students will need the “Student Handout: Setting Up Your MyRoad Account” (A1). Ask


2

students to complete the MyRoad self-assessment instruments and explore the suggested majors and careers over a several week period. Have them fill out the attached “MyRoad Exploration Results” form (A2) and bring it to class to discuss. Encourage them to read about at least one major/career path they had never thought about before this exercise. Also, don’t let them get away with saying, “That’s dumb! I’d never be happy with X” without providing you with a thoughtful reason as to why. Variations on this exercise might include having the students discuss their results in small groups or assigning various people certain majors and careers to explore (and report on to the class) in addition to whatever their individual results might be. Obviously, this can easily translate into a writing exercise or portfolio section, etc., if you prefer.

3) “My Plan”This portion of the MyRoad site allows students to electronically gather and organize data about themselves, in a single, easy to access space. Students are prompted to upload writing samples that might be useful for graduate school applications, as well as activities, awards, work experience, etc., that will be relevant to both future curriculum vitae and resumes.

Suggestion: Encourage students to load as much information as they currently have about themselves having completed one semester of college. Ask them to reflect on what they hope will fill their MyRoad portfolio by the time they graduate. Have them write a short paragraph for you regarding their aspirations in each of the portfolio categories and to articulate concrete actions they could take to achieve these goals. For Example – Goal: I want to have completed at least one paid summer internship. Action: Go to the Career Development Center now to find out about how students at SMC get placed in internships.

Career Development Exploration Workshop The Career Development Center (CDC) offers workshops for FYAC sections that explore major selection with a bit of an emphasis on consideration of career choices as a factor in major choice. In these workshops, your students will work as a group to identify important questions to ask about career choice and steps to take while a college student to explore those choices. Some FYAC groups have also scheduled a walk through orientation at the CDC to familiarize their students with its location, staff, and resources.

Suggestion: Have students explore MyRoad in the week or two before your CDC workshop is scheduled to prepare for questions. Or, have the students prepare a list of three questions each (ahead of time) and forward these to the CDC staff so that they know what your students are interested in and/or concerned or curious about with regards to their services.

Upper Division Student PanelUpper Division students who are near completing a particular major at SMC can be a tremendous resource for your first year students, especially because they can usually speak in SMC-specific terms, rather than the more general language of other resources. Obviously, the students you know as a professor here can be asked to visit your FYAC, but your FYAC Faculty Liaison (Cynthia Van Gilder – [email protected]) can help if you want to find students in a major with which you are largely unfamiliar.


3

mailto:[email protected]

Suggestion: Invite upper division students from various majors to come talk to your cohort. Have them describe how they selected their majors and/or minors in as much detail as they are willing (and can recall!). Have your FYAC students compose several questions each ahead of time, such as, “If for some reason you couldn’t major in X, what would your second choice have been?” “Do you have ideas about what you might do after graduation?” “To whom did you speak before making your decision?” “Who was most helpful and why?”

“Taking Stock”“Taking Stock” (A4) is the first chapter of a book entitled, Selecting a College Major: Exploration and decision Making, by Virginia N. Gordon and Susan J. Sears (2004). This book is organized around five steps towards making a major decision which are as follows: 1) Taking Stock; 2) Exploring Self; 3) Exploring Majors; 4) Exploring Careers; 5) Making a Decision; 6) Implementing Your Decision.** The “Taking Stock” chapter encourages students to assess their status with regards to making a major choice. It also encourages them to reflect on themselves as decision makers, and the kinds of forces that may be influencing their choices (such as parents’ opinions, gender stereotyping, misinformation, etc.).

All students can benefit from the conversations started by this material, even if they feel fairly confident in their current choice of major. It provides an opportunity for “decided” students to reflect on their decision, how they made it, and if they are still comfortable with it. For “undecided” students it helps them identify where the roadblocks are to making a choice. For example, do they need to know more about the departmental offerings at SMC? Are they being held hostage by familial expectations? Or, perhaps, they just feel they don’t even know themselves well enough to make this kind of choice yet.

**See the Table of Contents (A3) provided in the Appendix for more information. Please let us know if you would like to get copies of other chapters.

Suggestion: Introduce students to the “Taking Stock” packet in FYAC class. Ask them to turn to the final two pages and read the two case studies. Together, discuss the case studies with their associated questions. Now, ask the students to thoughtfully complete the remainder of the packet and bring it to a one-on-one meeting with you to discuss their responses.

If you have students who insist that they have chosen their major, know it is the right one for them claim to be fully confident and comfortable in their choice, and simply DO NOT want to fill out the packet, try giving them this alternative exercise: Ask the student to write an essay explaining what his major is (a minimum of one robust paragraph); how it contributes/is important to society (another robust paragraph); and why it is important to him and his future career goals (a third robust paragraph). If your students can produce such an essay to your satisfaction, then they probably are ready to move on to sophomore year without any more support around major choice (at least for the time being).

II. Resources to Work One-on-One with Students

Academic Advising Center – Choosing a Major WorkshopsThis year the Academic Advising Center (AAC) will be offering its workshops on Major Exploration to ALL first year students as individuals rather than through the FYAC Faculty selecting the


4

workshop for his or her group. It is hoped that this increased flexibility will benefit the faculty members, the students, and the AAC Coordinators running the workshops. If you would like to bring your FYAC as a group to a particular session, we can also accommodate that. Please contact the Director of the Academic Advising Center, Angelica Garcia at [email protected] for more information. STUDENTS SIGN UP AT: http://wwws.stmarys-ca.edu/forms/academics/academic-

advising-and-achievement/resources-for-freshman/workshop-rsvp.html

The Major Exploration Workshops will be offered at the following times:Monday, February 20 from 12:40-2:00PMFriday, February 24 from 12:40-2:00PMWednesday, February 29 from 3:00-4:00PMMonday, February 27 from 12:40-2:00PMFriday, March 2 from 12:40-2:00PM

Students will be asked to sign up online for the workshop of their choice. Your students may attend whichever of the workshops is most convenient. They will all contain the same content. Currently, there is no limit to the number of students that may sign up per workshop, as we have sufficient staff to run as many as four concurrent workshops on any given day.

STUDENTS SIGN UP AT: http://wwws.stmarys-ca.edu/forms/academics/academic-advising-and-achievement/resources-for-freshman/workshop-rsvp.html

Suggestion: Assign your students the task of going to the URL listed above and signing up for the workshop session of their choice. You will receive a list from the AAC of all of your students who complete the workshop. Ask the students to write a reflection on what they learned. Alternatively, you could have them select one or two majors that interest them based on their experience at the workshop, and then consult the SMC Catalog to make a list of the requirements for that major. Ask them to tell you which upper division courses in that major interest them the most and why.

Continuing the MyRoad ConversationStudents get the most out of the MyRoad resource when they are asked to reflect and report back on the material they learn from the website. Use the “MyRoad Conversation Starters for FYAC Faculty at SMC” (A6) and the “Task Analysis Worksheet” (A7) to help structure your one-on-one meetings with students. Please, remember it is important that students see the “ID Me” personality profiler within a larger context of personal development over time, and not as a definitive diagnostic tool that says not only who they are, but who they always will be.

Continuing the “Taking Stock” ConversationSome of the questions in the “Taking Stock” packet may elicit very personal responses from students, and not surprisingly, they are likely to speak more candidly about these issues in a one-on-one setting with you, rather than a group discussion with their peers. This chapter is pretty straightforward, and working through the student’s pre-prepared responses will give your conversation a great deal of structure and range. We all have our own personal styles, but sometimes students enjoy hearing that either you, or a student you may have known, has had


5

https://mail.stmarys-ca.edu/Redirect/wwws.stmarys-ca.edu/forms/academics/academic-advising-and-achievement/resources-for-freshman/workshop-rsvp.html





similar responses or experiences to those they are sharing with you, and that person found his or her way very successfully.

III. Support Services on Campus

Career Development Center One-on-OneThe Career Development Center (CDC) has counselors available to work with students in individualized appointments. Your student will work with the counselor to identify various career interests and potential aptitudes and in effect reason “backwards” into possible majors that would support those kinds of careers. The CDC counselors can also speak to students about possible internships or other opportunities to explore various career paths.

Please direct your students to call, 631-4600, email [email protected], or drop by the Center in Brother Urban Gregory (BUG) Hall during their drop-in hours, which are Monday through Friday from 1:00 – 2:00PM.

The Director of the CDC, Patty Bishop, is available to answer questions you might have at [email protected].

Academic Advising Center One-on-OneStudents may make an appointment to meet with a professional academic advisor at the Academic Advising Center, located on the ground floor of Augustine Hall by emailing Karen Miller, [email protected], or phoning her at 631-4349. If you have questions regarding the services and resources available at the Academic Advising Center, its Director, Angelica Garcia, would be happy to take your questions at [email protected].

Your student will meet with an AAC Coordinator who will pose questions (similar to those in the “Taking Stock” chapter) designed to help her identify what areas she might need to research to be able to make a choice of major. Does the student need to know more about possible careers? Does the students need to know more about the majors available at SMC? Does the student need to know more about him or herself? The Coordinator will follow up with your student to see how his or her progress is going in those knowledge areas.

PLEASE NOTE: Any student who identifies as “officially undeclared” at the end of her first year at SMC will be assigned to one of the three Coordinators as his official academic advisor from that point on. It can be great for a student to have met one or more of the Coordinators during her first year, so that this transition is less jarring. Once a student officially declares a major, she is given a faculty advisor in that discipline.


6




IV. Putting the Pieces Together

Suggested Timeline

1) Feb 6 – Feb 102) Feb 13 – Feb 173) Feb 20 – Feb 244) Feb 27 – Mar 25) Mar 5 – Mar 96) Mar 19 – Mar 237) Mar 26 – Mar 30

[FYI: Easter Break is March 31 – April 9; April 16 advising begins for Fall Registration; Registration for First Year Students is May 3]

Weeks (1) and (2) Introduce your students to the concept of exploring a major and decision making in college through MyRoad and other suggested FYAC group activities.

Weeks (3) and (4) Direct students to sign up for (and attend) one of the five Major Exploration Workshops sponsored by the Academic Advising Center.

Weeks (5), (6), and (7)Follow-up with students individually regarding their usage of MyRoad, attendance of a Workshop, engagement with “Taking Stock,” or other resources.

See the Big PictureEncourage your students to the see their major choice as one important component of the bigger picture that is their academic experience at SMC. This bigger picture can include all of the elements depicted below, and more. We have also included some statistics from SMC regarding major declaration and students changing majors in the Appendix (A8). Our statistics seem to indicate that as compared to national averages, SMC students are more likely to remain undeclared until they feel comfortable making a major choice than to declare a major and then change. This year all first year students must declare a major by March 31, 2012.


7

Adapted from Loyola University, Chicago, Major Exploration Workbook for SMC by C. Van Gilder

It may also be helpful to students to see the “How to Read Your Academic Evaluation” handout provided by the Registrar’s Office (A9). The sample student, Min E. Mouse, has 33 credits towards graduation, and thus a much fuller Academic Evaluation than any first year student. Remind the student that he can see his own Academic Evaluation anytime on GaelXpress. Of course, faculty advisors can also see the Academic Evaluation of any of their advisees.

The Career Development Center (CDC) has provided us with an outline of a four-year plan for students. One side addresses the kinds of things students should be doing and thinking about if they are intent on going to graduate school immediately after graduation, while the other address those who think they are going straight from college into a career (see Appendix (A10)). Students should also be aware that many students from SMC chose to go into a paid volunteer-service program, such as Lasallian Volunteers, the Peace Corps, or teaching English abroad. Students can find out more about these kinds of post-bachelor’s degree positions through the CDC and CILSA.


8

“The Relationship Between College and Work,” by Donald AsherDonald Asher’s article can be found in the Foundations text given to each of the FYAC faculty

members at the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year. Its intended audience is students (not advisors) and explains why some of the most “obvious, commonsense” ideas that students may have about the direct correlation between their choice of major and their future career opportunities are not born out in reality.

Another essay along these lines is included in the Appendix (A11): “Do Majors Really Matter?” by Selena Welz. In this paper, Welz cites research by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) indicating that most employers place the highest premiums on communications skills, as well as “honesty and integrity, teamwork, interpersonal skills, and motivation.” These are all skills and attributes grounded in the liberal arts, not a specific major’s content.

Suggestion: Have students write down (on the board or in a notebook) some of the ideas they may have about the relationship between college and future employment. Use the Asher or Welz essays to start a conversation about what it means to go to a liberal arts college regardless of major. Another possibility is to have students interview someone who is a college graduate about how she made her major choice and how it fits in to what she has done since. Students can find college graduates among their family and friends, as well as all over the SMC campus in all kinds of jobs. A variation on this exercise would include having them interview an “older” SMC student about how he chose his major.

V. Exploring the Larger Context of First Year Students and Major Choice

The Targeted Advising Model for Undecided Students

By Patrick Cate, Plymouth State University

Cate. P. (2010). The Targeted advising model for undecided students. Retrieved from NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Targeted-Advising-Model.htm

I was a helicopter advisor. My students relied on me for almost every academic related issue and many not related to academics. While my workload increased, student learning decreased. This is the problem I tackled with the Targeted Advising Model.

Many who work with undecided students assume that these students do not like being undeclared and when we, as advisors, buy into that notion, we assume that our job is to help students clarify their options and create an environment where they can make decisions regarding their majors. On the contrary, a majority of students I have worked with have very little, if any, dissonance about being undeclared!

Ambivalence is one of the main reasons many traditional advising approaches aimed at undeclared students fail to live up to expectations. All the software programs, lectures, and assessments are less than effective when students are not engaged in the process. In fact many students, who were seemingly engaged when I used traditional advising methods with them, tell me later that they faked the results of their assessments simply so that they could move on. In these, and many other cases, solving student ambivalence is critical to advising success.

The Targeted Advising Model (TAM) is built on the premise that students are not as engaged in the process as they need to be in order to make good decisions about their majors. TAM is based on concepts from addictions counseling, identity development, and academic advising pedagogy.


9

The TAM model consists of three steps or stages of observed student behavior with each stage representing a level of both self-knowledge and self-motivation. Understanding where a student is on the TAM scale has shown great promise in working with undeclared students here at Plymouth State.

Targeted Advising Model Stages

There are three stages in the Targeted Advising Model: precontemplation, deliberation, and action.

PrecontemplationA student in the precontemplation stage is unlikely to respond to action-oriented exploration

tasks. Not only do these students lack a desire to participate, they often are not sure of the true purpose of exploration. Thus they make decisions based more on short-term needs (course schedule, a familiar or liked professor) than on long-term desires.

In the precontemplation stage, students exhibit what James Marcia (1966) called identity diffusion and foreclosure marked closely by a lack of crisis. During identity diffusion students are care-free and unconcerned about any possible ill effects from not having a major. Their ambivalence is obvious and they may not participate in other academic-related activities. These students have a tendency to miss advising meetings and may fail to follow up on anything the advisor suggests.

Identity foreclosure is the state in which students rely on extrinsic motivators to make a choice they have not embraced. A common scenario is one where advisors see students who decide on majors or career paths based upon a parent’s suggestion or an occupation held by a family member. Students in identify foreclosure are free of dissonance because they have accepted no responsibility for their decisions, they are simply following an external decision-making source. At some point, externally made decisions must be tested; the key for advisors is to help students test these decisions before their senior year.

Providing career and major information to students in the precontemplation stage does not engage them or help them decide on a major. These students are better served when advisors help them understand why having a major will help their lives. When students understand this basic principle they begin to be more open to personal exploration of aptitudes, attitudes, and goals, all necessary steps if advisors are to engage them in the career and major exploration process. Moving to this engagement may best be done by initiating purposeful dissonance to challenge students.

Introducing dissonance into our student interactions is not in the normal advisors’ repertoire. However, if advisors are to move a student beyond precontemplation, then we must help students see the discrepancy between their present state (undecided) and what could be (being engaged in a major.) Advisors should have frank discussions with students about the benefits of being appropriately declared and the drawbacks of being undeclared if students are to move onto another development stage.

The move from precontemplation to deliberation is the key step in the Targeted Advising Model. Much of what is “new” to advising undecided students is found in this process. Using a motivational interview style, an advisor can guide students to move from relying on extrinsic motivators to developing intrinsic motivators. Being intrinsically motivated is the essential developmental task needed to make decisions about a major and is, in my opinion, one of the key indicators of success later in life. Students who use intrinsic motivation more often make decisions based upon long-term goals and less on short-term needs and desires.

DeliberationStudents with the desire to find a major and who are willing participants in the exploration

process are in the deliberation phase. The main goals of this phase are student discovery of information needed to make personally relevant decisions about a major. Many of the processes that occur during this phase are described by O’Banion’s (1972) Exploration of Life Goals and Exploration of Career/Educational Goals stages.

Career exploration assessments such as those based on Holland and Strong’s theories should be used in this stage. Students’ development of a sense of personal values, interests, and abilities will provide the foundation for their future decision making. Learning how to make decisions based


10

on personally relevant information rather than external influences is a skill set students will need throughout the students’ lives.

Students move through this stage at different rates. While many of my students go through the deliberation stage in a short amount of time, some find this stage difficult. Many students may not have received lessons in effective decision making in high school. As is true of many of the lessons advisors teach, the process for these students is nearly as important as the outcome. It is imperative that the process be an honest one; the advisor must revisit the outcomes of each student’s precontemplation stage to ensure that students stay engaged. If students are to successfully maneuver through this stage then they must deliberate on their options and be able to make personally relevant decisions.

Some students can remain fairly passive through this stage; they can give little and receive much. While students can learn a lot in this stage, they may not yet be ready to make many well-reasoned decisions on their own and may need to return to advisors for assistance with decision making in the future. Still once students feel that they have either narrowed down their options or have the information they need to make a decision, they are ready to move to action.

Action Students in the action stage are ready for a more hands off approach. This is when students

have the desire to choose a major, the information needed about themselves, and have an adequate understanding of degree and career options. At this point, students simply need to act to finish the administrative steps it takes to declare the major and share their decision with others.

At this point, advisors should share with students the procedures needed to declare the chosen major. I mention the administrative process of declaring a major because many students do not navigate administrative tasks well. While advisors tend to live and breathe policy and procedure, students do not. It is our obligation to help them understand how the process works and what their responsibilities are.

Also in this stage of the TAM process advisors should help students connect with advisors and/or faculty within their chosen department to discuss their field. This step can make the difference in the TAM process working or not. Students who do not connect beyond coursework and fail to interact with individuals and activities within their major often return and question their decisions. While questioning is sometimes good, if the original TAM process was well executed, the decision should hold.

ConclusionThe Targeted Advising Model has been effective in our institution. It has allowed us to

increase our advisee caseload by a multiple of four without increasing staff. Further, our students declare their majors in a shorter amount of time than when traditional advising techniques were used. The TAM process has not been used at many other institutions; I am eager to see a larger test of the concept. If this concept looks like something that would work at your institution, please contact me and I will be glad to help you try it. ReferencesMarcia, J. E., (1966), Development and validation of ego identity status, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3, pp. 551-558 O’Banion, T. (2009). An academic advising model. NACADA Journal 29(1): 83-89. (Original work published 1972 in Journal College Journal, 42, pp. 62, 64, 66-69.)

*Please note that the bolding and underlining was added by Cynthia Van Gilder, February 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Using the Transformative: Applying Transformational and Self-Authorship Pedagogy to Advising Undecided/Exploring Students Kerry Kincanon, Head Advisor, University Exploratory Studies Program, Oregon State University


11

Kincanon, K. (2009). Translating the Transformative: Applying Transformational and Self-Authorship Pedagogy to Advising Undecided/Exploring Students. Retrieved -insert today's date- from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Transformative-Theory.htm

I am a music fan in the truest sense of the word being short for fanatic. This obsession drives me to keep close eyes and ears on the world of independent and innovative music, looking for trends and seeking out the next creative force that will occupy space on my iPod. I’m also a fan to the degree where ideas and concepts related to music occasionally start to seep into my thinking about advising, and there is a phenomenon that has recently resonated on this frequency for me. The “mashup,” mixing two or more existing songs together to create a new song, is not necessarily a new practice, but it has gained great momentum and visibility in the past few years. A major player in this genre is Girl Talk, the stage name adopted by a biomedical engineer turned music producer and laptop wizard named Gregg Gillis. Girl Talk songs and albums are entirely constructed from pre-existing recorded material, much of which is highly recognizable pop and hip-hop music. A single album may have elements of over 300 different pre-existing songs. Some might question the artistry (or the legality) of such an endeavor, but Gillis enjoys enormous critical praise for his intricate constructions and collages. Gillis has described his songs as “transformative” (Schaefer, Regateao, Wise, and Meyer, 2008). He provides touchstones for the listener in that his work retains the recognizable elements of the original songs yet his presentation gives the listener something that is amazingly novel – familiar, but original. Gillis assimilates, analyzes and reflects on all those songs and his experiences with those songs and he ultimately constructs something that is new from the process.

I see a metaphorical connection between the mashup and the major-decision making and meaning making processes. Advisees come to advisors with life experiences that shape their context for interpreting and understanding their learning. For advisors, these stories inevitably contain recognizable themes or tropes, yet the familiarity of these experiences ultimately gives way to something entirely new and unique in each student. This is not to imply that advisors create or manipulate something in their students in the same way that Gillis does with his transformative songs, but we are positioned to facilitate a transformative experience for students -- to help them make meaning around how the accordance or discordance of previous and current learning relates to their educational goals and aspirations. Students are ultimately the arbiters of their journey, but, to borrow a metaphor from Kegan (1994), advisors can serve as a bridge to higher order thinking in which students can frame new or pre-existing thoughts about educational choices and pathways. The learning that occurs through such a process is transformative. Transformation, Self-Authorship, and Adult Learning

Many advisors believe that academic advising is an educational transaction with a curriculum and learning outcomes like classroom teaching (The NACADA “Advising is Teaching” bumper sticker has a visible presence in many advising offices on my campus). Many of those same advisors have a common goal that students leave their institutions as educated adults who perpetually assimilate their learning, reflect upon it, and are in a position to join the larger societal discourse in a meaningful way. In other words, advisors want students to be capable of and actively practice sound information processing, ongoing critical reflection and contextually-based decision making . This is squarely where the core concepts of transformative learning reside, and there is much literature in the arena of adult education and cognitive-structural development that explores it. Mezirow (1995, 2000) discussed the aforementioned italicized attributes as paramount in adult education, and he noted the important role that adult educators play in engaging learners in discourse that facilitates transformational learning. Kegan (2000) made a compelling distinction between informational and transformational learning in that the former only accommodates changes to what one knows while the latter accommodates both changes to what and how one knows. Glisczinski (2007) criticized systems of learning that are purely informational as “unreliable for navigating the current dynamics of postmodern life” (p. 319), and he argued that utilizing transformational learning systems in higher education will better situate students to negotiate the complexities of the postmodern world. Based on her important longitudinal research with college students, Baxter Magolda (1992, 1999, 2001) posited a theory of intellectual development, the Epistemological Reflection Model, and a related pedagogical model, the Learning Partnership Model, that are aligned with transformational learning.


12

The Learning Partnership Model employs methods that “validate students as knowers, situate learning within the student’s experience, and define learning as a mutually constructed activity” (2001, p. 191). Students whose learning experiences include these attributes move toward self-authorship and contextual knowing, the culminating stage of Epistemological Reflection Model. Transformation, Self-Authorship, and Academic Advising It not surprising that these explorations have begun to spill over directly into advising literature as well. Drawing on liberation learning theory and pedagogy elucidated by Friere (1993), Hemwall and Trachte (1999) called for advisors to consider their work as a form of praxis . The advisor and advisee engage in meaningful dialogues that lead the student to critically self-reflect on his/her experiences and the experiences of others. The student ultimately acts upon this learning experience to shape his/her goals and aspirations. Elsewhere, Hemwall and Trachte (2003) recall Kegan when they shared an advising curriculum organized around constructivist learning principles that facilitate higher order thinking. Pizzolato (2006) argued that the CAS standards for academic advising could best be realized through educational practices that promote self-authorship. She fleshed out Baxter Magolda’s Learning Partnership Model to demonstrate advising methods that provoke students away from being externally defined toward self-authorship. Baxter Magolda and King (2008) then tied the process of self-authorship directly to the transformational learning concepts articulated by Mezirow and argued that, “academic advising is a key venue through which educators can assist students through this transformation” (p.8). Applying the Theory to Undecided/Exploring Students: An Advising Mashup The advisor toolbox has a space for transformation and self-authorship theories, and they are particularly useful in working with undecided/exploratory students. For many students, the process of deciding on a field of study can amount to a significant transformation in that it provides definition and clarity to their undergraduate pathway and beyond. Effective major decision-making is an active process of gathering information and making meaning of that information relative to the self – i.e. “how do the attributes of this area of study correspond to my like and dislikes and my skills and talents”. Effective major decisions often move students from a place where they are externally defined to where they are internally defined – i.e. ‘I’m pursuing this major because it is the right fit for me, not because the market demands it or my parents or friends or mentors told me to do it”. Advisors are greatly indebted to Gordon (1987) for her developmental model for working with undecided/exploring students. Congruence exists between this model and transformation theory. A compelling relationship can be made between it and Mezirow’s (2000) description of the phases inherent in transformational learning and the process of “meaning becoming clarified” (p. 22) (see Table 1): Table 1. Virginia Gordon’s Model for Advising Exploring Students (1987)

Jack Mezirow’s Phases of Meaning Becoming Clarified toward Transformation (2000)

1. Help students analyze their situation 2. Help students organize a plan for exploring

(information gathering) 3. Help students integrate the information

they have collected 4. Support students while they make

decisions 5. Help students initiate an action plan 6. Encourage future contact

1. A disorienting dilemma 2. Self-examination with feelings of fear,

anger, guilt, or shame 3. A critical assessment of assumptions 4. Recognition that one’s discontent and

process of transformation are shared 5. Exploration of options for new roles,

relationships, and actions 6. Planning a course of action 7. Acquiring knowledge and skills for

implementing one’s plans 8. Provisional trying on of new roles 9. Building competence and self-confidence in

new roles and relationships 10. A reintegration into one’s life on the basis

of conditions dictated by one’s new FYAC Faculty – Exploring Major Choices with First Year Students

C. Van Gilder – Spring 201213

perspective Mezirow (1995) suggested that, “The central function of adult educators is to facilitate and precipitate critical reflection by the individual learner.” (p.59). Gordon’s model integrates the advisor as facilitator into the transformative experience. In the spirit of Gregg Gillis and Girl Talk, here is my mashup -- a synthesis of these lists that exemplifies transformational learning concepts and their relevance to developmental advising:

1. Advisors can help students negotiate the disorienting dilemma of being undecided about a major.

2. Advisors can help students examine what their undecidedness means in terms of their identity and experiences, inside and outside of the classroom, and assess assumptions, predispositions, or anxieties they might have which may enhance or inhibit change.

3. Advisors can help students explore available and pertinent information that may influence their decision and position them to take on a new role and/or identity.

4. Advisors can help students explore situations where they can try on new roles and build confidence as they move toward their decision.

5. Advisors can help students reflect on their learning and synthesize information into a concrete decision about major.

6. Advisors can help students to transition into their new role and can continue to serve as a resource for students as they encounter other possible transformations.

Transformative and Self-Authorship Advising Strategies These concepts can ultimately manifest as tangible advising activities. The advising appointment itself is a natural space where meaningful dialogues and critical reflection can occur. And while it is unrealistic to think that advisors can neglect the prescriptive elements of advising, time must also be allocated for topics relating to the students’ learning. Strategic questioning can determine progress in decision-making, can illuminate misinformation or misunderstanding, and can point out direction for future inquiry. Engaging students in active learning exercises like simulated conversations (mock interviews/role playing) or writing pro-con lists or “minute” papers can also achieve these ends. In her research, Pizzolato (2006) has pointed to two common advising experiences among students who have achieved self-authorship and internal definition: goal reflection and volitional planning. Her elaboration on the Learning Partnership Model included several excellent questions and conversation tracks that advisors can employ in helping students toward transformation (p. 43). Likewise, Baxter Magolda and King (2008) offered a useful list of questions that advisors can use to prompt students to reflect and make meaning of their experiences (pp. 9-10). The face-to-face appointment is only a part of transformative advising. Strategically prompting undecided/exploring students to analyze their situation prior to and after the advising appointment is important as it can enhance immediate and/or future interactions the advisor might have with them. Advisors can help exploring students prepare for an imminent appointment by providing an advance e-mail or intake form with questions that the student can respond to prior to the appointment. This allows the student to reflect and anticipate questions the advisor will ask during the appointment. Examples of pre-appointment questions might include:

o What are some new things you’ve experienced this term? Have you had any significant experiences inside or outside the classroom, which have influenced your thoughts on major?

o Think about the types of classes, subjects, and learning environments you’ve encountered thus far and respond to these prompts.

I’ve found that I enjoy… I seem to be good at …

o Discuss two specific actions you have taken since the start of the year to make progress in deciding on a major? What did you learn from your experiences?

FYAC Faculty – Exploring Major Choices with First Year Students

C. Van Gilder – Spring 201214

Questions like these can serve as a platform for a more robust discussion about goals and aspirations during the appointment. That conversation should culminate in a to-do list that synthesizes key points from the conversation with action items and/or lines of inquiry that the student can pursue after the appointment. Employing these strategies with exploring students will situate them to continue their journey towards transformation and self-authorship. It also situates advisors to witness a process akin to a Girl Talk mashup. Advisors get to see how students can take the recognizable themes associated with the decision-making process and mash them up to create a compelling story – familiar, yet amazingly original. References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville : Vanderbilt University Press. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling , Va: Stylus. Baxter Magolda, M.B. and King, P.M. (2008) Toward reflective conversations: An advising approach that promotes self-authorship. Peer Review, 10(1); Friere, P (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed: Newly revised 20 th Anniversary edition. New York: Continuum Glisczinski, D. (2007). Transformative higher education: A meaningful degree of understanding. Journal of Transformative Education. 5 (4), 317-328. Gordon, V. N. (1995). The undecided college student: An academic and career advising Challenge (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas. Hemwall, M. K., & Trachte, K. C. (1999). Learning at the core: Toward a new understanding of academic advising. NACADA Journal . 19 (1), 5-11. Hemwall, M. K., & Trachte, K. C. (2003). Academic advising and a learning paradigm.In M.K. Hemwall & K.C. Trachte (Eds.), Advising and learning: Academic advising from the perspective of small colleges and universities (Monograph No. 8 [National Academic Advising Association]; pp. 13-19). Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms?: A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (1995) Transformation theory of adult learning. In M.R. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult learning (pp. 39-70). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press


15

Pizzolato, J. E. (2006). Complex partnerships: Self-authorship and provocative academic-advising practices. NACADA Journal . 26 (1), 32-45 Schaefer, J., Regateao, G., Wise, B., & Meyer, J. 2008, Oct. 10. The sample life, WNYC Soundcheck. Podcast retrieved from http://www.wnyc.org/shows/soundcheck/episodes/2008/10

*Please note that the bolding was added by Cynthia Van Gilder, February 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *Undecided/Exploratory Students and Persistence

David Spight, Past Chair, NACADA Undecided and Exploratory Students Commission Assistant Dean for Advising, The School of Undergraduate Studies, The University of Texas at Austin

There is a perception within higher education that students who start college without a declared major are less likely to persist. Early literature described undecided students as an at-risk population that needed special attention in order to be retained. Recent research argues otherwise. Below is a brief summary of the literature related to persistence and undecided/exploratory students. Much of the initial research was not directly aimed at examining undecided students, but rather sought to determine reasons for student attrition. According to Noel (1985), there are seven forms of attrition, with academic boredom and uncertainty of major as types of attrition specifically associated with undecided students. Noel believes that students become bored because they lack motivation. He attributes this academic boredom to undecided students, describing it as reflective of students without clear goals. Noel (1985) also claims that, “uncertainty about what to study is the most frequent reason talented students give for dropping out of college” (p. 12). Anderson (1985) agrees, suggesting that uncertainty and indecision about career plans is a negative personal barrier to persistence for undecided students. Typical undecided students, Anderson feels, lack goals and direction, which is a reason why these students leave college. Sprandel (1985) contends that a major reason why students drop out is the inability to succeed academically. One reason for academic failure for vocationally and educationally uncertain students, Sprandel believes, is that they “lack a real reason for going to school” (p. 303). Foote (1980) felt other factors, however, were more likely to affect persistence than the initial choice of major. Impacting student attrition at a higher rate than major choice were the pre-college academic aptitude and achievement of students. “High school percentile rank and ACT entrance test scores appeared to be more related to persistence in college than major designation” (p. 33). Students with higher entrance exam scores were more likely to progress successfully in college. Foote did also find that “determined” students remained in college at a statistically higher rate than “undetermined” students. As with most research about undecided students, there is little agreement. Some researchers recognize that determining the cause of attrition is problematic, as undecided students do not make up a homogenous group. Gordon (1985) expresses, “some of the general factors identified as causing attrition have also been used to describe the undecided students population” (p. 116), but admits, “it is difficult if not dangerous to make generalizations” (p. 117). Anderson (1985) concedes “there is seldom a single cause for any human behavior; rather the causes are multiple and interrelated” (p. 50-52). Some scholars have determined academically uncertain students are not more likely to leave college. Lewallen (1993) believes that being vocationally undecided does not mean a student does not want to graduate. Additionally, Graunke, Woosley, and Helms (2006) found that the “commitment to a specific major or career is not related to degree completion” (p.17). Lewallen


16

(1993) explains that the previous studies suggesting that undecided students are more likely to drop out “have confused the construct of commitment to college completion with educational and career choice” (p. 103). Lewallen (1992) claims “by far, the most critical methodological problem” (p. 32) is reflected in the design of the research on student persistence. The design used in many studies is “an ‘income-outcome’ assessment approach to researching the problem” (p. 32) with the input variable being undecided and persistence/attrition as the outcome variable. This approach, unfortunately, does not consider other factors such as those within college student experiences, campus environment, or student involvement. Lewallen (1992) argues that the misperception that undecided students are at higher risk of attrition has been reinforced by frequent citation of Beal and Noel (1980), in which they researched information from staff and administrators from hundreds of colleges and universities. Beal and Noel explain: “The survey instrument itself was designed to solicit information on institutional retention data regarding the degree to which analysis of attrition/retention had taken place on the campus, on the positive and negative characteristics of institutions that might relate to attrition or retention, and on how campuses were organized for retention efforts, and on assessment of the problem area encountered by institutions engaged in retention efforts” (Beal and Noel, 1980, p. 15-16).

Beal and Noel (1980) found in their results what they felt were the “most important factors in student retention...on a scale of one (low) to five (high)” (p. 43). They believe there are four factors related to why students might be less likely to persist. Limited educational aspirations and indecision about major/career goal, the second and third factors, support the contention that undecided students are more attrition-prone. Lewallen (1992) counters that there are some problems with Beal and Noel’s (1980) findings, as their results “were not empirically derived from studying students, but were the result of respondents’ opinions, perceptions, and judgments” (p. 29-30). As Lewallen (1992) describes, most research on undecided student persistence and attrition is flawed: The literature which examines undecided student persistence/attrition is not very plentiful. Some of these studies did not directly examine undecided students, but rather examined persistence/attrition in general. It is extremely difficult to make generalizations from this research and to conclude that undecided students are attrition prone because of numerous methodological problems (Lewallen, 1992, p. 30). More recently, Cuseo (2005) agreed with Lewallen that it is unfortunate there is a perception that undecided students are more attrition-prone. He argues that decided students who made inappropriate choices of major based on lack of information, lack of thoughtful planning, or lack of a realistic self-assessment of their abilities and interests, might in fact be at a greater risk of leaving college than undecided students. Graunke, Woosley, and Helms (2006) also found that “individuals who reported relatively high levels of commitment toward a specific career path were less likely to complete a degree in six years than were individuals who reported lower levels of commitment” (p. 17). The significant number of major changers as shown in research (Foote, 1980; Kramer, Higley, & Olsen, 1994; Pierson, 1962; Titley and Titley, 1980) supports the possibility that decided students are at least at a comparable level of risk of attrition as undecided students. Based upon these findings we, as advisors, may want to consider how we can help our “declared” students confirm or reject their initial choice of major, and how are we targeting them in our retention efforts. References: Anderson, E. (1985). Forces influencing student persistence and achievement. In Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates. Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass


17

Beal, P.E., & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention. Iowa City, IA and Boulder, CO: The American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Cuseo, J. (2005). “Decided,” “undecided,” and “in transition”: Implications for academic advisement, career counseling & student retention. In R.S. Feldman (Ed.). Improving the first year of college: Research and practice . (pp.27-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Foote, B. (1980). Determined- and undetermined-major students: How different are they? Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 29-34. Gordon, V.N. (1985). Students with uncertain academic goals. In Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates. Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Graunke, S.S., Woosley, S.A., & Helms, L.L. (2006). How do their initial goals impact students’ chances to graduate? An exploration of three types of commitment. NACADA Journal, 26(1) , 13-18. Kramer, G.L., Higley, H.B., & Olsen, D. (1994). Changes in academic major among undergraduate students. College and University, 69(2), 88-98. Lewallen, W.C. (1992). Persistence of the “undecided”: The characteristics and college persistence of students undecided about academic major or career choice. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 12A, 4226. Lewallen, W.C. (1993). The impact of being “undecided” on college-student persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 34(2), 103-112. Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: New challenges and potential. In Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates. Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pierson, R.P. (1962). Changes of major by university students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 40, 458-461. Sprandel, H.Z. (1985). Career planning and counseling. In Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates. (1985). Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Titley, R.W., & Titley, B.S. (1980). Initial choice of college major: Are only the “undecided” undecided? Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 293-298.


18

Documents

Undecided/Exploratory Students and Persistence Web viewOf course, faculty advisors can ... (NACE) indicating that ... I am a music fan in the truest sense of the word being short for