Academic Advising Evaluation: A Review of Assessment Instruments.
The results of various reports indicate that there is very little evaluation of academic advising. More consistent evaluation, however, could help delineate advising factors critical in producing some of the positive results attributed to good advising. To facilitate the use and development of instruments and to promote evaluation, this article reviews student, advisor, and administrator surveys in terms of their length, content, format, and use. The importance of choosing evaluation instruments appropriate for specific assessment purposes is discussed.
A Model for Advising in an Individualized Undergraduate College
Since its beginning in 1970, the New College, a degree-granting division of The University of Alabama for highly motivated students, has maintained three curriculum components: (1) a general education core of six interdisciplinary seminars in the division-two levels each of the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences-; (2) a depth study (major), consisting typically of ten to twelve courses in one discipline or appropriate interdisciplinary area; and (3) electives. Aside from the core seminars, however, the students' programs are as varied as the 200 students in the college. For developing a personalized curriculum plan, each student has access to the 2500 undergraduate courses offered through the eleven undergraduate colleges, schools, and special programs at the University; independent study and off-campus learning experiences by contracts; and, with special permission, certain graduate courses that may enhance the student's depth study. Needless to say, sound academic advising is of paramount importance in such a program, and over the years a model has been developed that has proved highly successful in assisting most New College students in meeting their goals as undergraduates. At the heart of this system, called "contract advising," are faculty who take seriously the importance of their advising responsibilities. Interest in working with students beyond the classroom is an important consideration when hiring new teaching staff. Thus when a professor becomes part of New College, along with the teaching assignment comes a group of advisees with academic goals related to the faculty member's interests. The number of advisees ranges from five t o new faculty with a one-fourth-time joint appointment in the division to thirty for full-time administrator-teachers. With their advisor's assistance, students set goals, plan academic schedules, and enlist members of their contract advising committees. They are expected to seek advising and become informed about learning experiences that can enhance their curricula. Many become advisors themselves through service on the Admissions Task Force, assisting in screening and advising of prospective students; as "peer advisors," providing assistance to other students in the division; and as University "Avanti Counselors," working with the staff of the New Student Office in the University's orientation programs. Yet, the advising system developed by the College reaches most of those neglecting to initiate their own participation. Many people and support services are involved directly or adjunctly to the New College Contract Advising model, from the student's admission to the University through the New College admissions' process; from New Student Orientation to development of the contract advising committee and the beginning-of essential planning for his or her undergraduate education. Figure 1 illustrates the essence of this model.
The Factorial Validity of a Scale for Evaluation of Counselors in a University Counseling and Testing Center
For a sample of 270 students who sought on their own initiative counseling on academic, career, vocational, and personal matters at a university counseling and testing center, intercorrelations of their responses to 20 statements on the Evaluation of Counselors (EOC) scale were factor-analyzed. The following five factor dimensions were identified: (a) Counselee Satisfaction with the Counseling and Testing Center, (b) Counselor's Facilitation of Counselee's Self-Understanding and Personal Growth, (c) Lack (or Presence) of Confidence in or Rapport with the Counselor, (d) Counselor as a Concerned and Effective Individual in His Relationship with the Counselee, and (e) Counselor Effectiveness in Communication and Interpretation of Information to the Counselee. Thus the EOC scale does not reflect a unitary evaluative dimension, but rather several dimensions of counseling effectiveness. Although the EOC scale was heterogeneous in its factorial content, two internal-consistency estimates of .867 and .921 were obtained for the reliability of the total scale