Moving to a
Collaborative Intake
Charles W. Mattis
ModelDr.Incorporating
Dean of the First-Year Program
First-Year
Seminar
Abilene Christian
University
Private
Four Year
Residential
Comprehensive
4,700 Students
50 States
60 Nations
117
Undergraduate
Programs
35 Graduate
Programs
Christian
Tradition
Churches of
Christ
“…to
educate
students
for
Christian
service and
leadership
throughout
the world.”
University
Seminar



Required of all
students with less
than 22 hours.
One hour credit,
lasting the entire
semester.
Taught by faculty
and staff with at
least a masters
degree.
University
Seminar


20 student
maximum
enrollment.
Upper class
student
serves as a
Peer Leader
throughout
the course.
Academic Advising
“Good advising may be the single
most underestimated
characteristic of a successful
college experience.”
Richard Light,
Making the Most of College
(2001), p.8
Academic Advising
“Brown and Sanstead (1999) link
effective academic advising to
student persistence in college,
improved GPA, positive influence on
career choices and educational goals,
and satisfaction with the college
experience.”
Working Assumptions



Academic advising is related to
student achievement and retention.
Advising should be structured,
proactive, and responsive to the
unique needs of first-year students.
CAS standards and NACADA’s core
values should be followed.
Working Assumptions


First-year advising should assist
students in planning a program
consistent with their abilities and
interests.
Those who advise first-year students
should be well informed of
administrative policies and
procedures unique to that
population.
Working Assumptions


Those who advise first-year students
should be well informed of the
characteristics and challenges that
are unique to this group.
Advisors should be well informed of
institutional resources available for
first-year students.
Working Assumptions



Advising should help vulnerable firstyear students with sound academic
planning, defining and developing
realistic educational and career
goals.
Advising should promote the mission
of the institution.
Advising should be developmental
rather than prescriptive.
The Challenge
“It is clear from those conversations
[focus groups] and subsequent
follow-up, as well as review of
documents provided, that ACU needs
to give immediate and in-depth
attention to academic advising
services.”
- Noel & Henderson, 1989
The Challenge
“We found academic advising at ACU to
be uneven at best. Students tend to
see advising as scheduling of courses
once per term—not as a vehicle for
facilitating academic growth and
development on an ongoing basis.”
Bryant & Low (1997). P. 29-40
USA Group, Noel-Levitz
Levels of Student Satisfaction
Prior to Implementation
Only 64% of firstyear students
reported being
either “satisfied”
or “very satisfied”
with Academic
Advising at ACU in
1999.
Institutional Models for Academic
Advising

Decentralized: advising services are
provided by faculty or staff in their
academic departments. Even though
overall coordination of advising may
be centralized, advisors are
accountable to their respective
departments. Examples: Faculty
only, Satellite.
Standard Advising Models

Satellite
Student
A
Academic
Unit Advising
Office
Student
B
Academic
Unit Advising
Office
Institutional Models for Academic
Advising


Centralized: all academic advising is
provided from a central
administrative unit. Example: SelfContained.
Shared: advisor function is shared
between departmental advisors and
staff in a central administrative unit.
Examples: Supplementary, Split,
Dual and Total Intake.
Standard Advising Models

Student
A
Student
B
Split
Advisi
ng
Office
Acade
mic
Unit
Acade
mic
Unit
Standard Advising Models

Stude
nt
Dual
Advisi
ng
Office
Facult
y
Standard Advising Models

Stude
nt
Total Intake
Advisin
g
Office
Acade
mic
Unit
ACU’s Advising Model

Split
+
 Dual
Student
Student
AA
Student
Student
BB
+

Satellite
Student
Student
CC
Student
Student
DD
ACU’s Advising Model
Split
+
 Dual
+
 Satellite

ACU’s Advising Model
“Uneven Academic
Advising”
??
Stude
nt
Collaborative Intake Model
U100
Facul
ty
Stud
ent
Acade
mic
Unit
Proposed Advising Model
Collaboration
between:
Academic Units
and
University
Seminar Faculty
Challenges to Proposed Model


Training University
Seminar Faculty to
serve as advisors
to multiple majors.
Compensating
University Seminar
Faculty for
additional duties.
Challenges to Proposed Model


Requiring
University Seminar
Faculty to be
present during
summer orientation
sessions.
Perceived loss of
Departmental input
and control.
Implementation



Secured strong backing from all
levels of administration.
Held a series of “Town Hall” meetings
to promote buy in across the
institution.
Met with department chairs who
were the most concerned about the
proposed model.
Implementation



Ask Departments to build tentative
student schedules.
Departments would host an
information session for their students
at Passport (Orientation).
Departments would host a group
advising session in the fall prior to
spring registration.
Implementation


Increased stipend for faculty overload
or option to teach as “in load” where
possible. (3 hour course load
reduction - 2 hours for the course and
summer responsibility, and 1 hour for
advising).
Additional training provided to
instructors in developmental advising
and technical aspects of schedule
building.
Implementation


More extensive training for first time
faculty.
Instituted a mandatory one-one
meeting between students and
University Seminar faculty/advisors
during the fall semester.
Implementation



Students complete a “Degree Plan
Assignment” which details their four
year plan of course work.
Peer Leaders are now required in all
University Seminar sections.
Peer Leader expectations and
training include an academic advising
component.
Implementation


Development of a “Degree Plan
Notebook” which details all degrees
and first semester sample schedules
(now on line).
Develop an “Instructors Resource
Manual” which includes advising
issues related to first-year students
(soon to be online).
Results:




Students see their advisor weekly in
class, increasing availability.
Early, stronger advisor/advisee
relationship.
Opportunity to move beyond course
scheduling into career and life goal
exploration.
Involve faculty in advising as a form of
teaching.
Results:




Increase the perceived value and
quality of the course.
Undeclared students now get more
individualized attention.
Peer Leaders are now an important
component of the advising process.
Increased focus on a shared
responsibility between Departments
and University Seminar Faculty.
Ongoing Challenges



Departmental cooperation and
support.
Providing adequate opportunities for
interaction between entering
students and their department.
University Seminar Faculty do not
use the technology enough to be
proficient.
Ongoing Challenges


Keeping University Seminar Faculty
current with ever changing advising
policies and procedures.
Recruitment and training of
University Seminar faculty who are
interested in going the “extra mile”.
Responses of first-year students’
satisfaction with academic advising
after implementation in 2000.
Unexpected Additional Benefits:


Some departments
have opted to have
departmental
sections taught by
their faculty.
Number of full time
faculty teaching the
course has risen from
59% to 72.5%.
Unexpected Additional Benefits
Special population
University Seminar
sections have been
implemented which
have common advising
issues:
• Honors
• Student Success
(under-prepared students)
Discussion
Dr. Charles W.
Mattis

(325) 674-2212

[email protected]

http://www.acu.
edu/fyp