NACADA International Conference Handouts
Melbourne, Australia
June 2015
Advising for the 21st Century:
The Use of Technology as a Tool to Achieve Academic Advising Learning Outcomes
Presenters:
Elizabeth Adadi
[email protected]
Florida International University
Sarai Harris
[email protected]
Florida International University
Advising as Teaching
Advising is viewed as a teaching function based on a negotiated agreement between the student
and the teacher in which varying degrees of learning by both parties to the transaction are the
product (Crookston, 1972).
What Do Advisors Teach?




How to create the logic of one's education
How to view the pieces of curriculum as parts of a whole that makes sense to the learner
How to base educational choices on a developing sense of the overall edifice being selfbuilt
How to continually enhance learning experiences by relating them to knowledge that has
been previously learned
(Lowenstein, 2005)
Academic Advising Learning Outcomes





Knows Requirements
Understand How Things Work
Knows Resources
Sees Connections
Has an Educational Plan
Graduation Success Initiative

Technological tools:
o MyFIU – Student’s home page
o MyMajor – A searchable database of information on all FIU undergraduate
majors which includes Major Maps
o My MajorMatch - An on-line occupational interest inventory that links the
student's occupational interests to FIU majors
o My_eAdvisor - An automated tracking tool that provides students and advisors
with immediate semester-by-semester feedback regarding the students'
progression on their Major Maps
o Panther Degree Audit (PDA) - Includes many useful tools for students and
advisors, such as assessing what is left to graduate, planning how to get there, and
registering for specific courses.
Alternative Useful Technologies





Adobe Connect
Podcasting
Facebook
Twitter
Skype
Teaching Models
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
The Technology Acceptance Model is an information systems theory that simulates how users
come to accept and use a technology. The purpose of TAM is to predict the acceptability of a
tool and to identify the modification which must be brought to the system in order to make it
acceptable to users. This model suggests that the acceptability of an information system is
determined by two main factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
Technology Acceptance Model from Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989.
ASSURE Model (Smaldino, Lowther, Mims, & Russell, 2015)
Based on Robert Gagne’s “Events of Instruction, the ASSURE model is an instructional systems
design process that was modified to be used by teachers in the regular classroom. The
instructional systems design process is one in which academic advisors can use to design and
develop the most appropriate learning environment for their students.
Nondirective Teaching Model (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2015)
The nondirective teaching model was developed by Carl Rogers who was a strong advocate for
using nondirective counseling. With the learner at the center, nondirective teaching focuses on
self-awareness, understanding, autonomy, and self-concept. In this instance, the advisor is a
facilitator who has counseling relationship with student in order to guide their growth and
development. There are five phases in this model:





Phase One: Define the Helping Situation
Phase Two: Explore the Problem
Phase Three: Develop Insight
Phase Four: Planning and Decision Making
Phase Five: Integration
*All of which would lead to action outside the interview
Keller's ARCS Model of Motivation (Keller, 2010)
John Keller’s ARCS model of motivational design is a systematic problem solving approach that
requires knowledge of human motivation and progresses from learner analysis to solution design.
More specifically, the process includes:





Knowing and identifying the elements of human motivation
Analyzing audience characteristics to determine motivational requirements
Identifying characteristics of instructional materials and processes that simulate
motivation
Selecting appropriate motivational tactics and
Applying and evaluating appropriate tactics
Attention
Relevance
Confidence
1. Incongruity and Conflict: Use contradictions, play "devil’s advocate"
2. Concreteness: Use visual representations, anecdotes and biographies
3. Variability: Change—tone of voice, movements, instructional format,
media, layout & design of instructional material, and interaction patterns
4. Humor: Use puns, humorous analogies & anecdotes, and jokes
(w/moderation)
5. Inquiry: Use problem-solving activities and constructive practices
6. Participation: Use games, simulations, role-playing, etc.
1. Experience:
a. Tell learners how new learning will use existing skills
b. Use analogies to relate current learning to prior experience
c. Relate to learner interests
2. Present Worth: Explicitly state the current value of instruction
3. Future Usefulness: Relate instruction to future goals (have students
participate in this)
4. Need Matching: Give students the opportunity to achieve, exercising
responsibility, authority, and influence
5. Modeling: Use enthusiasm, peer-modeling, etc.
6. Choice: (student choice)
1. Learning Requirements: Advise students of requirements (goals &
objectives).
2. Difficulty: Sequence activities in increasing difficulty w/continual but
reasonable challenge.
3. Expectations: Use metacognition to forecast outcomes based upon effort;
set realistic goals.
4. Attributions: Encourage students to internalize locus of control by
attributing success to themselves
5. Self-Confidence: Foster using confidence strategies
Attention
Satisfaction
1. Incongruity and Conflict: Use contradictions, play "devil’s advocate"
2. Concreteness: Use visual representations, anecdotes and biographies
3. Variability: Change—tone of voice, movements, instructional format,
media, layout & design of instructional material, and interaction patterns
4. Humor: Use puns, humorous analogies & anecdotes, and jokes
(w/moderation)
5. Inquiry: Use problem-solving activities and constructive practices
6. Participation: Use games, simulations, role-playing, etc.
1. Natural Consequences: Allow students to use newly acquired skills in
realistic, successful settings
2. Unexpected Rewards: Include student expectation of extrinsic reward
(for boring tasks) or use a surprise reward
3. Positive Outcomes: Provide feedback—praise, personal attention,
motivation—immediately
4. Avoidance of Negative Influences: Don’t use threats, surveillance
practices and total external evaluation
5. Scheduling: Repeat reinforcement at fluctuating, non-predictable intervals
VARK Model (Fleming & Mills, 1992)
The acronym VARK stands for Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic sensory modalities
that are used for learning information. While existing research has found that matching teaching
methods to learning styles had no influence on educational outcomes, the concept of learning
styles remains extremely popular. Neil Flemming’s VARK model is one of the most popular
representations.
In Fleming’s model, sometimes referred to as VARK learning styles, learners are identified by
whether they have a preference for visual learning (pictures, movies, diagrams), auditory
learning (music, discussion, lectures), reading and writing (marking lists, reading textbooks,
taking notes), or kinesthetic learning (movement, experiments, hands-on activities).
Resources:
Graduation Success Initiative:
http://undergrad.fiu.edu/gsi/advisors.html
Technology Acceptance Model:
http://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/technology-acceptance-model-tam/29485
ASSURE Model:
http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/assure.html
Non-Directive Teaching
https://prezi.com/5ie1zv6lafmi/nondirective-teaching/
ARCS Model of Motivation:
http://www.arcsmodel.com/
VARK Model:
http://vark-learn.com/home/
References
Crookston, B. B. (1994). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. NACADA
Journal, 14(2), 5-9. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal.aspx
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Retrieved from http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/DavisBagozzi.pdf
Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To
Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155.
Florida International University. (2015). GSI: Graduation success initiative. Retrieved from
http://undergrad.fiu.edu/gsi/advisors.html
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Nondirective Teaching. In Models of teaching. (9th
ed., pp. 283-299). Pearson.
Keller, J. M. (2010). The ARCS model of motivational design. In Motivational design for
learning and performance (pp. 43-74). doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
Lowenstein, M. (2005). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal,
25(2), 65-73. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal.aspx
Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Russell, J. D., & Mims, C. (2015). Instructional technology and
media for learning (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.