English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This work­in­progress paper describes the work Northwestern University’s School of Engineering is doing to implement change in how first­year students are advised. Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, McCormick, wanted to provide consistent advising to the incoming class, opportunities for students to feel a sense of belonging within the school, and help to students develop the skills required to become self­reliant, resilient, and successful University graduates. The McCormick Administration decided to build an advising model based on a learner­centered concept sometimes called the Advising­as­Teaching paradigm. Traditionally, First­Year students at Northwestern University were assigned to a faculty adviser, in a department based on their stated intended major. Undeclared students were randomly assigned to a faculty member. This advising model gave incoming students a home department, but not necessarily the department undeclared students wanted. In addition, students that changed majors, or were exploring majors, often needed to find their own connections with faculty in other departments. Lastly, in addition to helping students new to the university, higher education, and Engineering, faculty were tasked with teaching, building and managing research programs, advising graduate students, publishing and making progress towards promotion and tenure.While the adviser­training gave faculty the tools to help students build a schedule, many faculty had little time to actually engage and advise undergraduate students. Many faculty were not fully engaging students . Faculty advising across McCormick departments led to uneven advising for First­Year students. Under the new model, McCormick Advisers are tasked with academic advising and teaching. This 55/45 split in duties means the Advisers are more focused on the task of advising incoming classes. In exchange, McCormick Advisers advise each class through its first year. McCormick Advisers are also co­located in a suite. This office arrangement, along with a narrow focus, are able to collaborate on advising and mentoring students. Outcomes of the model should come in the form of increased student satisfaction with academic advising, increased awareness of and participation in academic programs such as Study Abroad, Exchange and Co­Ops Programs, and the Engineering School. The success of the advising change will be measured in multiple ways.  Students will participate in both summative and formative assessment activities throughout the academic year. This assessment will be conducted by Student Affairs as part of the First­Year Seminar. Additional assessment will be conducted by the Engineering School. Students will be given an opportunity to participate in an Advising Survey. In past years, sophomore and senior students were surveyed. Starting this year, all students will be given an advising survey. The University will continue its satisfaction survey as well. This paper will explore the intended and unintended consequences of changing the advising model for First­Year Engineering students at McCormick. Introduction Due to lackluster reviews of the First­Year advising system, McCormick Administration decided to change the process. As part of the Senior Exit Survey and Sophomore Satisfaction Surveys, McCormick Students are asked to rate the advising services they received. Prior to 2013, Advising was provided exclusively by faculty across departments. Under this system, students expressed varying levels of satisfaction with the advising they received. In particular, the Sophomore Satisfaction Survey indicated students were strongly dissatisfied  with First­Year advising. Under the old advising system, no overarching theory was used to guide the advising of First­Year engineering students­­ each faculty adviser was free to approach their advising responsibilities as he or she saw fit. With the introduction of a new First­Year advising initiative, came the opportunity to implement proven ideas on First­Year advising. Four new faculty were hired as First­Year advisers, in addition to teaching introductory engineering courses. The Advising­as­Teaching model guided the implementation of the changes to advising and introduce new advising services. In the developmental view of Advising­as­Teaching, both the adviser and student have a responsibility to actively engage in the advising tasks. For this model to work, the adviser and student must take time to discuss their working relationship so as to avoid conflicts arising from different expectations of advising (Crookston, 1994). First­Year advisers with larger numbers of students can find it difficult to build these relationships because their knowledge of the students is typically limited to high school transcripts, test scores, and demographics. In response, some advisers have turned to online student surveys to learn more about their goals and approaches to their education (Smith, 2006). McCormick uses several online tools to help in advising. These tools will be discussed later. Background According to Creamer, there are no theories of advising, but there are several theories within education and social science that influence advising (Williams, 2012). In implementing changes to First­Year advising in McCormick, there is an on­going discussion about what type of advising approaches exist, what should be used, and when different approaches are appropriate. There are several advising approaches McCormick considered. In discussing what approaches would best fit the goals of McCormick Advising, several were discussed­­ Advising­as­Teaching, Developmental, Intrusive, Prescriptive and Social Constructivism. Each of these approaches has merit, and is used in various situations by McCormick advisers and others at Northwestern University. Intrusive Advising is an advising approach to help motivate students to seek help (Earl,1987). This advising approach is meant to help at­risk students. Intrusive Advising differs from Prescriptive Advising in that the adviser is taking the initiative to engage students that are having problems, and may not know how to get help. Developmental Advising is a partnership approach. Both student and adviser are responsible for educational discovery. The adviser and student are responsible for the educational experience of the student. This means the student has to be willing to articulate her goals, and the adviser has to be willing to help the student determine her goals, then help the student find answers to her questions. Advisers in this model do not have to know all the answers, and may learn new information from the students. Advising­as­Teaching is an approach to advising that challenges students to explore their options and take risks (Hughes, 2014). Advising­as­Teaching is a form of Developmental Advising, in that students and faculty are partners in the student’s educational experience (Missouri State, 2015). The adviser assumes the role of a guide, helping the student determine her direction (educational goals), then helping set the student on her path. While Development Advising focuses more on personal growth, Advising­as­Teaching seeks to enhance student learning. Prescriptive Advising is defined as a linear form of communicating and advising. The adviser gives the student information and the student acts on the information. This advising approach places responsibility for finding answers to specific student questions on the adviser and the student is responsible for acting on that advice (Frost, 2012). This approach to advising assumes that the adviser has all the answers, and that students know what questions to ask. This approach to advising focuses mainly on the course requirements to earn a degree (Hughes 2014). Prescriptive Advising is sometimes used when students are following up on something that was previously discussed. Prescriptive Advising is also used in group advising sessions. The goal of group advising is to communicate the basic information students need to start prepare their study plans. Social Constructivism is an advising approach that is based on the concept that learners build (or construct) knowledge based on what they already know or believe. In a Social Constructivist approach to advising, the adviser takes time to understand what a student already knows, or believes, about their educational experience, and helps the student build on that knowledge. In this approach, the student can seek out knowledge from multiple sources, and verify what he thinks he knows with his adviser. Each of these advising approaches is used within Northwestern University to help advise students at different stages in their academic experience. When these approaches are used will be discussed in more detail. Old Advising Model Prior to the Fall of 2013, all McCormick undergraduate and graduate students were advised by faculty. Students were assigned an adviser based on intended major. Undeclared students were assigned at random to faculty. All students had an adviser, but may not have had an adviser who was able to help them explore their major interests or know what resources were available to help students choose a major. In addition, advisers were also expected to help students find information on other academic programs outside of their major and department, such as Study Abroad, second degrees/majors, minors and certificates. Therefore, many advisers were not able to provide the support students need. Faculty are tasked with teaching Undergraduate and/or Graduate classes, pursuing research programs, advising and mentoring graduate students and serving on Departmental, School and University Committees. Some faculty felt they were not able to keep up with their responsibilities as well as advise. Under this model, too many students and faculty were not satisfied with First­ Year advising. New Advising Model (McCormick Advising & Mentoring

Changing the Advising Model