Quality of Academic Advising
From Student Questionnaire, Spring 1999
Key: 1st number = Excellent or Very Good; 2nd number = Fair or Neutral; 3rd number = Poor; 4th = No opinion
|
Faculty Member |
n |
Knowledge of
SILS
Courses |
Knowledge of
non-S
Courses |
Communica-tion
Skills |
Accessi- bility |
Overall Advising |
Usefulness of
Process |
|
Carr |
5 |
2 - 2 - 0 - 1 |
1 - 3 - 0 - 1 |
5 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
5 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 1 - 1 |
3 - 1
- 0 - 1 |
|
Daniel |
7 |
7 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 3 |
7 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
7 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
5 - 2 - 0 - 0 |
4 - 0 - 3 - 0 |
|
Dempsey |
1 |
0 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
0 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
0 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
0 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
0 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
0 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
|
Gollop |
4 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
1 - 2 - 0 - 1 |
4 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
4 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
|
Haas |
2 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
0 - 1 - 0 - 1 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
|
Losee |
3 |
2 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
1 - 1 - 0 - 1 |
2 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 1 - 0 |
|
Moran |
4 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
0 - 2 - 1 - 1 |
4 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 2 - 0 - 0 |
0 - 3 - 1 - 0 |
0 - 2 - 2 - 0 |
|
Newby |
2 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
1 - 0 - 0 - 1 |
1 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
1 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
0 - 1 - 1 - 0 |
|
Saye |
5 |
5 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 1 - 1 |
5 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
5 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
4 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
5 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
|
Solomon |
4 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
0 - 1 - o - 3 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
4 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
4 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
|
Sonnenwald |
3 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
|
Sturm |
3 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
|
Tibbo |
10 |
8 - 1 - 0 - 1 |
1 - 4 - 0 - 5 |
4 - 5 - 0 - 1 |
4 - 5 - 0 - 1 |
6 - 4 - 0 - 0 |
8 - 2 - 0 - 0 |
|
Viles |
3 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 0 - 0 - 1 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
2 - 1 - 0 - 0 |
3 - 0 - 0 - 0 |
|
TOTALS |
56 |
46 - 8 - 0 - 2 |
18 - 16 - 3 - 19 |
46 - 8 - 1 - 1 |
46 - 7 - 2 - 1 |
38 - 13 - 4 - 1 |
39 - 8 - 8 - 1 |
Conclusions: The majority of students are satisfied with their advisor's knowledge of SILS courses. They are somewhat less satisfied with their advisor's knowledge of non-SLIS courses; a third have no opinion and presumably are not in the market for non-SLIS courses. Students are very satisfied with the accessibility of their advisors and satisfied with their overall advisement. Two-thirds of the student respondents found the process very useful; 14% were neutral; and 14% rated it poor; one person had no opinion.
In response to question asking for the strengths of the advising process, students provided the following comments (variation in wording ignored): (Note: The numbers following the statement show the number of IS and LS students indicating this as a strength)
One-on-one time with advisor - 2 IS, 9 LS (!)
Advisor's personal knowledge helpful - 3 IS, 4 LS
Advisor gives direction/perspective -- 3 IS, 3 LS
Advisor shares specialized interests to customize program - 2 IS, 3 LS
Advisor helps student develop interests - 1 IS, 3 LS
Value of discussion - 2 IS, 2 LS
Opportunity to make decisions based on personal qualities - 0 IS, 4 LS
Advisor helps provide the big picture - 1 IS, 2 LS
School shows commitment to advising - 1 IS, 1 LS
Advisor makes suggestions rather than requirements - 1 IS, 0 LS
Good to set up whole program at beginning - 1 IS, 0 LS
Opportunity to check progress - O IS, 1 LS
Opportunity to learn advisor's comments from other students - 0 IS, 1 LS
And two somewhat negative comments:
Process is variable, some excellent, some bad - 0 IS, 1 LS
No major strengths in advising process - 1 IS, 1 LS
Three faculty members were singled out with positive comments: Drs. Carr, Saye, and Sturm.
Students were also asked to identify weaknesses with the advising process. Responses were less easy to group but four larger categories seemed to cover individual comments.
Problems with advisor:
"Temporary" advisor too new and outside my field - 3 LS
Advisor too busy; pre-advising too rushed - 3 LS
No real advising -- rubber stamp process - 1 IS
Insufficient contact with advisor - 1 LS
No relationship with advisor - 1 IS
Advisors need to know teaching methodologies of instructors to prevent incompatibilities - 1 LS
Didn't get my first choice of advisor - 1 LS
Advisor suggested inappropriate courses - 1 LS
Advisor didn't ask about my interests, plans - 1 LS
Advisor should encourage elective experimentation for those undecided between IS and LS - 1 LS
I wanted ideas on non-SILS courses to take - 1 LS
Advisor's view limited/limiting - 1 IS, 1 LS
Advisors don't know administrative requirements and must ask student services staff - 1 IS, 2 LS
Problems with Specialization:
No advisors with interest in law and business - 1 LS
Too much emphasis on specialization - 2 LS
Problems with System/School Procedures:
Hard to pick permanent advisor in 2 months time - 1 IS
Schedule not available for subsequent semesters; no long-range planning - 3 IS
Too few public library courses - 1 LS
Student must initiate meetings - 1 IS, 1 LS
Problems with Career Planning
Advisor too focused on courses and degree requirements and not enough on career choices, job market - 2 IS, 1 LS
Career planning in addition to advising would be nice - 2 LS
Academic advisors may be "out of touch" with real world - 1 IS
Two LS students said advising is a waste of time; one LS student wished his advisor would bring all his advisees together; four LS students say there are no problems with the advising system.
Information from Student Questionnaire, administered early spring 1999.
Revised 9/16/99