Next

Background

In 2001, the then University Academic Advising Office, with permission from Faculty Council, requested access from professors to their classrooms to administer the ACT Advising Survey. One of the recommendations of this study was to repeat the survey every two years. Thus, this past spring term, under the guidance of the Academic Resource Center (ARC), the ACT Advising Survey was re-administered to undergraduate students in the classroom. Over 2,800 students responded from all nine schools. The results of the survey have been tabulated and these data tables will be made available through the Office of Institutional Planning and Research website (http://oipr.depaul.edu). What follows is a brief synopsis of the main findings of the survey, along with a more detailed analysis of one section of the survey.

In 2001, the then University Academic Advising Office, with permission from Faculty Council, requested access from professors to their classrooms to administer the ACT Advising Survey. One of the recommendations of this study was to repeat the survey every two years. Thus, this past spring term, under the guidance of the Academic Resource Center (ARC), the ACT Advising Survey was re-administered to undergraduate students in the classroom. Over 2,800 students responded from all nine schools. The results of the survey have been tabulated and these data tables will be made available through the Office of Institutional Planning and Research website (http://oipr.depaul.edu). What follows is a brief synopsis of the main findings of the survey, along with a more detailed analysis of one section of the survey.

Results

As is shown in the table below, this sample of respondents appears to be representative of DePaul’s full-time undergraduate student body. The distribution by race mirrored the DePaul population, but there was a slight over-representation of females in the sample (59.2% of respondents were female, compared to 56.9% of all full-time undergraduates at DePaul). Also, there was a slightly higher representation of upper-level students in the sample, but the distribution across class level was not cause to question the validity of these data.

Note: 453 respondents did not provide their id number, so determining their colleges was not possible.

Most Significant Points

Although the other 4-year private universities reported a hierarchy of needs similar in pattern, DePaul received relatively lower scores overall in comparison.

Although we do comparatively well in the area of course management, we score lower in most other aspects of holistic advising (academic goal-setting, interpersonal support, economic). DePaul showed a slight improvement, relative to the other private 4-year institutions, in course management and academic goal setting from 2001, but a slight decline economic needs advising and a considerable decline in interpersonal support from 2001 to 2003.

Needs Analysis

Section 3 of the advising survey asked students to respond to a set of needs, asking if

they spoke to an advisor about the need and, if so,

their level of satisfaction with the assistance they received.

Through these items, we can assess the level of need felt by the students and the degree to which they felt that need was satisfied by their advisors.

In Part 1, students were asked, for each need, to indicate if they:

Have discussed

Have not discussed, but should have

Have not discussed and do not need to.

In Part 2, students were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the assistance received for each need on a five-point scale from highly satisfied to highly dissatisfied, provided that they indicated having discussed the issue with an advisor. In the following figures, we have identified need and degree of need met satisfactorily using the following methodology:

Although we do comparatively well in the area of course management, we score lower in most other aspects of holistic advising (academic goal-setting, interpersonal support, economic). DePaul showed a slight improvement, relative to the other private 4-year institutions, in course management and academic goal setting from 2001, but a slight decline economic needs advising and a considerable decline in interpersonal support from 2001 to 2003.

Needs Analysis

Section 3 of the advising survey asked students to respond to a set of needs, asking if

they spoke to an advisor about the need and, if so,

their level of satisfaction with the assistance they received.

 

Through these items, we can assess the level of need felt by the students and the degree to which they felt that need was satisfied by their advisors.

In Part 1, students were asked, for each need, to indicate if they:

Have discussed

Have not discussed, but should have

Have not discussed and do not need to.

In Part 2, students were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the assistance received for each need on a five-point scale from highly satisfied to highly dissatisfied, provided that they indicated having discussed the issue with an advisor. In the following figures, we have identified need and degree of need met satisfactorily using the following methodology:

% TOTAL NEED = (a + b) / Total N – the number of students who perceived a need, whether or not they went to get help, divided by the total number of students questioned.

% MET NEED = a / (a + b) – the number of students who discussed the issue with their advisor divided by the number of students who perceived a need.

% NEED SATISFIED = (highly satisfied + satisfied) / (a + b) – the number of students who indicated being “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the assistance received divided by the number of students who perceived a need.

Rather than just list the items in the order in which they appeared on the survey, the “need” assessment aspect of each was subjected to a factor analysis that grouped the items into four categories. Overall percentages were computed for each factor. Rather than graph each item, the factors were used in the following figures. The items that fell into each category are listed below.

FACTOR 1: INTERPERSONAL SUPPORT

Improving my study skills and habits

Obtaining remedial and tutorial assistance

Coping with academic difficulties

Withdrawing or transferring from this institution

Dealing with personal problems

FACTOR 2: ACADEMIC GOAL-SETTING

My academic progress

Obtaining course credit through nontraditional means

Selecting and changing my major area of study

Matching my learning style to particular courses, sections, or instructors

Clarifying my life and career goals

Identifying career areas that fit my current skills, abilities, and interests

FACTOR 3: ECONOMIC

Obtaining financial aid

Obtaining employment on campus

Finding a job after college, i.e., job placement

Continuing my education after graduation

FACTOR 4: COURSE MANAGEMENT

Scheduling and registration procedures

Dropping and adding courses

Meeting requirements for graduation, student teaching, certification, etc

There are several comparisons that can be made with these data. What follows are some different plots that have been done to provide an indication of how DePaul compares with other 4-year private institutions in this survey. There are three chart types provided.

The first figure charts the need and satisfaction of DePaul students relative to students at all 4-year private institutions.More specifically:

The x-axis shows: % MET NEED (Privates), % MET NEED (DePaul)

The y-axis shows: % NEED SATISFIED (Privates), % NEED SATSFIED (DePaul)

Thus, if the percentages of students for the privates and DePaul were equal, then the value to be plotted would be 1.0.If the value plotted is greater than 1 for either met need or satisfaction, it would indicate a greater percentage among all Private institution students than at DePaul.As is shown in the figure on the top of the next page, DePaul lags behind other private institutions in the percentage of met need and the percentage of satisfied students.Also, this chart provides a comparison between the 2001 and the 2003 surveys. DePaul showed a slight improvement in course management and academic goal-setting, a slight decline in economic needs advising, and a considerable decline in interpersonal support.

On the x-axis: % MET NEED for Privates and DePaul on the x-axis, and

On the y-axis: % NEED SATISFIED for Privates and DePaul on the y-axis

The diagonal of this chart represents a 1 to 1 relationship between met need and satisfaction, found by taking the % NEED SATISFIED divided by the % MET NEED. In other words, if 10% of students with a need indicated they talked to an advisor, we would hope 10% of students with a need would be satisfied. Thus, we can use the diagonal as an indicator of the efficiency of the college and institutions advising system. Both the values for DePaul and all privates fall below the diagonal, and the pattern of needs are similar between DePaul and the privates.However, across all four categories of need, DePaul lags behind in terms of both the percentage of met need and the % of satisfied students.

Summary and Future Directions

This survey provided us the unique opportunity to study a very specific aspect of the student’s learning experience at DePaul. Some of the things we realize as we prepare to open the Advising Center:

Need to continue the bi-annual administration of this survey to measure the impact of the advising initiatives.

Need continued support of the schools and colleges to ensure the generalizability of the data.

Need to train advisors in active or collaborative learning tactics, rather than didactic.

Need to advise in context, students setting goals for educational and life plans.

Need to focus on the whole person, constructed knowledge of their educational and life plans.