Chapter 5:

 Advising and Orientation

x

INTRODUCTION

x
In its strategic plan, Envisioning Our Second Century, San Francisco State University affirms that "high-quality, regularly scheduled, mandatory advising is essential to the shaping and personalization of a meaningful educational experience." The plan further charges that "advising structures should be developed which involve the student, faculty, professional advisors, and peers in an advising partnership…(to) ensure the integrity and continuity of the student’s plan of study." This chapter addresses the strategic plan's charge. It seeks to determine where SFSU is with regard to providing useful and comprehensive advising services to students, as well as to identify what the university needs to accomplish in order to achieve the high standards that have been established in this area of student service.

x
Since Fall 1994, two parallel processes have led to a clearer focusing and developing of the advising and orientation function at SFSU. First, in 1994, Dean of Undergraduate Studies Erwin Seibel established an Undergraduate Studies Task Force on Advising with the charge of developing a university-wide undergraduate advising policy. Later in the decade, the Commission on University Strategic Planning (CUSP) identified advising and orientation as a top university priority.

x
Membership in the advising task force consisted of representatives from key campus leadership positions, including college deans and associate deans, department chairs, an Academic Senate representative, a General Education Council (GEC) member, the president of the Associated Students, a Student Affairs representative, a university staff member, and undergraduate and graduate students. Meetings of the task force were held each week during the Fall semester of 1994. The outcome was the development of a university undergraduate advising policy that incorporated principles and ideas from a variety of sources, including advising policies of institutions from around the state and the nation.

x
In Spring 1995, the Academic Senate approved Senate Policy #S95-191, SFSU Policy on Academic Advising [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/S95-191.htm]. This policy gave a clear direction to the university in the area of advising and orientation, including a delineation of student, faculty, staff, and administration responsibilities in these areas as well as specific priorities related to delivering these services to students.

x
On the heels of the university advising policy, the CUSP planning process identified the delivering of high quality mandatory advising and orientation services as a top priority in order to aid SFSU students in obtaining the most benefit from the academic curriculum. More specifically, CUSP gave strong support to the advising policy’s central tenet that advising of students should revolve around "five pivotal points of advising." These are: (1) when students enter the university; (2) when students declare their major; (3) when students experience academic challenges (e.g., academic probation or needing to raise average grades in order to attend graduate school); (4) when students make the transition to upper division status; and (5) when students prepare to graduate. The focus of this chapter will be to spell out where the university is and what the university plans to achieve related to developing and implementing an effective and successful advising and orientation program that both meets student needs and supports the delivery of relevant services by the faculty and staff.

x

MEETING STUDENT NEEDS

x
Advising Services

x
San Francisco State uses a mixed model of academic advising, providing students with full-time university staff advisors and faculty advisors. Full-time staff advisors are housed in different university units in both Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. In Academic Affairs, professional advisors are available in the university Advising Center [www.sfsu.edu/~advising/Welcome.html], the College of Health and Human Services Student Resource Center [www.sfsu.edu/~srcenter], and the College of Business Student Service Center [www.sfsu.edu/~cobssc/]. In Student Affairs, professional advisors are available in the Educational Opportunity Program [www.sfsu.edu/~eop/] and the Department of Athletics. Students also receive academic advising in their academic departments. Advising by faculty members is delivered under the university faculty policy that requires that all tenured/tenure-track faculty advise students.

x
Graduate student advising is offered in academic departments, where students meet one-on-one with faculty advisors to plan their graduate program. Specifically, students admitted to a graduate degree or an advanced credential program are assigned a major program advisor by the department offering the program.

x
The Undergraduate Advising Experience

x
Undergraduate student advising experiences at SFSU can be viewed from three perspectives: chronologically (whether a student is initiating, continuing, or completing studies); type of advising provided to students; and level of intensity of advising needed by students. Regarding time on campus, new students at the beginning of their studies receive advising services from both full-time university staff advisors and tenured/tenure-track faculty advisors, with a heavier focus of advising services provided by staff advisors; e.g., New Student Orientation, EOP New Student Orientation, etc.

x
In general, as students make progress through their studies, faculty-to-student advising becomes more intensified, mainly because the monitoring of academic progress, especially as this relates to major course work, requires more involved contact between department faculty and students. However, as students near graduation, they seek advising services more equally from both staff and faculty advisors.

x
As already noted, the type of advising services needed is an important factor that frames the advising experience of students at SFSU. During initial attendance at the university, students receive advising from professional advisors regarding questions about choosing a major area of study, general graduation requirements, and acculturating to the academic and social life of the university. Similarly, in their initial time at SFSU, students also receive major advising from faculty related to choosing and/or beginning study in a major. Students who do not have declared major areas of study (undeclared students) and pre-Liberal Studies students receive advising from the Advising Center or the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP). The Advising Center and select faculty also provide advising to students who organize their own majors (Special Major).

x
As students progress through the university, they continue to receive advising services from both staff and faculty advisors, but with a heavier emphasis on contact with faculty. The advising services that students receive from faculty are guidance regarding choosing appropriate course work and making satisfactory progress within the major area of study. Students also receive academic-related advising from faculty regarding co-curricular learning opportunities such as internships and special learning experiences such as study abroad.

x
The level of intensity of advising needed is another factor that frames students' advising experiences at SFSU. This factor, in turn, is in great part affected by factors such as the culturally and linguistically diverse nature and varied levels of preparation for study of the SFSU student population. For instance, every year a large number of the students enter SFSU and are designated Intensive Learning Program students because of low test scores on the English Placement Test (EPT) and/or the Entry Level Mathematics (ELM) exam. These students require and receive more intensive advising regarding, for example, how to choose an appropriate course load based on their level of preparation for college. Also, these students sometimes require specialized motivational advising to help them overcome self-limiting attitudes or low skills that result from previous experiences of failure or only minimal academic success.

x
There are other groups of students who enter SFSU and fall into the category of requiring more intensive advising. These include, among others, students who are in the Step to College, Educational Opportunity, and Student Support Services programs.

x
The Step to College Program is a nationally recognized high school outreach program where low income and ethnically diverse students take a two-course university sequence (pre-critical thinking and critical thinking) in their senior year of high school. Within these courses, students receive advising and guidance regarding university study, including information on how to make the transition from high school to college. [Please see www.sfsu.edu/~urbins/projects/sc/sc.html.]

x
The Educational Opportunity Program is a program that provides educational support services for students from economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. These services include pre-admission counseling, academic advising, personal/career counseling, and tutorial assistance.

x
Finally, the Student Support Services is a program funded in part by the U.S. Department of Education; and the goal is to increase the retention and graduation rates of an especially selected group of low income, first-generation college students and students with disabilities. In this program, students receive bi-weekly academic and career advising and study skills workshops.

x
Mandatory Advising: Ensuring that Students Receive Quality Advising

x
With an undergraduate student population of some 21,000, it is a major challenge to institute a program of advising that connects to all students in a regular fashion. With this in mind, the Task Force on Academic Advising conceptualized "five pivotal points of advising" during which time students should minimally meet with an advisor to plan, review, improve, or reflect on their studies. In this regard, the most highly supported recommendation coming out of the CUSP strategic planning process related to advising. This recommendation called for the university to "set up mechanisms…for mandatory advising…to ensure that every undergraduate and graduate student receives quality, regularly scheduled advising."

x
Since 1998, the university has made significant progress related to the delivery of advising services. For one, in line with President Corrigan’s charge to the university to implement mandatory advising, the vice president of academic affairs allocated money to each college to improve its advising services in order to ensure that all students were receiving regularly scheduled advising. For another, all chairs have been given twelve-month appointments to guarantee advising availability. Also, a variety of new advising initiatives were implemented to improve advising services. The remainder of this chapter reviews the status of advising at SFSU from the perspective of the five pivotal points; gives special attention to advising-related university programs which warrant individual review (orientation, GE advising, probation advising, etc.); and discusses how to best establish a system of advising that supports the effectiveness of staff and faculty advisors (e.g., training and recognition). Information related to assessment and evaluation of advising will be infused within each section, as available.

x
Pivotal Point #1: Advising When Students Enter the University

x
There are two primary advising interventions that new students receive around the time of entry into the university. These are the New Student Orientation and the fall and spring Advising Days. Of these two, New Student Orientation is the primary vehicle to prepare students to register and begin their studies in their first semester at SFSU.

x
Advising Day is a 20-year tradition that occurs during both fall and spring semesters. All classes are cancelled (except those which meet once a week) in order to make faculty and staff from throughout the university available to prospective students who plan on enrolling at SFSU the following semester. This day is thoroughly advertised via an Advising Day publication sent to all applicants and distributed to feeder high schools and community colleges. Following an all-university welcome that is divided into prospective freshman and transfer students, all attendees receive a specific college and department welcome and review of "academics" consistent with the student’s planned area of study. Students also receive a general orientation to university graduation requirements, including General Education. The day is capped off with students having the opportunity to meet individually with faculty to discuss major study at SFSU. All university services (Advising, Financial Aid, Admissions, etc.) are available to students during this day to answer questions related to attending SFSU. Attendance at these events varies in fall and spring, with a higher number of students attending spring Advising Day in preparation for fall attendance; spring Advising Day attendance is generally between 1,500 and 2,000 students, with fall numbers between 500 and 1,000 students.

x
Historically, many freshmen have confused Advising Day with New Student Orientation. In this regard, freshman participation in Advising Day has been minimal (fewer than 250 freshmen attend). Also, in recent Advising Day surveys, many freshmen reported that they did not stay for the one-on-one faculty advising. As a consequence, with the implementation of touch-tone registration at Summer 2000 Orientation, it was decided not to invite freshmen to Advising Day, instead making it a day geared only to transfers and graduate students' needs.

x
New Student Orientation

x
New Student Orientation (NSO) at SFSU encompasses a day-long program. The focus of NSO is to provide students with a thorough introduction to the university so that they feel welcome, are prepared to register for their first semester of classes, and, finally, are helped to attain a clear understanding of the academic and social challenges that await them at SFSU. A typical program consists of a welcome during which new students are introduced to the "Gator Aiders," SFSU student peer advisors specifically trained to greet and assist new students with their orientation questions and academic needs. Following the welcome, students attend a special session to introduce them to the potential pitfalls that await them in college. In the past, this session has included faculty panels regarding topics such as "What to Avoid" and "Tips for Success" and guest presenters from the university regarding "Myths Which Many New Students Have That Lead to Problems In The Initial Semester of Attendance." The remainder of the Orientation day is spent in sessions that inform students about graduation requirements (including General Education), about how to effectively register in their first and second semesters of college, and about how to do touch-tone registration. During the day they receive a campus tour and at midday are given an opportunity to speak with representatives from key student services. The day ends when all students fill out a year-long registration plan, reviewed by Gator Aiders who are assigned to Orientation groups based on familiarity with specific college registration requirements, and register for their fall semester classes.

x
New Student Orientation has a family component wherein family members of new students (parents, spouses, significant others) essentially receive the same orientation as their family member who is attending SFSU. Along with this, parents are afforded a parent-only group question and answer session to ask any and all questions regarding their family member’s upcoming studies at SFSU. These sessions are conducted by professional advisors and administrators along with Gator Aiders and, generally, are a very lively and open exchange of questions and answers.

x
Special Orientation Programs

x
New student orientation is also provided by departments of the university which offer academic and personal support to select student populations. These are the following: Educational Opportunity Program, Student Support Services, Athletics, and International Student Services. The New Student Orientation Office works with all of these programs to support orientation of new students who have special needs.

x
The Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) provides a daylong orientation program for new students admitted to the university as EOP students. These students number about 750 annually. The EOP Orientation Program has a similar format to the all-university New Student Orientation Program. However, there are special activities that EOP adds to its orientation which are appropriate to the needs of EOP students (e.g., description of special EOP services available to support students’ success and discussion of all-university services and staff of special benefit to EOP students). For Summer 2000, the EOP Program agreed to incorporate their new students into the all-university Orientation Program. Now, EOP students participate in the regular activities of the all-university Orientation Program, but split off in the afternoon to work directly with EOP advisors during the pre-registration planning and registration sessions.

x
International Student Services conducts a two-week orientation program for new international students. This program is an intensive orientation to the academic requirements and social aspects of attending university within the United States, and, specifically, at SFSU. As part of their orientation activities, International Student Services also works directly with the New Student Orientation Program Office to provide international students a duplicate of the daylong all-university orientation program (see Chapter 17 for more information). Similar to International Student Services, Athletics and Student Support Services incorporate their specialized student orientation within the larger all-university New Student Orientation Program.

x
Virtual Orientation: Responding to the Needs of New Students Who Are
Too Far Away to Attend the New Student Orientation Program

x
Under the leadership of the director of the New Student Orientation Program, a virtual orientation program was developed in Fall 1998. This program, a joint development of select faculty, Design and Industry students, and New Student Orientation peer advisors is, to our knowledge, the only one of its kind in the United States. The Virtual Orientation program gives freshmen students who live too far away to attend on-campus orientations the opportunity to review the same information available in the all-university on-campus orientation. The format of the Virtual Orientation is interactive in that participants must complete four components:

x
• Graduation requirements [www.sfsu.edu/~orient/V_orient/],
• Major requirements [www.sfsu.edu/~orient/V_orient/],
• Touch-tone registration [www.sfsu.edu/~orient/V_orient/toucht.html], and
• A campus tour [www.sfsu.edu/~orient/V_orient/tour.html].

x
In order to move from one component of Virtual Orientation to another, students must complete tasks which are checked by the NSO office. Virtual Orientation students are encouraged to attend Late Advising Day, to make a connection in person to advisors. The following are the numbers, by year, of students who participated in Virtual Orientation since its inception: Fall 1998 (25); Spring 1999 (10); Fall 1999 (50); Spring 2000 (15); Summer 2000 (25).

x
A Transfer Virtual Orientation version was created in Spring 2000 for pilot testing in Summer 2000 for international transfers and out-of-state transfer students [www.sfsu.edu/~advising/t_orient/]. Fifty students used this site. The next goal is to create an in-state transfer virtual orientation. The prototype student group for this project will be business majors.

x
Status and Evaluation of the New Student Orientation Program

x
Prior to Fall 1998, the university had in place a viable and thriving New Student Orientation Program that provided advising services for a large number of entering freshman and transfer students. This is true because NSO had initiated a program to significantly increase the number of new students attending orientation in response to the advising policy charge that all students should attend an orientation as they begin study at SFSU.

x
In the 1992-93 academic year, 1,677 students attended new student orientation (452 freshman and 1,225 transfer students). During this same period, 458 family members attended orientation. The number of students attending new student orientation jumped significantly to 3,524 for the 1998-99 academic year and to 3,751 for the 1999-2000 academic year. The number of freshmen attending orientation during each of these these two years was 1,168 and 1,544, respectively. Attendance of family members at orientation also increased for these two years: 1,031 for 1998-99 and 1,209 for 1999-2000.

x
Summer 2000 New Student Orientation

x
The Summer 2000 Orientation program proved to be the most extensive implementation of the CUSP recommendations related to orientation to date. The number of orientation sessions was increased, and the sessions were lengthened by an hour-and-a-half over previous years. Each orientation day was designed to accommodate approximately 125 students, who would receive the traditional orientation services plus the following three new components:

x
• Touch-tone registration for Fall for all freshmen
• University I.D. cards presented presented to all freshmen
• A public safety presentation for all attendees

x
One of the recommendations of CUSP was that there should be an all-university approach to orientation. Toward this end, Enrollment Services, Testing, Admissions, Housing, Athletics, Advising, International Student Services, and EOP personnel met consistently the entire previous year to plan such an approach. A new admit packet for all new undergraduates was created. Instead of many different and confusing mailings, information was consolidated and shortened. As a result of all the hard work, 2,098 students—or 96% of the incoming freshman class—attended an orientation before the Fall 2000 semester began.

x
As noted earlier, one of the important innovations in the Summer 2000 Orientation program was the addition of touch-tone registration for freshmen. This tie-in with registration was the method whereby the goals of freshman advising could be controlled and checked. One of these goals was to register freshmen into a First-Year Experience (FYE) course. Another goal was to more closely monitor student enrollment in required mathematics and English remediation course work. To accomplish this second goal, all orientation attendees were given their Entry Level Mathematics and English Placement Test scores and advised to register in appropriate remediation course work. The success of both of these endeavors can be seen in the high enrollment in the new FYE courses in Fall 2000, as well as in the small number of freshmen who did not comply with the remediation registration policy. (See Chapter 3 for additional information.)

x
Two final innovations in Summer 2000 involved databases and advanced standing evaluations. First, in close collaboration with Computing Services, a web-based, SIMS R-linked, orientation database was created. Students could thus register and receive confirmation for their orientation date on-line. This on-line database not only generated lists of attendees but also merged SIMS R data, such as ELM/EPT scores or exemptions, admissions, fee payment, and financial aid status. This collection of data resulted in Orientation's ability to troubleshoot and advise students in a more comprehensive manner. As a second innovation, each transfer student who registered two weeks or more in advance of his/her orientation date received an Advanced Standing Evaluation (ASE) of previous college work completed. This was the first time this had ever occurred.

x
Evaluation of New Student Orientation

x
Program evaluation is an integral part of the New Student Orientation Program. This evaluation is conducted with both family members and students and is produced in yearly reports available in the Advising Center.

x
Over the last 12 years, there have been three significant program-related evaluations that have been conducted by NSO. The first one is the "Orientation Report Card" which is a satisfaction survey given to students at the end of each orientation. This survey has been completed at all orientations since 1988. The second major assessment of NSO was conducted in 1996. This was a follow-up study of 1,991 students that compared orientation attendees to non-attendees. A third evaluation of NSO was a study of all undeclared students who were placed on probation in their first semester of attendance in the Fall of 1995. Orientation attendees versus non-attendees were identified in order to identify differences in the academic performance of these two groups.

x
Data maintained since 1988 from results of the "Orientation Report Cards" provide information regarding students' perceptions of their orientation experience. Specifically, students have been asked to evaluate the different components of their orientation day, using a report card format. A pre-post design has been used to assess students’ perceptions prior to and following orientation (feeling of welcome; how well informed about graduation requirements; how prepared for registration; how enthusiastic about attending SFSU). Also, specific areas of the orientation program have been evaluated, including the size of the orientation, the presentation of information, the personal quality of the orientaion, and the efficiency of the orientation. Findings have consistently shown a positive response to orientation by attendees. One truly consistent high rating for the orientation program has been that attendees have felt most favorable towards their peer advisors, giving peer advisors an average satisfaction score rating over the years of 3.75 out of a possible 4.0. Over the years, the Orientation Report Card has helped the orientation program adjust to students' stated desires and needs.

x
The second NSO evaluation that has been conducted is a 1996 survey of orientation attendees versus non-attendees. Specifically, the NSO completed a study of students who entered SFSU in Fall 1991. Fifty transfer and fifty first-time students who attended a summer orientation (non-EOP) were selected at random; additionally, fifty students of each type who did not attend an orientation that summer were also selected at random. After looking at their academic progress through graduation, the following results were found.

x

First Time Freshmen
Attendees of F 91 Orientation  Non-attendees of F 91 Orientation
Graduated and potential graduates Graduated and potential graduates
31 (62%) 23 (42%)
Left SFSU on probation/disqualification Left SFSU on probation/disqualification
7 (14%)  13 (26%)
Units Completed (average) Units Completed (average)
88.48 78.86
SFSU GPA Average SFSU GPA Average
2.62 2.42
All College GPA Average  All College GPA Average
2.64  2.37
While the above results do not show a causal effect, it can be inferred that orientation provides the initial opportunity for students to gain their "academic bearing" as well as plan more carefully their attendance at the university. Students who attended a New Student Orientation clearly seemed to have a head-start over non-attendees. Indeed, in this same study, it was found that students who attended orientation made fewer procedural mistakes than their non-attending counterparts. For example, orientation attendees had 33% fewer "Incomplete turning to F" grades than non-attendees. There were also 23% fewer "U" (unauthorized withdrawal) grades by attendees versus non-attendees. Transfer data were also collected as part of the 1991 follow up study. Results were quite similar to those for first-time freshmen.

x
A third orientation evaluation was conducted in a Fall 1995 study. The New Student Orientation Office looked at all first-time freshmen undeclared students placed on probation after their first semester. Of significance is that more than 66% of this group of students had not attended an orientation. Indeed, when NSO examined the classes for which the non-orientation group had registered, it found that these students had selected inappropriate courses, particularly upper division, non-GE courses which typically needed prerequisites which had not been taken. In the following fall semester (Fall 1996), the NSO looked at the 113 undeclared freshman students who were placed on probation following their first semester of attendance. The results matched those of the previous year; namely, 70% (79 students) had not attended a new student orientation.

x
General Education advising: A Special Focus

x
General Education (GE) is a vital part of the academic experience at SFSU. Comprising nearly 39% of the university curriculum, GE is divided into three segments supporting the development of students’ basic skills (Segment I); providing breadth of education in the physical and biological sciences, social sciences, and humanities and creative arts (Segment II); and offering a concentrated, thematic, interdisciplinary learning experience that emphasizes helping students understand "relationships of knowledge" (Segment III). Segment III is of special significance because it is the only General Education course work that is required of all students, given that a majority of SFSU students are transfer students who enter SFSU having completed the GE equivalent of Segments I and II.

x
The university takes great pride in having a strong system of GE advising that communicates to students the importance of GE for becoming a well-rounded individual. GE advising is provided by both staff and faculty advisors; however, the university Advising Center has the main function in this area of academic advising. Starting with New Student Orientation, students receive advising about what courses and learning options are available in the GE program.

x
Beyond orientation, approximately 25 one and one-half hour workshops are provided each semester by the Advising Center to freshman and transfer students to review GE requirements and the different options for completing GE. Similar workshops are provided to students as they prepare to graduate to review and ensure that GE requirements have been completed. Approximately 1,500 students annually attend these workshops. As a supplement to workshops, individual student appointments are also available to students to discuss GE with advisors in the Advising Center throughout the academic year.

x
Faculty members are very involved in GE advising. Each college has a General Education Advising Coordinator (GEAC). This individual works closely with an Advising Center liaison advisor who is assigned to each college. The task of the GEAC is to support GE advising in their respective colleges. In the colleges each department has one faculty person who serves as a GE advising specialist. This faculty member receives training from the GEAC, participates in Advising Day activities, and serves as the GE resource person in his/her respective department. The GE advising coordinators meet bimonthly as a committee to review GE petitions and to discuss ways of improving GE advising in their respective colleges.

x
GE requirements are thoroughly communicated to students in various university publications and via electronic technology. Every semester, for example, the Class Schedule has a section that details the requirements of the GE program. This section also incorporates an "Academic Progress Record" (APR). The APR allows students to keep a detailed record of progress in completing GE and other graduation requirements.

x
Another vehicle for informing students about the GE program is the Advanced Standing Evaluation (ASE). This document is provided to transfer students during their first semester of attendance at SFSU. It details GE and other graduation requirements that have been satisfied at other institutions.

x
The Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS) is the main electronic aid available to students to keep track of GE and other graduation requirements. This system provides a detailed account of which graduation requirements, excluding major, have been met and which remain outstanding. The DARS is gradually replacing the ASE as an advising tool for transfer students. At present, DARS reports are available for 31 high feeder transfer institutions. Approximately five transfer institutions are added to DARS every semester. The DARS system does not provide students with a status report of progress in completing major course work. However, the goal is to eventually make such a system available to students. [Please see www.sfsu. edu/~admisrec/dars/manual.html].

x
In an effort to respond to students’ needs for an electronic advising resource, the recently deceased dean of undergraduate studies, Dr. Susan Taylor, initiated an endeavor to provide students with a means of electronically keeping track of completed major and GE course work. She called this project "E-vising." E-vising provides students with an interactive tool to review, choose, and monitor course work needed for degree completion. One aspect of this resource is to provide students with advising tips relevant to completing major and other graduation requirements. As of Spring 2000, an E-vising framework had been developed for the Liberal Studies major [www.sfsu.edu/evising/]. The intent is to pilot this advising tool in Fall 2000 and then to gradually include all college majors in the E-vising system.

x
Evaluation of GE Advising

x
There are a variety of indications of how students view GE advising. In the New Student Orientation Program, students are asked to rate the usefulness of the GE information portion of the program. Data for the last three years show that students generally view this part of orientation in a favorable manner: transfers gave this section a B grade on an A-F score, while freshmen gave it a B+ grade. In the SFSU Student Pulse Survey of Spring 2000, conducted with a randomly selected cross-section of undergraduate students, 73.6% of the students noted that they were satisfied to very satisfied with General Education advising at SFSU. In the 1999 CSU SNAPS Survey, 74.8% of respondents reported that they were satisfied with their GE advising at SFSU. In Graduation Review Workshop evaluations collected during the 1998-99 and 1999-00 academic years, students gave an average rating of 90.5 to the workshops (where a "0" rating meant "not helpful" and a "100" rating meant "very helpful").

x
Pivotal Point #2: When Students Declare a Major or Minor

x
Students generally declare a major when they enter the university; however, many students enter SFSU as "undeclared majors." Students who have a declared major are required to seek advising in their major department at least once a semester. Undeclared majors receive advising from the Advising Center. The advising requirement was initiated in great part in response to President Corrigan’s call for mandatory advising, which he made to the campus in Fall 1998. Prior to that time there had been no formal university-wide requirement for students to seek major advising on a regular basis.

x
In a survey conducted with undergraduate major departments in Spring 2000, all respondents reported that interventions were in place to ensure that students meet with an advisor at least once a semester. Department chairs reported that a variety of methods are used to reach out to new majors, including the use of a chair’s letter, department welcome meetings, and mandatory assignment of students to major advising.

x
Previous to President Corrigan’s call for mandatory advising, the Academic Senate had passed a resolution called "Timely Declaration of Major" [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/F98-203.htm], which required that native students declare a major by the time they complete 70 units and that students who enter as junior or senior-level transfer students declare a major by the end of their second semester of enrollment at SFSU. This policy was in response to concerns of faculty that an intervention be initiated to ensure that students meet with faculty and advising staff in a timely manner to discuss choosing a major.

x
Pivotal Point #3: When Students Experience Academic Challenges

x
In the Fall semester of 1997, mandatory advising for probation students (MAP) was instituted for all undergraduates whose overall grade point average fell below a "C." The program requires probation students to meet and review their academic progress with an advisor as a condition for continued registration. Major departments approach this task in different ways. In some departments, all faculty do probation advising, and in others, either individual faculty are assigned this task or the task is assumed by the department chair. Undeclared probation students are advised by the Advising Center or the Educational Opportunity Program.

x
Prior to initiation of MAP, the only students who were required to see an advisor were those with academic performance well below the minimum standards required for continued registration (students subject to disqualification). This group averaged approximately 1,100-1,300 students per semester. However, the initiation of the MAP program brought over 2,000 additional poor-performing students (Spring ’97: 2,568; Spring ’98: 2,453; Spring ‘99: 2,423; Spring '00: 2,471) into the mandatory academic advising process. [Please see www.sfsu.edu/~advising/map.htm.]

x
A follow-up evaluation of the MAP program was conducted in Fall 1999, studying a random selection of Spring 1997 probation students who were required to see an advisor in Fall 1997. Three hundred fifty evaluations were sent to the 1997 MAP group. Eighty-seven surveys were returned. The survey asked a variety of questions of students, including how beneficial MAP advising had proven, which advisor behaviors were helpful and which were not, and whether the MAP advising process had made them better students. The evaluation also included a follow-up on the progress of all of the randomly-selected students. This part of the study compared the academic performance of the students prior to and following the Spring 1998 semester, which is the first semester in which students were required to see an advisor as a condition for continued registration.

x
Seventy-two percent of the students reported that MAP advising had been extremely beneficial (14.9 %), very beneficial (28.7%), or somewhat beneficial (28.7%). On the other side of the coin, 27.5% of the students reported MAP advising to be either of very little benefit (14.9%) or no benefit (12.6%). Some of the advisor behaviors that were consistently reported by students as being helpful were the following: advisors provided assistance with choosing classes (20.6%); advisors were friendly, respectful, motivating, and listened to students (54%); advisors helped students be clearer about career goals (11.4%). Some students did report non-helpful advisor behaviors, including not talking to students about probation and not following up (14.9%) and putting students on the spot and not explaining things clearly (11.4%).

x
The academic performance follow-up showed that within the time span of Spring 1997 to Spring 1999, 39% of the probation students had raised their performance so that they were off probation; 30% remained on probation; 15% had been disqualified; nearly 3% had graduated; and 13% were not in attendance in Spring 1999.

x
Pivotal Points #4 and #5: As Students Progress to Upper Division
and As Students Prepare for Graduation

x
The pivotal point framework for advising at SFSU calls for students to meet with advisors as they move to upper division standing in order to review their progress in the major as well as in general course work. This should be a time for students to make plans, as needed, for improving performance and to begin planning for post-baccalaureate work or study The methods of implementing pivotal points #4 and # 5 vary across campus. In many departments students are required to make an appointment with an advisor when they reach upper division status. In others, such as the Department of Design and Industry (DAI), students enroll in upper division major course work and receive advising. To provide a general view of how pivotal points #4 and #5 are being implemented across campus, the advising procedures of the School of Engineering and the College of Health and Human Services will be highlighted.

x
In the School of Engineering’s advising procedures, there is a formal demarcation between lower and upper division advising. In the lower division, specific advisors are assigned to advise students. When entering upper division, students are required to choose an upper division advisor and to review academic progress, including completion of Engineering course prerequisites. Students complete a "Course Approval" form that is reviewed and approved by their upper division advisor. All students who have not made satisfactory progress are flagged and advised either to complete appropriate course work or to seek another major.

x
In the College of Health and Human Services (CHHS), there is a similar orientation to advising students as they move to upper division status (pivotal point #4). In their lower division status, CHHS students are required to visit the Health and Human Services Student Resource Center to review GE and major course work. They also write an academic plan to prepare for entry to their chosen major. At pivotal point #4, CHHS students are required to go to their major department to review their major plan and to reflect on academic performance during their lower division study. Students discuss the appropriateness of their chosen major vis-à-vis lower division performance. Advising at this time includes discussion of alternative paths of study if a student has not performed satisfactorily in lower division status.

x
As a preparation for graduation (pivotal point #5), all Engineering majors are required to take a two-course sequence, Engineering 696 (Engineering Design Project 1) and Engineering 697 (Engineering Design Project 2). One of the requirements in these courses is that students fill out a mock graduation application. This form is then reviewed by both the Design Project faculty member and an Engineering General Education advisor. Again, student problems are flagged and students receive appropriate advising. Students also receive guidance regarding post-baccalaureate study and/or possible career directions.

x
CHHS in many ways mirrors the School of Engineering in making available to students a course to prepare them for graduation. For example, the Departments of Consumer and Family Studies/Dietetics and Kinesiology require a senior seminar as a major requirement. In the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, students are required to take REC 660 which is a culminating experience class. Similar to Engineering, the special capstone classes in CHHS are used to review preparation for graduation and also to consider graduate study and/or career options following graduation.

x
Beyond what the individual colleges are doing with regard to Advising pivotal points #4 and #5, a university-wide strategy for pivotal point #4 is being implemented in Fall 2000. Specifically, all students who reach the 100-unit mark are being sent a personalized letter that informs them where they stand with regard to the "Ten Top Reasons for Why Students Are Denied Graduation." Students are being informed about actions that they should take to ensure timely completion of their degree. The letter recommends that they meet with their major advisor or attend the Graduation Review Workshops available in the Advising Center in order to clear up any concerns related to the top ten list.

x
With regard to Advising pivotal point #5, one of the challenges that the university has faced over the years is how to intervene and assist graduating students with difficulties before the final semester of graduation. Many of the interventions heretofore noted are expected to decrease the number of graduating seniors who experience problems at the actual point of graduation. In addition, consideration is being given to formally requiring graduation applications the semester before (rather than the semester of) planned graduation, in order to ensure earlier advising to "catch" problems or deficiencies.

x
Evaluation of Advising Practices at SFSU

x
At present, there are three sources of evaluation to obtain feedback from students regarding the overall picture of advising services on campus: the SFSU Undergraduate Exit Survey, the SFSU Student Pulse Survey, and the CSU-sponsored Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS). In the 1999 SNAPS Survey, SFSU students gave the following "importance" ratings to sources of advising on campus: campus catalog and other written publications (96.4); faculty in major departments (96.2); advising center in major department or school (92.1); fellow students (87.1); Advising Center/General Studies office (83.2); administrative program/staff (75.9); university orientation course (72.2). In the same survey, students gave a quality rating for the above types of advising assistance. The following are the percentage ratings of either good or excellent: campus catalog and other written publications (67.2); faculty in major departments (58.1); advising center in major department or school (44.6); fellow students (62.8); Advising Center/General Studies office (37.9); administrative program/staff (51.1); university orientation course (43.7).

x
The results of the Spring 1999 and 1999-2000 College Year SFSU Undergraduate Exit Surveys provide some additional information. In Spring 1999, 75.7% of the students noted that they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the university Bulletin, and 81.6% of the respondents noted that they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the Class Schedule, as tools for completing the advising and registration process. With regard to faculty major advising, 63.1% of the students were either somewhat or very satisfied. Regarding the question of being satisfied with the university Advising Center, 55.9 % of the students noted that they were either very or somewhat satisfied and 26.2% were neutral. In the 1999-2000 survey, results regarding satisfaction with the Class Schedule and faculty advising in the major were within one-tenth of a percentage point of the Spring 1999 results. Other findings were similar to those of Spring 1999, with 72.8% of respondents being somewhat or very satisfied with the university Bulletin, and 58.2% being satisfied with the Advising Center.

x
The Spring 2000 Student Pulse Survey is the final source of information about overall student satisfaction with advising-related services on campus. 67.3% of respondents reported having seen an academic advisor at least once a year; 73.6% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with General Education advising; and 76.5% of the students were either very satisfied or satisfied with advising in their major.

x
From the above three surveys, we can arrive at some general conclusions. First, students are both conversant and satisfied with the written sources of advising information available at the university. That the satisfaction percentages with regard to written materials are as high as 75% or above attests to the fact that students find such materials valuable and useful. With regard to advising, it is also clear that students are generally satisfied with the advising that they receive in their major departments, although the satisfaction is clearly not at the level of that regarding the university’s advising materials that come in written form. The other main source of advising on campus is the Advising Center, and it is readily apparent that the Advising Center does not enjoy a comparably high satisfaction rating from students as do written materials and faculty major advising. This is a matter the Advising Center will need to explore further.

x
Training, Recognition, and Support for Advisors

x
Setting up a support mechanism for faculty providing mandatory advising is one of the top priorities within the SFSU advising policy and the university strategic plan. Many challenges face the university in this area. Specifically, the challenge is to make real the stipulations of the SFSU advising policy and the strategic plan. The latter's recommendations included the following: each department needs to ensure that it has a selection and training program for advisors; appropriate technological support needs to be made available to faculty to assist them with their advising functions, including making advising materials available to faculty in a timely manner; a standard, university-wide, advisor evaluation instrument should be developed in order to both assess the effectiveness of advising and recognize effective advisors; and specific strategies, including recognition within the RTP process, need to be established in order to recognize the work that advisors do.

x
The first of these challenges is the training of advisors. Professional advising staff receive thorough training in their respective departments; however, the training of faculty advisors varies throughout the university. First, with regard to faculty advisors, there is no university-wide training program, although all new faculty are introduced to the task of advising as part of their new faculty orientation. According to a survey conducted with department chairs in the Spring 2000 semester, some advisors receive training and some do not. Generally, the training given to faculty advisors varies in depth depending on the individual experience and commitment different department chairs have with respect to the task of advising. Many academic departments responded favorably to the offer by the Advising Center to train their faculty.

x
As with training of advisors, there is no university-wide practice with respect to evaluation of advisors. There is some movement in this area, with one or two colleges beginning to initiate the development and implementation of a set system for evaluation. The College of Health and Human Services, for example, has developed an advisor evaluation instrument and is having discussions about the pros and cons of using it. Staff advising services vary in the level of evaluation they conduct. The Advising Center does conduct evaluation of advisors; but the evaluation is limited to only some activities of the center; e.g., drop-in services, workshops. During the 1998-99 academic year, 96% of students reported on an evaluation survey given in Graduation Review Workshops that they were satisfied with their interaction with an Advising Center advisor and reported that they would recommend this advisor to other students. The Advising Center is in the process of implementing a more thorough, on-going system of advisor evaluation that more clearly delineates the strengths of advisors and improvements needed.

x
The University Advising Policy has a section devoted to the recognition and support of advising. Within this section, the provost, the dean of undergraduate studies, and the college deans are jointly charged with the support of advising services and advisors across campus. Toward this end, for the academic year 1998-99, the provost distributed $170,000 to the eight colleges to develop their advising infrastructure. A similar allocation was made for each of the following two years (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). With this allocation of money, the colleges have begun to develop a variety of advising activities and resources to strengthen the support of advising across the university. These developments range from the opening of college advising offices (e.g., College of Health and Human Services and College of Business), the establishment of college and department advising web sites, and the development of special advising materials to more clearly communicate academic information to students.

x
The task of recognizing the work of advisors is something that needs to be further studied and developed. Again, there is no systematic, university-wide approach in this area. The Faculty Manual does state that advising is one of the areas of faculty work that needs to be considered in retention, tenure, and promotion decisions. However, in great part because there exist no formal evaluation methods regarding the advising work of faculty, there is inconsistency of perception on campus as to how much the advising work of faculty is recognized in the retention, tenure, and promotion process.

x
On a more qualitative level, there is some recognition of the work performed by advisors. The Advising Center surveys students who attend Graduation Review Workshops and asks them to identify academic advisors whom they have seen and with whom they have been very satisfied. The Advising Center then generates a list of faculty and staff advisors that students identify as good advisors. Every year, the director of the center sends a letter to these faculty and staff advisors congratulating them on having been identified as good advisors by graduating seniors. Positive comments that students make about specific behaviors and qualities of the advisors are included in this letter. In the past three years, college deans, the provost, and the president have each sent letters to these advisors adding their recognition and congratulations. The faculty and staff advisors who are recognized all welcome the acknowledgement of good advising on the part of students and very much value the feedback. They also report that they include these letters in their promotion portfolios.

x

CONCLUSION

x
San Francisco State University is very committed to offering students a comprehensive and responsive advising system. The information provided in this chapter shows that there are many significant developments occurring in this area of university programming. From supporting the colleges to develop their advising infrastructure, to establishing mandatory advising to facilitate increased student-to-faculty contact; and from developing an up-to-date technological system of advising, to working on identifying a viable way to monitor the effectiveness of advising, this university is moving toward a prized goal, namely, to offer students a challenging, supportive, learning-centered college experience.

x
The signposts for future development in the area of advising and orientation are clear. The university must continue developing an advising system to a point where students, faculty, and staff alike clearly understand, make use of, participate in, and value the services offered. This must be consistently verified in all evaluations conducted by the university. Also, faculty and staff alike must receive thorough training, support, and recognition for the work of facilitating and enhancing the academic development and success of our students. This also should be verified through staff and faculty surveys and evaluations. In short, the link between effective advising and academic achievement, which has so clearly been shown in national literature to be a central component of student persistence to graduation, must, along with teaching, be infused into the core meaning, practice, and identity of San Francisco State University.

x

Return to Section B: An Academically Excellent University | Return to Accreditation | SFSU Home | Top of page