The Advising Coordination project is aligned with the Plan for Pitt, our educational mission, the Office of the Provost’s priorities, and long-standing research on advising and student success.
See below for an overview of the background of the initiative, data that informed the project, and supporting research.
Background
At the University of Pittsburgh, we understand that collaborative and holistic advising and mentoring are integral to our University’s educational mission. The Plan for Pitt 2028 values are “defined by excellence and focused on elevating our community’s aspirations.” Under the first pillar, where we will cultivate student success, a key initiative is to amplify the Pitt ACT (Advisor Certification and Training) Program in order to increase retention of our undergraduate students.
Over the past several years, the Office of the Provost invested in coordinating advising from an institutional level. In doing so, we have recorded high rates in student success measures such as retention, graduation, and post-graduation outcomes.
Most recently these initiatives are led by the Student Success Team, whose mission is to positively impact the student experience by providing holistic academic resources and collaborative professional development to ensure that every student has the chance to succeed and feel they belong at Pitt.
Student Data
While we have made great gains in improving student success measures in recent years, we strive to continually improve and aspire to always be the best. In addition, we are facing a new demographic reality, which will require us to approach our work in student success efforts differently than before.
Pitt students have told us through various surveys that they would enjoy a more coordinated advising experience, and we know that incoming students want more resources to support their academic success.
In Fall 2023, 4,556 first-year students took the First-Year Student Intake Survey as a part of their online orientation process at Pitt. This survey serves to give students a voice in establishing their presence on campus and assists advisors in preparing for first advising conversations.
One question of the survey asks, “What are you feeling most concerned about in entering college?” Students entered free responses. Academic concerns occurred at the highest frequency across all first-year admitting schools, with 70% of students expressing sentiments such as, “... I won’t be able to meet the school’s academic requirements” and “... about selecting the right classes and doing well in them.”
Another survey question asks students, “Your academic advisor here at Pitt can help you best if they know about your academic experiences and interests. Please check all that apply.” The top three responses included: (1) interest in attending graduate or professional school, (2) interest in career exploration, and (3) anticipation about soliciting help from professors or TAs outside of class.
These results indicate uncertainty around issues such as correct degree requirements, selecting courses, and academic exploration, which can be improved with more coordination and support for our advising community.
Benchmarks
The following institutions are benchmarking models for the Advising Coordination project due to their student success measures, impact of recent advising redesign, and peer status to the University of Pittsburgh, as members of AAU and UERU.
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- Public, R1, Member of AAU and UERU
- Undergraduate Student Enrollment: 18,400
- Retention Rate: 98%
- Graduation Rate: 93%
- Advising Model: Shared Supplemental with some central resources such as exploratory advising, coaching, and courses for students on academic recovery
- Office of Advising and Transition
- The University of Texas at Austin
- Public, R1, Member of AAU and UERU
- Undergraduate Student Enrollment: 41,000
- Retention Rate: 95%
- Graduation Rate: 88%
- Advising Model: Shared Supplemental with central resources such as exploratory advising and shared framework for student success, under the umbrella of the Undergraduate College
- Vick Advising Excellence Center
- Office of Student Success
- Undergraduate College
- University of South Carolina
- Public, R1, Member of UERU
- Undergraduate Student Enrollment: 27,000
- Retention Rate: 90%
- Graduation Rate: 78%
- Advising Model: Shared with a four-year professional advising and faculty mentoring model plus a centralized exploratory advising unit. The impact has shown increased student satisfaction, graduation rates, and advisor retention.
- Impact and Assessment Data
- University Advising Center Infographic
- University Advising Center
- Advising Roles
- University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Public, R1, Member of AAU and UERU
- Undergraduate Student Enrollment: 36,000
- Retention Rate: 94%
- Graduation Rate: 89%
- Advising Model: Shared Supplemental with coordination, expectations, and resources for advisors and students that defines different advising roles. Also, a central unit for exploratory advising.
- Undergraduate Advising
- Find an Advisor
- Cross-College Advising Service (CCAS)
- Stanford University
- Private, R1, Member of AAU
- Undergraduate Student Enrollment: 8,000
- Retention Rate: 98%
- Graduation Rate: 95%
- Advising Model: Shared with Advising Directors from each unit reporting to the Office of the Provost who coordinate policies and processes. Also clearly defined roles for pre-professional, scholar, transfer, and athlete advising.
- Meet Your Advisors
- University of California, San Diego
- Public, R1, Member of AAU and UERU
- Undergraduate Student Enrollment: 33,000
- Retention Rate: 93%
- Graduation Rate: 88%
- Advising Model: Shared Supplemental with coordination of policies, expectations, processes, and resources for advising and student success for all units
- Advising
Supporting Research and Resources
The following are resources, reports, and peer-reviewed research that support the Advising Coordination project.
- Boyer 2030 Report
The Association for Undergraduate Education at Research Universities (UERU) published the Boyer 2030 Report and convened the commission to examine undergraduate education at U.S. research universities with clear strategies and guiding principles. The report has a chapter dedicated to advising that examines how all students should receive excellent advising that is holistic and student-centered (p. 29). It also provides guidance for caseloads of 250.
The Association for Undergraduate Education at Research Universities (UERU). (2022). Boyer 2030 Report: A 2030 blueprint for undergraduate education at U.S. research universities. DOI 10.37514/CUS-B.2022.1503
- Tyton Partners Driving Toward a Degree
Tyton Partners Driving Toward a Degree is a nationally acclaimed study that has explored the evolving landscape of student advising and support in higher education since 2015, emphasizing the role of innovative solutions like coordination of support, awareness of resources, caseload management, advisor turnover, and generative AI.
- Tyton Partners. (2023). Driving Toward a Degree 2023: Awareness, Belonging, and Coordination.
- Tyton Partners. (2024). Driving Toward a Degree 2024.
- Breaking the Advising Stalemate
This white paper explores the importance of standardizing advising, how to assign responsibilities for advising functions, and ways to bolster confidence in faculty and professional advisors in order to most effectively address students’ needs. It also explains the benefits of having something akin to a Partnership Plan between units, and how it leads to improvements in communication and collaboration.
- Prepare to Meet Student Readiness Gaps with Just-in-Time Advising
This research report explores how advisors can close student readiness gaps through organizational improvements and holistic advising. For example, Imperative One highlights the importance of having both a faculty advisor and a professional advisor. Additionally, Imperative Four outlines how University of South Carolina created a Memorandum of Understanding between central advising leadership and college-level leadership to outline the detail of its advising model and ensure that all units on campus agree on their responsibilities and ownership.
- The Relationship Between Academic Advising and Student Outcomes
This study analyzed academic advising organizational structures at 260 U.S. undergraduate-serving research universities and how they relate to student success outcomes of first-year retention and six-year graduation rates. It found that a significant relationship exists and is improved with a shared model of academic advising. More details about study data, analyses and results can be found:
- Belback, A. E. (2021). The Relationship Between Academic Advising and Student Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis of Research Universities (Publication No. AAI28772467). [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
- Belback, A. (2023). Five Things Institutions Can do to Shift Towards a Shared Advising Model. Academic Advising Today. 46(3).
- Belback, A.E, Brenner, E., Johnson, L., Robinson, C., Shaw, C., Spears, J. (2024)[Forthcoming]. How shifting towards shared advising models positively impacts student success. In Dandaneau, S.P., Carter, M., Dennin, M., Okagaki, L., and Procknow, H. (Eds.), The Equity/Excellence Imperative in Action. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Organizational Structures for Advising
In 1983, Wesley R. Habley developed a categorization of different types of organizational models for higher education academic advising: (1) faculty-only, (2) satellite, (3) supplementary, (4) split, (5) dual, (6) total intake, and (7) self-contained. These original seven models were included in a 1987 ACT National Survey on Academic Advising and subsequent report, The Status and Future of Academic Advising (Habley, 1988).
The ACT survey was subsequently distributed multiple times, asking respondents about their institutional academic advising organizational structure. In 2004, in response to the survey results, Celeste F. Pardee reframed Habley’s seven models into the three categorizations of (1) centralized, (2) decentralized and (3) shared. Thus, when a 2011 survey was released, this time from NACADA (The Global Community for Academic Advising), respondents could indicate various options that may apply for their institutional situation, better aligned with Pardee’s framing (Carlstrom & Miller, 2013).
- Carlstrom, A.H., & Miller, M.A. (Eds.). (2013). 2011 NACADA national survey of academic advising (Monograph No. 25). Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association.
- Habley, W.R. (1983). Organizational structures for academic advising: Models and implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 535-540.
- Habley, W.R. (Ed.). (1988). The status and future of academic advising: Problems and promise. The ACT National Center for the Advancement of Educational Practices.
- Pardee, C.F. (2004). Organizational structures for advising. NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources.
- Inside Higher Ed Student Voice Survey on Faculty Mentoring: Students Believe Professors Are Great Mentors
This article in Inside Higher Ed provides an overview of the May 2024 Student Voice Survey, which found that 55% of students believe their professors are at least partially responsible for being a mentor. Several faculty members from different institutions share their ideas of the fundamentals of mentorships and how to support the work.
- Mowreader, A. (2024, Dec 2). Inside Higher Education. Students Think Faculty Should Be Mentors. What Does That Look Like?