Student Attitudes toward Technology-Mediated Advising Systems

Authors

  • Hoori Santikian Kalamkarian Research Associate, Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University
  • Melinda Mechur Karp Assistant Director at the Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i2.918

Keywords:

technology, advising, IPAS, student supports, higher education

Abstract

 

The literature on broad-access colleges suggests that low persistence and completion rates may be improved through better advising that employs a teaching-as-advising approach. While resource constraints have traditionally limited the ability of colleges to reform advising practices, technological advances have made it possible to implement technology-based advising tools, some of which can replace face-to-face services. Using focus group interview data from 69 students at six colleges, this study investigates students’ attitudes toward technology-mediated advising. More specifically, we seek to understand how students’ perceptions and experiences vary across different advising functions. We find that students are open to using technology for more formulaic tasks, such as course registration, but prefer in-person support for more complex tasks, such as planning courses for multiple semesters and refining their academic and career goals.

 

Author Biographies

Hoori Santikian Kalamkarian, Research Associate, Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University

Hoori Santikian Kalamkarian is a Research Associate at the Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University. Kalamkarian conducts qualitative research on system-wide and statewide reform efforts, including the implementation of technology-based advising systems. Kalamkarian holds a BA in English and political science from UCLA and is pursuing a PhD in education policy from Stanford University. Previously, Kalamkarian worked as a research assistant at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, conducting program evaluations and qualitative research on college access programs. Her research interests include college access and persistence.

Melinda Mechur Karp, Assistant Director at the Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University

Melinda Mechur Karp is the Assistant Director at the Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University. Karp holds a BS in human development and family studies from Cornell University; an MA in sociology and education from Teachers College, Columbia University; and a PhD in sociology and education from Columbia University. Karp is a leading expert on smoothing students' transition into college and supporting them once there. Over the past 15 years at CCRC, she has led studies examining advising, counseling, and support services; college 101 courses; and dual enrollment programs. Her work has been published in journals such as Teachers College Record, New Directions for Community Colleges, Community College Review, and the Journal of College Student Retention. She also is frequently invited to present to practitioners and policymakers, and to comment on student success in media outlets such as Inside Higher Education. Karp currently serves as an advisor to California's Student Services Portal Steering Committee and the Northeast Resiliency Consortium.

References

Appleby, D. C. (2008). Advising as teaching and learning. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed., pp. 85–102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012, April). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 267–270.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., … Zhang, J. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES Report No. 2012-045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Bambara, C. S., Harbour, C. P., Davies, T. G., & Athey, S. (2009). Delicate engagement: The lived experience of community college students enrolled in high-risk online courses. Community College Review, 36(3), 219–238.

Bettinger, E. P., & Baker, R. B. (2014). The effects of student coaching: An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student advising. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 3–19. doi: 10.3102/0162373713500523

Blumenstyk, G. (2015). American higher education in crisis? What everyone needs to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bound, J., Lovenheim, M. F., & Turner, S. (2012). Increasing time to baccalaureate degree in the United States. Education, 7(4), 375–424.

Crosta, P. M. (2014). Intensity and attachment: How the chaotic enrollment patterns of community college students relate to educational outcomes. Community College Review, 42(2), 118–142. doi: 10.1177/0091552113518233

Doyle, W. R. (2010). Open-access colleges responsible for greatest gains in graduation rates (Policy Alert). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy Higher Education.

Esposito, A., Pasquini, L. A., Steele, G., & Stoller, E.. (2011). A world of tomorrow: Technology and advising. In J. E. Joslin & N. L. Markee (Eds.), Academic advising administration: Essential knowledge & skills for the 21st century (Monograph No. 22) (pp. 261–274). Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association.

Felton, E. (2014, December 4). White House summit calls for using data to boost graduation rates. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/content/white-house-summit-calls-using-data-boost-graduation-rates_18317/

Gaines, T. (2014). Technology and academic advising: Student usage and preferences. NACADA Journal, 34(1), 43–49.

Goodman, J., Hurwitz, M., & Smith, J. (2015). College access, initial college choice and degree completion (NBER Working Paper No. 20996). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Grubb, W. N. (2006). “Like, what do I do now?†The dilemmas of guidance counseling. In T. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 195–222). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hornak, A. M., Akweks, K., & Jeffs, M. (2010). Online student services at the community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 79–87.

Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27–38.

Jaggars, S., & Fletcher, J. (2014). Redesigning the student intake and information provision processes at a large comprehensive community college (CCRC Working Paper No. 72). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Joslin, J. (2009).Voices from the field: Veteran advisors. NACADA Journal, 29(2), 68–75.

Junco, R. (2010, September). Using emerging technologies to engage students and enhance their success. Academic Advising Today. Retrieved from https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/View-Articles/Using-Emerging-Technologies-to-Engage-Students-and-Enhance-Their-Success.aspx

Karp, M. M. (2011). Toward a new understanding of non-academic student support: Four mechanisms encouraging positive student outcomes in the community college (CCRC Working Paper No. 28, Assessment of Evidence Series). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Karp, M. M. (2013). Entering a program: Helping students make academic and career decisions (CCRC Working Paper No. 59). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Karp, M. M., & Bork, R. H. (2012). “They never told me what to expect, so I didn’t know what to doâ€: Defining and clarifying the role of a community college student (CCRC Working Paper No. 47.) New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Karp, M. M., O’Gara, L., & Hughes, K. L. (2008). Do support services at community colleges encourage success or reproduce disadvantage? An exploratory study of students at two community colleges (CCRC Working Paper No. 10). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Leonard, M. J. (2008). Advising delivery: Using technology. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed., pp. 292–306). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Low, L. (2000). Are college students satisfied? A national analysis of changing expectations (New Agenda SeriesTM). Indianapolis, IN: USA Group Foundation.

Lowenstein, M. (2005). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal, 25(2), 65–73.

Moneta, L. (2005). Technology and student affairs: Redux. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(112), 3–14.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). New York, NY: Routledge.

Noonan, J., & Stapley, J. C. (2015, March). The demise of in-person academic advising is nowhere in sight! Academic Advising Today. Retrieved from https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/View-Articles/The-Demise-of-In-Person-Academic-Advising-is-Nowhere-in-Sight!.aspx

Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educause Quarterly, 1, 7–12.

Phillips, E. D. (2014). Improving student success using technology-based analytics. Diversity and Democracy, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2014/winter/phillips

Smith, C. L., & Allen, J. M. (2006). Essential functions of academic advising: What students want and get. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 56–66.

Stephens, D. (2007). Literature review: Technology investment needs of students and faculty at community colleges. Olympia: WA: Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. Retrieved from http://sbctc.edu/docs/strategicplan/LiteratureReview.pdf

Tait, A. (2000). Planning student support for open and distance learning. Open learning, 15(3), 287–299.

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). White house initiative on historically black colleges and universities. Retrieved June 22, 2015 from http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). IPEDS Data Center [Data file]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx

Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas (CCRC Working Paper No. 54). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Yanosky, R. (2014). Integrated planning and advising services: A benchmarking study. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research.

Downloads

Published

2017-06-15

Issue

Vol. 21 No. 2 (2017)

Section

Student Issues, Pedagogy, Tools, and Support

License

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions