ADVISING AT-RISK STUDENTS IN COLLEGE ANDUNIVERSITY SETTINGS

DANA L. HEISSERER

PHIL PARET-rE

Southeast Missouri State University

The importance of intrusive advising at-risk college and univer-sity students (i.e., students who: are ethnic minorities, areacademically disadvantaged, have disabilities, are of low socioe-conomic status, and are probationary students) has beenrepeatedly emphasized in the professional literature. Intrusiveadvising strategies are typically used with at-risk students, andare special techniques based on prescriptive, developmental, andintegrated advising models. Numerous benefits to using intru-sive advising are noted, along with examples of strategies usedwith five at-risk groups. Recommendations for college and uni-versity advisors include the need for a comprehensive plan thataddresses intrusive advising, adequate faculty and advisor train-ing, web supports for targeted students, development ofcomprehensive databases for managing student data, and ongo-ing research to evaluate intervention effectiveness.

Research literature on student retentionand attrition suggests that contact with asignificant person within an institution ofhigher education is a crucial factor in a stu-dent's decision to remain in college(Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Glennen,Farren, & Vowell, 1996). In the past fewdecades, many claims have been made withregard to the important role that qualityacademic advising programs play in thesuccessful recruitment and retention of stu-dents (see e.g., Glennen et al., 1996;Habley, 1986; Habley & Crockett, 1988;Metzner, 1989; Trombley & Holmes,1981). Higher education professionalswho come in direct contact with studentsand understand the challenges they faceare primary candidates for advisor/mentorroles. While faculty, administrators, andstudent affairs professionals all serve asstudent advocates and play an integral partin student retention and attrition, advisorsare typically in the best positions to assiststudents in making quality academic deci-

sions.Of particular importance to academic

advisors in college and university settingsare students who are deemed to be at-risk(Jones & Watson, 1990; Kobrak, 1992).For purposes of this discussion, the termat-risk students will refer to several groupsof individuals: students who are (a) eth-nic minorities, (b) academicallydisadvantaged, (c) disabled, (d) of lowsocioeconomic status, and (e) probation-ary students.

Impact of At-Risk Students on Colleges andUniversities

Jones and Watson (1990) have notedthat at-risk students and their retention havea substantial impact on both institutions ofhigher education and society in general.Specifically, retention affects (a) fundingpatterns, (b) facilities planning, and (c)academic curricula offered. Retention alsoaffects the future labor market, becausestudents who do not have proper training

69

70/College Student Journal

for the workforce are generally unpreparedto meet the expected roles and responsi-bilities associated with particular vocations.

Nationally, high student attrition (50%)among first year college students contin-ues to be a trend (Arendale, 1993). Manyauthorities have discuissed the reasons foracademic attrition among at-risk students.For example, inequitable resource alloca-tions across school districts and in homesettings (i.e., low income vs. high income)result in fewer educational learning mate-rials and experiences for some students(Jones & Watson, 1990; Lockard, Abrams,& Many, 1997; Piller, 1992; Resta, 1992).

Other authorities have described theeffects of lowered expectations on the self-esteem of students in the early publicschool years, resulting in diminished self-confidence in academic potential andperformance on entering college (Bandura,1977; Higher Education Extension Ser-vice, 2000). Once students are enrolled inthe college or university setting, they maynot feel that they are a part of the campuscommunity. They may become particu-larly vulnerable to feelings that they don'tbelong, feel rejected, and may not adjustto normal academic challenges associatedwith college life. They may also be unde-cided about an area of study, or feeJ theydo not 'fit' their chosen major (Grites,1982; Mash, 1978), resulting in a greaterlikelihood that they may drop-out ordemonstrate poor academic performance.Many high-risk and underrepresentedgroups in the campus community may notenter the university with an already well-established commitment to it, or even tohigher education.

Given the importance of increasing stu-

dent retention, colleges and universitieshave focused considerable attention ondeveloping appropriate strategies toincrease the retention rates of these stu-dents (see e.g., National AcademicAdvising Association, 2000). Generally,successful strategies have emerged fromthe various academic advising modelsreported in the literature.

Models ofAdvisingIn order to understand the importance

of specific counseling skills in the advis-ing process, models that provide thefoundation for academic advisiig must bedescribed. Three models have been fre-quently advocated in the professionalliterature. These include the prescriptive,developmental, and integrated advisingapproaches.

Prescriptive advising. First describedby Crookston (1972), a prescriptive advis-ing approach is characterized by anauthoritarian relationship in which theadvisor makes a "diagnosis", prescribes aspecific treatment for the student, and thestudent follows the prescriptive regimen.The student assumes no responsibility fordecision-making, and relies totally on theadvisor's recommendations. Specific pre-scriptions typically focus on courseselection, degree requirements, and regis-tration (Crookston, 1972).

While Crookston (1972) reported neg-ative aspects of this advising model,particularly the lack of student involve-ment in the decision-making process, otherresearchers have noted advantages to themodel. For example, Fielstein (1989)found that over 50% of students rated sixprescriptive activities as high priority: (a)

Advising At-Risk Students ... / 71

explaining graduation requirements, (b)discussing course selection, (c) planning acourse of study, (d) discussing educationgoals, (e) exploring career options, and (f)explaining registration procedures. Pardee(1994) noted that many students are con-ditioned to expect prescriptive advising,as they have not been exposed to otherapproaches. Interestingly, minority stu-dents often show a preference forprescriptive approaches (Brown & Rivas,1994). When an advisor is directive andinforms students about the nuances of col-lege life, many minority students may havea tendency to perceive the advisor as com-petent, listen more intently, and assumemore responsibility for their own actions(Chando, 1997).

Developmental advising. The termdevelopmental advising, first coined byCrookston (1972), refers to a sharedresponsibility between the student andadvisor that promotes initiative and growthin the student. Instead of simply routine-ly answering questions relevant to astudent's needs, the advisor directs the stu-dent to proper resources, thus facilitatingthe development of greater independence,decision-making, and problem-solving(Chando, 1997).

Support for the positive aspects of andstudent preferences for developmentaladvising have frequently been reported inthe literature (e.g., Winston & Sandor,1984; Ender, 1994; Gordon, 1994; Pardee,1994). However, weaknesses have alsobeen noted. For example, Gordon (1994)listed shortcomings including (a) time, (b)large caseloads, (c) lack of advisor train-ing, (d) lack of consistency in advisorcontacts, (e) autonomous advising units,

(f) poor integration between student andacademic services, (g) lack of training andworking with a diverse student body, and(h) lack of effective evaluation strategies.Ender (1994) suggested that ineffectivedevelopmental advising tended to be asso-ciated with faculty advisors whoexperience increased out-of-class expec-tations, lack of institutional rewardincentive for performing developmentaladvising, and a tendency of institutions torely more heavily on part-time faculty.

Integrated advising. Despite the short-comings of both prescriptive anddevelopmental advising models, strengthshave been noted in both approaches, sug-gesting that elements of the two beimplemented in higher education settings(Fielstein, 1994). Numerous authoritieshave proposed a comprehensive approachto advising that emphasizes information-al and counseling roles (see e.g., Andrews,Andrews, Long, & Henton, 1987; Frost,1993; Trombley, 1984).

Skills and Competencies Essential for Acad-emic Advisors

Many of the studies reviewed in the lit-erature described characteristics of at-riskstudents and effective strategies for work-ing with these populations. Numerousskills have been described in the profes-sional literature as being critical forsuccessful academic advising (see e.g.,Gordon & Habley, 2000; Peterson &Nisenholz, 1999; Winston, Miller, Ender,& Grites, 1984). Presented in Table 1 arecategories of at-risk students and intrusiveadvising approaches that have been docu-mented as being effective.

A number of authorities have indicat-

72/College Student Journal

ed that regular faculty-student contact isthe most important factor in studentinvolvement and motivation and can pro-vide students with the needed support toget through the tough times and keep work-ing toward academic success (Chickering& Gamson, 1987; Glennen & Vowell,1995). Of particular importance is the one-to-one relationship that is typically presentbetween the student and advisor that pro-vides an opportunity for the student to builda personal link with the institution (Nutt,2000). Often the academic advisor is theonly link the student has with the institu-tion, having a profound effect on thestudent's academic career and the student'slevel of satisfaction with his/her collegechoice (Chickering & Gamson, 1987;Glennen & Vowell, 1995; Nutt, 2000).

In addition to being knowledgeableabout academic programs and curricularequirements within the institution, theadvisor's ability to give accurate and cor-rect academic guidance is often the mostcommonly stated expectation of studentsreceiving advising services (Creamer &Scott, 2000). Unfortunately, most advisorsfocus primarily on the academic informa-tion they need to deliver to the student,acting as the "teller" or the "expert" in therelationship, and ignore or overlook otherimportant student needs (Frost, 1991).

In addition to the aforementioned com-petencies, three specific skills appear to beassociated with effective one-to-one advis-ing. These include communication,questioning, and referral skills (Nutt,2000).

Communication skills. Six basic com-munication skills are necessary forestablishing rapport in the at-risk advising

relationship. These include (a) establish-ing and maintaining eye contact (Peterson& Nisenholz, 1999), (b) allowing studentsthe opportunity to fully explain their ideasor problems (Egan, 1994), (c) being sen-sitive to body language (Carkhuff, 1987;Peterson & Nisenholz, 1999), (d) focus-ing on the content and tone of the student'swords (Peterson & Nisenholz, 1999), (e)acknowledging what the student is sayingthrough verbal and nonverbal feedback(Peterson & Nisenholz, 1999), and (f)reflecting on or paraphrasing what the stu-dent has said (Nutt, 2000).

Ouestioning skills. Advisors workingwith at-risk students must be adept at usingquestioning skills (Nutt, 2000). The key toeffective questioning is to focus on studentconcerns versus issues/topics deemedimportant by the advisor. Generally, advi-sors rely on two types of questions duringthe advising process: (a) open-ended (i.e.,those allowing students to select subjectmatter of interest to them, thus providingtheir own structure to the session) (Ivy,1971); and (b) closed-ended (i.e., short-answer, thus facilitating the gathering offactual information) (Nutt, 2000). Use ofboth types of questions are important inthe at-risk advising process, as each pro-vides different types of information andcommunicates different things to students(e.g., open-ended questions communicateinterest in the student whereas closed-ended questions communicate interest infacts).

Referral skills. Successful at-risk advis-ing relationships typically are notestablished unless the advisor movesbeyond simply asking a student questionsto making referrals based on the informa-

Advising At-Risk Students.../ 73

tion gained through the questioningprocess. Once student issues are identi-fied using appropriate questions, theadvisor has an obligation to make judg-ments regarding how best to serve thestudent. As Nutt (2000) noted, makingreferrals should not be perceived as "onlya method of getting them out of the advi-sor's office instead of as a genuine desireto assist students in the best way possible"(p. 223), Advisors should clearly and open-ly communicate why the student shouldseek outside assistance (i.e., from anothersource). The advisor and student shouldjointly determine the nature of the problemfor which student assistance is needed, fol-lowed by development of a plan of actionthat includes the referral. Such a collabo-rative process requires an extensiveknowledge base on the part of the advisorregarding the array of services availableon campus and in the community.

Effects ofAcademic Advising on StudentRetention/Persistence

Student persistence is critical in obtain-ing a college degree and it is an importantcriterion by which success in college ismeasured (Passarcella & Terenzini, 1991).College and university student persistenceand attrition has been examined closely inthe professional literature during the past20 years. As noted by Cuseo (1991), near-ly 40% of all students leave institutions ofhigher education without receiving theirfour-year degrees. According to Tinto(1993), more students leave higher educa-tion settings prior to degree completionthan stay. About one-half of all studentswho drop out of college do so during theirfreshman year; many leave during the first

six to eight weeks (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri,1985). Studies have shown that a student'ssense of belonging is directly related totheir persistence, or decisions made toremain in school (Tinto, 1993). This senseof belonging is increased or decreasedthrough interactions with the academic andsocial environments of the university.

Student persistence and degree attain-ment significantly impact the economicsuccess for colleges and universities. Attri-tion (i.e., student dropout) has far-reachingconsequences not only for students whodepart prior to degree attainment, but alsofor the institutions from which they depart(Productivity, Quality and Outcomes TaskForce on Advising, 1998). Student attri-tion directly impacts institutions of highereducation by the loss of tuition income andwith the additional costs of recruiting newstudents (Holbrook, 1981).

Research has shown that the only vari-able that has a direct effect on studentpersistence is the quality of a relationshipwith significant member(s) of the collegecommunity (cf. Losser, 1985; Noel, 1976;National Academic Advising Association,1994). The sense of student belonging inthe academic community that was report-ed by Tinto (1993) is increased ordecreased through interactions with theacademic and social environments of theuniversity. Tinto's findings have beenextended to include student expectations(see Braxton, Vesper, & Hossler, 1995).In synthesizing the volume of studies con-ducted in this area, Wyckoff (1999)reported that the primary negative charac-teristic linked to student attrition wasinadequate academic advising.

Tinto (1990) stated that institutions of

74/College Student Journal

higher learning provide adequate resourcesand effectively utilize faculty advisors toencourage student retention. Other stud-ies have found that an array of services,including advising, testing, and develop-mental education, coupled with theinvolvement of many institutional profes-sionals, resulted in greater student retentionat the undergraduate level (Dinoto, 1991;Glennen & Baxley, 1985; Glennen et al.,1989).

The Intrusive Advising Model and At-RiskStudents

One approach that has gained increasedattention in the literature is intrusive advis-ing with at-risk students. Earl (1988)suggested that intrusive advising is "delib-erate intervention...to enhance studentmotivation" (p. 27). Generally, intrusiveadvising approaches include a range ofintervention strategies that connote inter-est in and involve the advisor in the affairsof the student (Glennen, 1995), and whichculminate in increased motivation on thepart of the student (Earl, 1988). For thisdiscussion, intrusive advising is defined as"intensive advising intervention with anat-risk student that is designed to (a) facil-itateinformed,responsibledecision-making, (b) increase student moti-vation toward activities in his/hersocial/academic community, and (c) ensurethe probability of the student's academicsuccess." Earl (1988) suggested that intru-sive advising is "deliberate intervention...toenhance student motivation" (p. 27).

Intrusive advising has many advantages.Of particular importance is the positiveeffect the use of such advising approach-es has on retent;nn rates and increased

number of credit hours completed (Bray,1985; Brophy, 1984; Nichols, 1986);increased gpa demonstrated by students(Schultz, 1989; Spears, 1990); and use ofstudy skills, time management strategies,and classroom attendance (Spears, 1990).

Holmes (2000) summarized a range ofreports and noted that the benefits werefourfold: students (a) are more inclinedto keep up with their work if they know anacademic advisor will contact them; (b)have fewer financial worries; (c) receivenecessary connections to university reten-tion services; and (d) are referred to neededsupport services, thus communicating thatsomeone at the institution cares about them.

Recent studies have also supported theuse of intrusive advising strategies withspecial populations of students, includingthose exhibiting classroom behavioralproblems (Chandler, 1999), transfer stu-dents on academic probation (Cooper &Franke, 1992), minority students (Walton,1979), and disadvantaged students (Wag-ner & McKenzie, 1980). Intrusive advisinghas also produced positive results in grad-uation rates and time to graduation amongtargeted groups of student (Glennen et al.,1996). From an administrative perspective,Glennen and Farren (1990) found that anintrusive advising program increased reten-tion and resulted in substantial increasedstate funding over a 5-year period.

Such studies regarding effectivenesshave led to innovative approaches foradvising on college and university cam-puses. Kroll (1990) described a modelconsisting of five key service componentsthat were perceived favorably by both stu-dents and advisors: (a) preservice andinservice advisor training, (b) intrusive stu-

Advising At-Risk Students... / 75

dent advising, (c) dissemination of profiledata on new students to advisers, (d)streamlined registration and group advis-ing, and (e) development of advisingsupport materials. Sayrs (1999) describedan intrusive advising program, A Proac-tive Advising System for Students (PASS),with undergraduate psychology majors.The program consisted of a tri-weeklycourse progress system, periodic telephonecalls to students, informational newslet-ters, and a Psychology Career InformationCompendium. Students who participatedin PASS initiated more contact with theiracademic advisor, reported significantincreases in overall satisfaction with theadvising system, reported significantincreases in satisfaction with the efficien-cy and structure of the advising system,earned significantly higher final percent-ages in psychology courses than controlsubjects, and earned higher grades in psy-chology courses than control subjects.

Conclusions and DiscussionThe increasing number of students who

are at-risk for academic failure, coupledwith effective intervention approachesreported in the literature, suggests that aca-demic advisors should strive to be moreintrusive in their interactions with studentadvisees. While both prescriptive anddevelopmental strategies have been provenuseful across varying target populations ofstudents, institutions of higher learninghave recognized the importance of inte-grated intrusive strategies. For example,Reiff (1997) described a range of approach-es that have been used with adults havinglearning disabilities, and suggested thatsuch integrated approaches are useful with

at-risk students in college settings (e.g.,strategic goal planning; interactive learn-ing; promotion of self-awareness,self-determination, and self-reliance). Useof these approaches will result in greaterstudent retention among at-risk students,enhanced feelings of "belongingness"within the institution, and greater con-nectedness with their programs of studyand the faculty delivering those programs.From an administrative perspective, greaterretention rates have far-reaching financialimplications given the increased studentrevenues that are generated, which in turnoften equates with a greater array ofresources that are made available on cam-puses.

The literature clearly suggests that thesingle most important factor in advisingstudents who are at-risk is helping themto feel that they are cared for by the insti-tution (Bray, 1985; Braxton et al., 1995;Holmes, 2000; Tinto, 1993; Wyckoff,1999). Helping students to feel valuedrequires a developmental approach inwhich the advisor expresses interest in thestudent, and uses effective communica-tion, questioning, and referral techniques.However, as noted by some minority stu-dents (Brown & Rivas, 1994) prescriptivestrategies used in the context of the devel-opmental model also communicate a senseof caring to students. This supports theuse of integrated advising approaches inwhich advisors use a wide range of tech-niques with at-risk students.

Most advisors have not been adequate-ly trained to use integrated advising modelswith at-risk student populations, suggest-ing a need for greater training. Similarly,most faculty advisors who work with these

76/College Student Journal

students are not trained to address theunique needs of these students, nor are theyrewarded (e.g., merit increases, credittoward tenure/promotion) for their efforts.This is particularly interesting in light ofthe consistent finding in the literature thatregular faculty-student contact is perhapsthe single most important factor in helpingat-risk students feel a sense of belonging.

Integral to any contact made is to ensurethat the student's needs are addressed effec-tively (Frost, 1991) using effectivecommunication, questioning, and referraltechniques. The latter skill of referralassumes that advisors have an extensiveknowledge base regarding campus andcommunity resources that might poten-tially benefit these students.

Advisors must also give accurate andcorrect academic guidance during theircontacts with students, as this has beenexpressed as a high priority need by at-risk students (Creamer & Scott, 2000).This reinforces the importance of advisorsbeing trained in their respective academicdisciplines to ensure that timely and accu-rate information is conveyed.

Models for effective intrusive advisinghave been described with increasing fre-quency at websites around the country (seee.g., California State University-Chico,2000; Steele & McDonald, 1997; VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University,1999) and in the professional literature(e.g., Backhus, 1989; Kobrak, 1992;Romero, 1986). Many colleges and uni-versities can potentially benefit from thework that has been described by these andother resources.

Recommendations that are offered forconsideration by college and university

personnel include the following:

1. Personnel should make a concerted andcoordinated effort to develop a com-prehensive plan targeting at-riskstudents, specifically students on aca-demic probation. A component of thisplan (at the advisor/student level) wouldbe to have the student sign a con-tract/study plan, developed both at thebeginning and at the mid-term of thesemester, clearly articulating the stu-dent's obligations and efforts tosuccessfully be removed from acade-mic probation.

2. Integral to the comprehensive plan isthe need for adequate faculty and advi-sor training related to at-risk students.Both faculty and advisors should par-ticipate in a comprehensive needsassessment designed to identify deficitsin the existing knowledge bases of advi-sors on campus. This would result inspecific topics being identified andworkshops being provided that wouldenhance the academic advising of at-risk students.

3. Another part of the comprehensive planwould include development of a web-site on the college or universityhomepage devoted specifically to at-risk students. This site might includea range of on-line information, services,and interactive elements (e.g., discus-sion groups, chat rooms, email) thatwould be useful to specific groups ofstudents. While some efforts havealready been made to develop suchresources, there should be a more com-prehensive approach to ensure thattracking, communication, and support

Advising At-Risk Students.../ 77

components are a part of the website.4. The college or university should com-

pile information from incomingfreshmen and other at-risk groups toensure that a comprehensive databaseis maintained regarding these students.Such a database is beneficial for a vari-ety of institutional planning purposes,and facilitates long-range planning anddecision-making about studentneeds/services. One important com-ponent of this information-gatheringapproach would be to develop sensitivequestionnaires designed to capture arange of relevant concerns (e.g., timemanagement strategies, career goals,potential problems anticipated). A sam-ple of such a questionnaire is includedin Figure 2.

5. Personnel should conduct longitudinalresearch related to the impact of its planon student retention and student per-ceptions/satisfaction with strategies thatare provided.

ReferencesAndrews, M., Andrews, D., Long, E., & Henton,

J. (1987). Student characteristics as predictorsof perceived advising needs. Journal of Col-lege Student Personnel, 28, 60-65.

Arendale, D. (1993). Understanding the supple-mental instruction model. In D. C. Martin, &D. Arendale (Eds.), Supplemental instruction:Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses (2nd ed.) (pp. 3-10). Columbia,SC: National Resource Center for the Fresh-man Year Experience and Students inTransition.

Backhus, D. (1989). Centralized intrusive advis-ing and undergraduate retention. NACADAJournal, 9, 39-45.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a uni-fying theory of behavioral change.Psycholoeical Review, 84, 191-215.

Braxton, J. M., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995)Expectations for college and student persis-tence. Research in Higher Education, 36,595-612.

Bray, C. S. (1985). Early identification of dropoutprone students and early intervention strate-gies to improve student retention at a privateuniversity (Attrition, staying environment, per-sistence, high-risk students, freshmen).Dissertation Abstracts International, 4_(O1A),0095.

Brophy, D. A. (1984). The relationship betweenstudent development activities and rate ofretention in a rural community college. Dis-sertation Abstracts International, 45(07A),1990.

Brown, T., & Rivas, M. (1994). The prescriptiverelationship in academic advising as an appro-priate developmental intervention withmulticultural populations. NACADA Journal,14, 108-111.

California State University-Chico. (2000). Building relationships: Approaches to enhancingretention and advising [On-line]. Available:http://em.csuchico.edu/aap/FacultyStaff/reten-tion.asp

Carkhuff, R. (1987). The art of helping (7th ed.).Amherst, MA: Human Resource DevelopmentPress.

Chandler, B. A. (1999). Intrusive advising andits effects on students who exhibit behavioralproblems in the classroom (At-risk, communi-ty college students, intervention). DissertationAbstracts International, 60(04A), 989.

Chando, C. M. (1997). Predicting advising stylepreference from student characteristics (doc-toral dissertation, University of Memphis,1997). UMI Dissertation Services, 930635.

Chickering,A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Sevenprinciples for good practice in undergraduateeducation. AAHE Bulletin, 32(7), 3-7.

Cooper, E. J., & Franke, J. S. (1992). Advisingunder-prepared and transfer students: Integrat-ing English assessment and academic advising.NACADA Journal, 12, 33-37.

Creamer, E. G., & Scott, D. W. (2000). Assessingindividual advisor effectiveness. In V. N. Gor-don & W. H. Habley (Eds.), Academic

78/ College Student Journal

advising. A comprehensive handbook (pp.339-347). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental viewof academic advising as teaching. Journal ofCollege Student Personnel, 13, 12-17.

Cuseo, J. B. (1991). The freshman orientation sem-inar: A research based rationale for its value.delivery, and content (The Freshman YearExperience Monograph No. 9). Columbia,MO: University of Missouri.

Dinoto, D. M. (1991). A study of variations inundergraduate academic advising processes byacademic discipline and organizational struc-ture of departments. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 52(10A), 3538.

Earl, W. R. (1988). Intrusive advising of freshmenin academic difficulty, NACADA Journal, 8,27-33.

Egan, G. (1994). The skilled helper (4th ed.).Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Ender, S. C. (1994). Impediments to develop-mental advising. NACADA Journal, 14,105-107.

Fielstein, L. L. (1989). Developmental versusprescriptive advising: Must it be one or theother? NACADA Journal, 9, 33-38.

Frost, S. H. (1991). Academic advising for stu-dent success. A system of shared responsibility(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.3). Washington DC: The George WashingtonUniversity, School of Education and HumanDevelopment.

Frost, S. H. (1993). Developmental advising:Practices and attitudes of faculty advisors.NACADA Journal, 13, 15-20.

Glennen, R. E. (1995). Obtaining presidential sup-port for advising. In R. E. Glennen & F. N.Vowell (Eds.), Academic advising as a com-prehensive campus process, (Monograph No.2, pp.l 1-14). Manhattan, KS: National Aca-demic Advising Association.

Glennen, R. E., & Baxley, D. M. (1985). Reduc-tion of attrition through intrusive advising.NASPA Journal, 22, 10-15.

Glennen, R. E., & Farren, P. J. (1990). Fiscalimplications of a retention program. In NorthCentral Association of Colleges and Students

(Ed.), A collection of papers on self study andinstitutional improvement (pp. 160-163).Chicago, IL: North Central Association ofColleges and Students.

Glennen, R. E., Farren, P. J., & Vowell, F. N.(1996). How advising and retention of stu-dents improves fiscal stability. NACADAJournal, 16, 38-41.

Glennen, R. E., Farren, P. J., Vowell, F. N., &Black, L. C. (1989). Expanding the advisingteam. NACADA Journal, 9, 25-30.

Glennen, R. E., & Vowell, F. N. (Ed.s). (1995).Academic advising as a comprehensive cam-pus process. National Academic AdvisingAssociation Monoeraph Series (No. 2).

Gordon, V. (1994). Developmental advising: Theelusive ideal. NACADA Journal, 14, 71-75.

Gordon, V. N., & Habley, W. R. (2000). Acade-mic advising: A comprehensive handbook.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grites, T. J. (1982). Advising for special popula-tions. In R. B. Winston, S. C. Enders, & T. K.Miller (Eds.), Developmental approaches toacademic advising (pp. 67-83). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Habley, W. R. (1986). Show us the future: Thechallenges facing academic advising. NACA-DA Journal, 6, 5-11.

Habley, W. R., & Crockett, D. 5. (1988). The thirdACT national survey of academic advising. InW. R. Habley (Ed.), The status and future ofacademic advising (pp. 11-76). Iowa City, IA:American College Testing Program.

Higher Education Extension Service. (2000). Theinfluence of developmental and emotional fac-tors on success in college [On-line]. Available:http://www.review.org/issues/vol3no2.html#Top

Holbrook, M. W. (1981). An analysis of policiesand programs for increasing student retentionin institutions of higher education in Georgia.Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(10A),4322.

Holmes, S. (2000). Student recruitment, reten-tion and monitoring [On-line]. Available:http://www.diversityweb.org/Leadersguide/RRAA/Student_Retention/intrusive.html

Advising At-Risk Students ... / 79

Ivy, A. (1971). Microcounseling. Springfield,IL: Thomas.

Jones, D. J., & Watson, B. C. (1990). "High risk"students and higher education: Future trends.(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.3). Washington, DC: The George Washing-ton University, School of Education andHuman Development.

Kobrak, P. (1992). Black student retention in pre-dominantly white regional universities: Thepolitics of faculty involvement. Journal ofNegro Education, 61, 509-530.

Kroll, R. C. (1990). Development, implementa-tion. and evaluation of an academic advisingmodel for use in the small, private college.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 331 333)

Lockard, J., Abrams, P. D., & Many, W. A. (1997).Microcomputers for twenty-first century edu-cators (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Losser, R. L. (1985). The problem of student attri-tion: A one year study of first time freshmenand transfer students. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 47(02A), 0433.

Mash, D. J. (1978). Academic advising: Too oftentaken for granted. The College Board Review,107, 32-36.

Metzner, B. (1989). Perceived quality of acade-mic advising: The effect on freshman attrition.American Educational Research Journal, 26,422-442.

National Academic Advising Association. (1994,November). Academic advising: Campus col-laborations to foster retention [On-line].http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/teleconference/teleconference.html

National Academic Advising Association. (2000).Institutional program abstracts. [On-line].Available: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Awards/archives2.htm

Nichols, R. H. (1986). Effects of intensive, intru-sive faculty advising on college freshmen.Dissertation Abstracts International, 06A,2048.

Noel, L. T. (1976). College student retention-Acampus-wide responsibility. NACADA Jour-nal, 21, 33-36.

Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increas-ine student retention. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Nutt, C. L. (2000). One-to-one advising. In V.N. Gordon & W. H. Habley (Eds.), Academicadvising. A comprehensive handbook (pp. 220-237). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pardee, C. F. (1994). We profess developmentaladvising, but do we practice it? NACADAJournal, 14, 59-61.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). Twen-ty years of research on college students:Lessons for future research. Research in High-er Education, 32 (1), 83-92.

Peterson, J. V., & Nisenholz, B. (1999). Orienta-tion to counseling (4th ed.). Boston: Allynand Bacon.

Piller, C. (1992, September). Separate realities.MacWorld, 218-230.

Productivity, Quality and Outcomes Task Force onAdvising. (1998). Report of the POO TaskForce on Advising: The university advisingplan. A comprehensive, collaborative propos-al. [On-line]. Available: http://www.montana.edu/aircj/report/pqo/PQOAdvising-Plan.html

Reiff, H. B. (1997). Academic advising: Anapproach from learning disabilities to research.Journal of Counseling and Development, 75,433-441.

Resta, P. (1992). Organizing education for minori-ties: Enhancing minority access and use of thenew information technologies in higher edu-cation. Education and Computing, 8, 119-127.

Romero, M. (1986). An academic advisementcenter as a strategy to confront freshman attri-tion. Dissertation Abstracts International,47(06A), 2050.

Sayrs, D. M. (1999). An experimental analysisof the effects of an intrusive academic advis-ing package on academic performance,satisfaction, and retention. DissertationAbstracts International, 61(02B), 1067.

Schultz, R. A. (1989). Differences between aca-demically successful and unsuccessful studentsin an intrusive academic advising program.Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(02A),417.

80/College Student Journal

Spears, M. C. (1990). A study of the effects ofacademic intervention on performance, satis-faction, and retention of businessadministration students in a public comprehen-sive college. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 51(08A), 2656.

Steele, G., & McDonald, M. (1997). Deliverysystems for academic advising [On-line].Available: http://www.uvc.ohio-state.edu/chouse/delivery.txt

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking thecauses and cures of student attrition (2nd ed).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. S. (1990). Principles of effective reten-tion. Journal of the Freshman Experience, 2,35-48.

Trombley, T. (1984). An analysis of the complex-itv of academic advising tasks. Journal ofCollege Student Personnel, 25, 234-239.

Trombley, T. T., & Holmes, D. (1981). Definingthe role of academic advising in the industrialsetting: The next phase. NACADA Journal,l, 1-8.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universi-ty. (1999). University Task Force onAcademic Advising [On-line]. Available:http://www.provost.vt.edu/advising/task-force.html

Wagner, C. A., & McKenzie, R. (1980). Successskills for disadvantaged undergraduates. Jour-nal of College Student Personnel, 21, 514-520.

Walton, J. M. (1979). Retention, role modeling,and academic readiness: A perspective on theethnic minority students in higher education.The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 58, 124,127.

Winston, R. B., & Sandor, J. A. (1984). Devel-opmental academic advising: What dostudents want? NACADA Journal, 4, 5-13.

Winston, R. B., Miller, T. K., Ender, S. C., &Grites, T. J. (Eds.). (1984). Developmentalacademic advising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wyckoff, S. C. (1999). The academic advisingprocess in higher education: History. research.and improvement [On-line]. Available:http://www.magnapubs.com/R_R/the.htm

Advising At-Risk Students... / 81

Table 1At-Risk Populations: Summary of Characteristics and Techniques for Intrusive

Advising

At-Risk Group Indicators Important to Advisors Intrusive Advising Strategies

Minorities * Declining enrollment * Enhance the college-student* Presence of low self-concept; fit

few positive expectations * Encourage campus involve-* Academic performance related ment

to college satisfaction * Suggest campus resources* Achievement related to prepa- * Encourage positive self-con-

ration; not a racial problem cept* Lack of role models on campus * Avoid stereotypical atti-

tudes/expectations* Suggest proven academic

experiences* Acknowledge importance of

role models

Academically * Increasing participation in high- * Establish trusting advisingDisadvantaged er education settings relationship

* May be dependent learners * Begin with intrusive advis-* May have low self-concept ing techniques* May be deficient in basic skills * Discuss purposes of college* May need to experience acade- early in relationship

mic success * Encourage basic skill devel-* May be hesitant to seek needed opment first

support services * Recommend interventionprograms and campusresources when needed

Students with * Increasing participation in high- * Understand students' abili-Disabilities er education ties and environmental

* One or more major life activi- barriersties may be limited * Display positive attitudes

* May prefer to see themselves as about integration of students"able" rather than "disabled" into higher education com-

* Express need for barrier removal munityfor full participation

* Need support from peers andothers 4,

82/College Student Journal

Table IAt-Risk Populations: Summary of Characteristics and Techniques for Intrusive

Advising (cont.)

At-Risk Group Indicators Important to Advisors Intrusive Advising Strategies

Students with * Declining enrollment * Encourage full participation

Disabilities (cont.) * Presence of low self-concept; in collegefew positive expectations * Recommend support services

* Academic performance related when neededto college satisfaction * Act as advocate for special

* Achievement related to prepa- and campus resourcesration; not a racial problem

* Lack of role models on campus

Low SES Stu- * Poor self-concept * Teach time managementdents * History of academic failure skills

* Limited educational experiences * Provide range of academic

* Cross-cultural limitations supports* Family commitments * Encourage use of study

groups* Employ flexibility in student-

centered strategies

* Poor study skills * Provide accurate, accessible,Probationary Stu- * Difficulty completing assign- consistent information

dents ments regarding progress in cur-

* Lack of self-confidence in abil- riculumities * Develop coping skills for

* Place great importance on work problem-solving* Emphasis on career advising* Quality student-faculty advis-

ing experiences

Advising At-Risk Students ... / 83

Figure 1Sample at-risk student advising questionnaire.

Advising Questionnaire

Name Grade Level_

1. List the courses in which you are currently enrolled. List your goal grade for each:

2. Do you see potential problem areas in any of these courses. If so, please list thecourse(s) and describe your concerns?

3. Of all my courses I am most worried about

I am least worried about

4. How academically prepared do you feel?

5. Have you had transitional difficulties since you began college? If so, pleasedescribe.

6. What are your career goals?

7. Aside from coursework, what other activities (i.e., athletics, social activities, fami-ly responsibilities, or a job)occupy your time ?

8. How well do you manage your time? How can this be improved?

9. What are your personal strengths?

10. What brought you to college at this institution?

11.What do you want to gain from your college experience?

Source: Heisserer, D. L. (1999). Advising questionnaire. Cape Girardeau, MO:Southeast Missouri State University. Reprinted with permission.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Advising at-risk students in college and universitysettings

SOURCE: College Student Journal 36 no1 Mr 2002WN: 0206003829009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited..

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.