E-ADVISING IN COLLEAGUE: PANACEA,

PRAGMATISM & PITFALLS

SESSION: M4.3IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLEAGUE E-ADVISING AT HARDIN-SIMMONS UNIVERSITY

KACEY HIGGINS

REGISTRAR

Use Mobile Guidebook to Evaluate this Session

Session: M4.3

AGENDA• Overview of Hardin-Simmons University Implementation• Process• Goals• Practicalities

• Strengths and Weakness of the System• Wish we had known

HARDIN-SIMMONS UNIVERSITY – ABILENE, TX• Small, Private, Liberal-arts University • 1800 undergraduate students, 500 graduate and doctoral students

• Model of Advising & Registration• Looking for an Online Tool to Guide Self-registration• Degree Audit Design• 108 Specifications of the Core Curriculum (a.k.a. Foundational Curriculum)

PROCESS• Ad-hoc Committee

• Registrar

• Director of Admissions

• Assoc. VP for Academic Advising

• Manager of Administrative System Support

• Assoc. VP for Technology Services

• 2 Faculty Advisors

• Timeline Jan 2011New RegistrarApril Software selected

Summer 2011JuneInstall software and begin to explore possibilities Julynew ad hoc committee for online registration

September 2011 Consultant training revealed need for redesign of degree audits slowing project

November 2011Pilot small group of students from various colleges and programsMarch 2012 College of Sciences and MathematicsNovember 2012 BusinessNursingTheologyMarch 2013Education

May 2013Re-evaluation and move to open registration

November 2013System-wide online registration using web registration system for simplified registration process

BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYSIS• Advising – Model and Training – Essential to have partnership with advising to

guide implementation• System- Overarching principles regarding standards, modifications, add-ons,

data accuracy, etc.• Students - Services and Training• Student Holds – Review and rationale• Registration policies – Calendar (add, cancel, etc.), staggering, drop last class• Restrictions – prerequisites, level, major, rules• Billing – current processes, terms of agreement, finalization• Web Portal – what students are able to see and do online through self-service

GOALS• Students• Enable responsibility through autonomy• Increase ownership of degree requirements• Empower action-oriented decision-making

• Advisors• Provide system-guided decision-making • Minimize faculty involvement and intervention• Separate advising and schedule building

PRACTICALITIES

• Staffing• Training • Challenge to provide intensive training of non-intuitive system – students

and advisors• Ongoing training

• Advising • Model• Unclear advising philosophy

DECISION POINTS• Student vs. Advisor Planning• Advisor Approval required or not• Training

ADVISOR• Modify plan• View degree evaluation• Make notes – public and private• Email

STUDENT PLANNING• Must have a degree plan• Students log-in through the student portal – HSU Central• Select Academic Planning

STUDENT REGISTRATION

• Same preferred sections list • Course planning• Registration• Search for section

• Same registration process

DEGREE EVALUATION• Choose whether or not to include planned courses• Can run “what-if”

PANACEA (AN ANSWER OR SOLUTION FOR ALL PROBLEMS OR DIFFICULTIES)

• Presents degree requirements for student planning and course selection• Students can register from planning worksheet• Email and comments capability (public and private)• Advisor release for registration either through approval of courses or by

registration hold• Degree evaluation available online• Advisor can update student planning and add courses to worksheet not on

plan

PRAGMATISM (CONDUCT THAT EMPHASIZES PRACTICALITY)

• Does not replace advisor - Advisor needed to navigate program specifications, course selection, and class sections

• Good supplemental system to online registration• Degree audit system must work for end user• Training must be done for non-intuitive system

PITFALL (TRAP OR DANGER FOR THE UNWARY)

• System does not employ fine-grain degree audit syntax in planning• Allows student to plan and register for class that does not fulfill requirement• Training needed for non-intuitive system • Non-optimal student experience (described as bulky, clunky, quirky)• Confusion about whether or not student is registered • Emails not stored

WISH I HAD KNOWN• Enormity of re-writing degree plans for end-user• Syntax rules not applied in planning• System is not dynamic (cannot adjust/calculate requirements, i.e. electives)• Advising philosophy• Adoption by faculty and students – include students on planning committee• Discrepancies in advising practice – system engagement, expectations• What-if list of programs is alphabetized by program title (not program code).

BA.ART vs Art (BA)

Q & A• kacey.higgins@hsutx.edu

USE MOBILE GUIDEBOOK TO EVALUATE THIS SESSION

Session: M4.3