Academic advising: a comparative analysis of national norms in public community colleges and in The League for Innovation in the Community College

James, Dava
Major Professor
Larry Ebbers
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Curriculum and Instruction

The focus of this study was the identification and analysis of academic advising model components and trends in public community colleges and in the League for Innovation in the Community College, a national, nonprofit, educational consortium of progressive community colleges. The results of a 1987 American College Testing national survey and the results of a 1992 survey of League for Innovation members were utilized. Based on these data, academic advising delivery systems were analyzed and reviewed for the purpose of identifying the components of quality advising programs in community colleges;The study elicited answers to the following research questions: (1) Who coordinates and organizes campus advising systems? (2) What organizational structure houses advising services? (3) What are the functions and who are the personnel in the advising offices? (4) What are the advising functions when instructional faculty advise? (5) What are the training and evaluation components utilized? (6) What is the overall institutional effectiveness of advising programs?;Literature was reviewed in the following areas: history of the community college, American College Testing, League for Innovation in Community Colleges, and academic advising;Data were gathered for comparison by the use of mailed surveys. The first survey was a 1987 ACT survey of community colleges at large; the second was a 1992 survey of League for Innovation institutions. The 1987 instrument elicited responses from 155 colleges out of the 932 surveyed. Responses were received from 27 of the 46 League for Innovation campus sites;Conclusions were drawn from the study in the following categories: enrollment size, organizational models of advising delivery, reporting structures, and written academic advising policy;Finally, recommendations for future research were made in the areas of increased sample size, surveying students as well as faculty and staff, increased use of computers, and contrasting rural and urban populations. A list of suggestions was included which was generated from responses received from League for Innovation community colleges.