Issue 26(2)
The
Status of Academic Advising: Findings from the ACT Sixth National
Survey.
(2004). Wesley R. Habley, Ed. Manhattan, KS: NACADA, 100 pp.,
Price $40. Order # M10.
Review by:
Jennifer
E. Spencer, Advisor
Family
& Consumer Sciences
Texas State
University - San Marcos
Wes Habley
opens his review of the latest national survey with an overview
of the previous five ACT sponsored advising surveys and a brief
history of the evolution of advising as a profession. Since the
first survey in 1979 to this latest one in 2003, the practice
of advising has changed dramatically across academia. From who
advises, to how advising is evaluated, to the level of importance
advising is granted in different types of institutions, this history
of advising over the past quarter century should be interesting
and informative to anyone working as an advisor today.
The
next four chapters of the monograph detail the findings of the
2003 ACT survey. ACT has continued to refine this survey since
it was first instituted. This latest sampling differentiates the
data as it was collected from two-year and four-year public and
private institutions. Habley, based upon survey responses, reviews
how each different type of institution organizes, oversees, and
evaluates academic advising. He includes detailed charts and tables
with the percentages of each type of respondent, and in circumstances
where the same question was asked in each of the five previous
surveys, he includes percentages for each relevant survey year.
For example, Habley includes three different tables to outline
the responses to the question of who is responsible for academic
advising on campus. The first table shows the percentages of all
respondents, and the second and third break out the respondents
based on type of institution. This easy-to-read format makes trends
readily apparent: in 1979, 14% of all respondents indicated they
had a director or coordinator of advising on campus, and in 2003,
33% of respondents did (pp. 15-17).
Other
interesting findings include those on how technology is used in
advising, who serves as advisors and their physical location on
campus, advisor reward and compensation, and how advising is structured
on campus. The fourth chapter is devoted to the structure and
responsibilities of advising centers, which seems at first glance
like a lot of space to devote to just one topic. However, the
first chart in this chapter explains why: in 1979, 14% of all
campuses reported having advising centers but in 2003, that number
jumped to 73%. Habley's final chapter details his conclusions
about the current status of academic advising; these conclusions
will not surprise readers who work in the profession. I found
this chapter to be the least interesting and least helpful of
the monograph.
This monograph
will be particularly useful to those wishing to compare the status
of academic advising at their institutions to nationwide trends.
I was disappointed that the survey did not address differences
in advising across institutions based on size and geography, but
that might be a new area to explore in subsequent monographs.
Habley's charts make advising trends across the years easy to
spot, but the lack of an index will make it difficult for researchers
to find this exceptionally useful information quickly. I recommend
all advisors, particularly those new to the profession, spend
an hour reading the first chapter and skimming the charts in the
subsequent chapters to attain a greater appreciation for the growth
and development of our profession.
