Content
Components for Advisor Training: Revisited
Jeffrey
L. McClellan
Assistant Professor, Management
Frostburg
State University
Perhaps
the most important need in academic advising today is effective
training. While it is likely some advising professionals and researchers
would argue this point, referencing the need for increased accountability,
the importance of student retention, the call for effective assessment
and evaluation processes, and other similar issues, underlying
all of these imperatives is the need to develop and support effective
advising. Furthermore, it is evident that while exemplary practices
exist for the development of advisors at many institutions, much
remains to be accomplished in order to lift the level of advising
effectiveness (Habley, 2000;
King, 2000) .
One
critical aspect of developing such training programs and resources
is a clear delineation of the necessary content components essential
to effective advisor training and development. The most frequently
referenced approach for doing so is that developed by Habley,
wherein three specific components were outlined: the conceptual,
informational, and relational (Habley, 1986). While these three
components represent an excellent foundation for developing advisor
training content, they lack sufficient breadth and clarity to
address all of the training needs of academic advisors. Consequently,
this article seeks to expand the model of content components for
advising by introducing two additional components: the personal
and technological.
Habley’s
Framework
Habley
(1986) outlined three major content components for effective advisor
training: conceptual, informational, and relational. Regarding
the need for all three components, Habley (1995) wrote that “without
understanding (conceptual elements), there is no context for the
delivery of services. Without information, there is no substance
to advising. And, without personal skills (relational), the quality
of the advisee/advisor relationship is left to chance” (p. 76).
Thus, it is appropriately asserted that effective advisors should
possess knowledge and skills in all three areas; these skills
should ideally be obtained through formal training. In later NACADA
publications, Higginson (2000)
and Nutt (2003) further clarified
the relevant elements of each of these components.
The
Conceptual Component
Nutt
(2003) defined the conceptual component as including “the concepts
and theories that undergird academic advising” (p. 10). The purpose
of such training in this area is to establish role clarity, develop
a common understanding of advising, and nurture the emergence
of a shared culture (Nutt, 2003; Waters, 2002). Furthermore, as
Higginson (2000) wrote, “The advisor’s conceptual understanding
of the student and of the institution’s advising environment serves
as a crucial foundation for effective advising relationships”
(p. 302).
The
actual content of conceptual training, as Higginson explained,
“are framed from two perspectives within the institution—the student
and the role of advising” (p. 302). The first of these perspectives,
that of the student, focuses on “topics [that] enable advisors
to understand college students in general as well as their own
institution’s student body” (p. 302). Consequently, the training
related to this sub-component would include providing broad-level
understanding of student development theories and processes, as
well as an understanding of specific student needs and the best
methods for satisfying those needs in relation to the institution.
The
second perspective suggested by Higginson is that of the role
of advising within the institution. This subcomponent involves
content related to both a broad understanding of the theory and
philosophy of advising as it applies generally, as well as specifically
to the institution. As Higginson explained, “topical areas suggested
for emphasis include consideration of the importance of academic
advising for students and the institution, and a definition of
academic advising, including clarification of advisor and advisee
responsibilities and privileges” (p. 303). Additional topical
areas might include items such as a discussion of the institutional
mission and how advising relates to and supports the mission,
the role of advising in higher education, an understanding of
the institution’s advising model and structure, and other relevant
contextual issues.
In
the case of both of these perspectives, the content is informational
in nature, and is primarily intended for the use of the advisor
in relation to understanding the contextual environment wherein
advising takes place, facilitating an understanding of student
needs, and informing the practice of advising. Consequently, the
training related to this component is likely to use traditional
teaching methods that focus on knowledge sharing and acquisition,
whether through passive or active teaching-learning techniques.
The
Informational Component
The
second component outlined by Habley, and expanded upon by Higginson
(2000)
is the informational component. The content of this component
“consists of the facts or knowledge of the institution and programs
that advisors must know to correctly guide advisees through the
completion of their majors and programs” (Nutt, p. 10). Thus it
represents the knowledge and information that advisors should
possess and be able to disseminate to students. According to Higginson,
this “substantive information”…“that academic advisors need to
know falls into four groups.” (p. 303). These four groups of knowledge
require an understanding of laws, policies, procedures, and resources
related to “the internal environment, the external environment,
student needs, and advisor self knowledge” (p. 304).
Obviously,
like the conceptual component, the bulk of the content of this
component is largely information based; however, this information,
rather than being intended to inform practice, represents the
actual information that advisors are intended to share with students.
In spite of this difference much of the training related to developing
this knowledge is likely to be presented in similar fashion to
that of the previous content component. However, since it frequently
represents the actual information to be shared with students,
it is often reinforced using additional training methods related
to the final, skill-based, relationship oriented component.
The
Relational Component
The
third and final component identified by Habley (In Higginson,
2000) addressed the relational aspect of academic advising. Higginson
explained:
Consequently,
this component of training focuses on helping advisors develop
“the interpersonal skills and communication skills” necessary
to establish and maintain effective professional relationships
with students and to facilitate the advising process (Nutt, 2003,
p. 10). Likely topics might include rapport building, communication
and listening, effective problem solving, advising vs. counseling,
and interviewing. Such topics involve much less information sharing
by trainers and more skill-development oriented training methods
such as role playing, action learning, shadowing, and case studies.
Expanding
the Model
While
this framework provides a solid foundation for structuring effective
advisor training, it is limited in that it does not adequately
address all of the training and development needs of academic
advisors. Consequently, the following categories are recommended
for inclusion in the framework: technology and the personal.
The
Technology Component
Within
her description of both the informational and the relational components,
Higginson includes the need for training in “relevant advising
technology” (p. 303) and the “use of advising tools such as computerized
degree audits” (p. 305) While these elements are essential informational
and relational aspects of advisor training, to infer that the
knowledge of technology and the use thereof fall within separate
categories fails to recognize that knowledge and use of technology
are deeply interrelated. One cannot effectively know a computer
program and not know how to use it. Furthermore, while understanding
of technology may be conveyed to students insofar as it relates
to procedures in which the student must engage, much of an advisor’s
skill in the use of advising technology is never conveyed to the
student. Finally, an understanding of and skill in the use of
technological resources is at least equal in importance with regards
to effective advising as both conceptual and informational understanding.
Topical elements of this component would, of necessity, include
training in the use of student record systems, scheduling software,
email systems, online advising resources, and record maintenance
software, to name but a few.
Given
the combined need for information and skill development in relation
to the effective use of technology, and because the primary interaction
involved in the development of these skills occurs between the
advisor and the computer, training for this component requires
a unique balance of information dissemination and hands-on learning.
Thus the significance, content, application, and training related
to this component are sufficiently unique to merit its inclusion
as a separate element within the training content framework.
The
Personal Component
In
their article on training advisors in the first year, Folsom,
Joslin, and Yoder (2005)
indicated that in addition to struggling to learn the informational,
conceptual, and relational aspects of their jobs, many new advisors
are burdened with questions related to their own adequacy as advisors
and the stress and personal challenges that accompany their new
job. These personal issues go beyond the realm of the traditional
content component framework. Consequently, an additional suggestion
for inclusion within the framework is that of personal understanding,
maintenance, and development. Higginson (2000)
refers to this as advisor
self-knowledge and includes it within the informational component
of training. However, such understanding, unlike the other elements
of this component is not purely informational nor is it necessarily
conveyed to students. An understanding of self requires not just
knowledge about one’s values and levels of concentration, stress,
emotions, commitment, etc., but rather an ongoing awareness of
self and the application of skills in self-assessment, self-regulation
and growth. In addition, the training in this area is likely to
be far less information or skill oriented, though both methods
are relevant to conducting such training. Instead, training in
this area typically involves more introspective analysis, assessment,
and self-observation. This element, like that of technology, transcends
mere knowledge of information and requires unique processes and
skills in both training and practice. Additionally it is fundamentally
significant in relation to promoting advisor effectiveness. Therefore,
it is suggested that the framework be revised to include this
as another primary component of advisor training programs.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, Habley’s framework related to the content of advisor
training has provided a solid foundation upon which to build effective
training programs. Nonetheless, an expansion of the model to include
personal and technological content areas will likely contribute
to the intentional development of more complete, balanced training
programs and facilitate the development of increasingly competent
new professional academic advisors.
References
Folsom,
P., Joslin, J., & Yoder, F. (2005). From advisor training
to advisor development: Creating a blueprint for first-year advisors.
NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site
Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/First-Year-Advisors.htm
Habley,
W. R. (1986). Advisor training: Whatever happened to instructional
design? ACT workshop presentation. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Habley,
W.R. (1995). Advisor Training in the Context of a Teaching Enhancement
Center. In R. E. Glennen and F.N. Vowell (Eds.) Academic Advising
as a Comprehensive Campus Process . (p 76). (National Academic
Advising Association Monograph Series, no. 2.). Manhattan, KS:
National Academic Advising Association.
Habley,
W. R. (2000). Current practices in academic advising. In V. N.
Gordon & Habley, W. R. & Associates (Eds.), Academic
advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 35-43). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Higginson,
L. C. (2000). A frame work for training program content revisited.
In V. N. Gordon, Habley, W. R., & Associates (Eds.), Academic
advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 298-306). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
King,
M. C. (2000). Designing effective training for academic advisors.
In V. N. Gordon, Habley, W. R., & Associates (Eds.), Academic
advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 289-297). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Nutt,
C. L. (2003). Creating Advisor-Training and Development Programs.
In Advisor Training: Exemplary Practices in the Development
of Advisor Skills (pp. 9-16). (National Academic Advising
Association Monograph Series, no. 9). Manhattan
, KS
: National Academic Advising
Association.
Waters,
R. (2002). Faculty socialization into the advising role: An examination
of information and information sources that shape role learning.
NACADA Journal, 22 (1), p. 15-25.
Additional
Resources
Borns,
R. F. (2002). Creating an academic advising training program on
your campus, The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal .
Retrieved March 1, 2007
from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/020506rb.htm
.
Koring,
H. (2005). Advisor Training and Development. Retrieved January
20, 2007 from the NACADA
Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/adv_training.htm#over
Cite
this resource using APA style as:
McClellan,
J.L. (2007). Content Components for Advisor Training: Revisited.
Retrieved -insert today's date- from NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic
Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Training-Revisited.htm
