NACADA Annual Conference 2017 Amanda J Fairbanks Kansas State University Background Literature 4060 of students in American doctoral programs do not complete degrees Council of Graduate Schools 2008 ID: 740789
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Faculty Advising: are doctoral students ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Faculty Advising: are doctoral students and faculty on the same page?
NACADA Annual Conference2017
Amanda J. Fairbanks
Kansas State UniversitySlide2
Background Literature
40-60% of students in American doctoral programs do not complete degrees (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008;
Lovitts
, 2005
)
Non-completers: one
third drop out
the first
year, another third before candidacy,
final
third
post-candidacy
(
Golde
, 1998
)
Rates vary across disciplines
Faculty advisor/advisee relationship is one
of the most important relationships
(
Barnes & Austin, 2009; Barnes, Williams, & Archer, 2010
)Slide3
Background Literature Cont…
Degree completion requires overcoming challenges, including navigating the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship
(Barnes & Austin, 2009
)
Advisors and students have conflicting
perspectives
on
the roles and characteristics of the faculty advisor and the advisor/advisee relationship
(Barnes & Austin, 2009; Barnes et al., 2010; Harding-
DeKam
, Hamilton, &
Loyd
, 2012; Schlosser, Knox, Moskovitz, & Hill, 2003
)Slide4
Statement of the Problem
Doctoral student attrition has been identified as a major problem in graduate education, which has led to the need for examination of the impact of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship on the doctoral student experience.Slide5
Theoretical Framework for Study
Model of Graduate Student Degree Progress (Girves and Wemmerus,1988)Professional Socialization
(Gardner, 2010; Weidman,
Twale
, & Stein, 2001)
Involvement Theory
(
Astin
,
1984)
Tinto’s
T
heory
of
Graduate Student Persistence
(Gardner & Barnes, 2007; Tinto, 1993
)Slide6
Purpose of the Research
To explore various aspects of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship as identified in the literature: Two Constructs: Relationship and Success Factors
Attributes and Characteristics
Roles and Functions
Relationship Behaviors
Academic Success
Professional Socialization
EngagementSlide7
Research Question
RQ: How do faculty perspectives of characteristics of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship differ from student perspectives within and across disciplines?RQ.a
: What are student perceptions about the three relationship constructs that characterize the advisor/student relationship (attributes, roles and behaviors)?
RQ.b
: What are advisor perceptions about the three relationship constructs that characterize the advisor/student relationship (attributes, roles and behaviors)?
RQ.c
: What are student perceptions about the three success factors related to the advisor/student relationship (academic success, professional socialization and engagement)?
RQ.d
: What are advisor perceptions about the three success factors related to the advisor/student relationship (academic success, professional socialization and engagement)?
RQ.e
: What are the differences between advisor versus student perceptions on the relationship constructs and success
factors?
RQ.f
: What are the differences between perceptions of STEM advisor versus social science advisors on relationship constructs and success factors?
RQ.g
: What are the differences between the perceptions of STEM students versus social science students on relationship constructs and success factors?Slide8
Research Setting and Participants
Faculty advisors and doctoral students at a four year public institution in two discipline areas: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM)Social ScienceSlide9
Methodology
Survey developmentUtilized Dillman’s Total Design Method (
Dillman
et al., 2009)
Items based on the existing literature.
Survey pre-tested and piloted
Survey revised
Survey populated
u
sing
Qualtrics
survey
p
opulation
t
ool
Survey launched
u
sing
Qualtrics
Slide10
Survey Respondents
Surveys were sent to 501 faculty advisors and 554 doctoral students in selected departmentsFaculty Advisors (501):137 completed surveys (27.3% response rate)119 from STEM, 20 from SSStudents (554):
131 completed surveys (23.6% response rate)
96 from STEM, 36 from SSSlide11
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using three methods:Descriptive statistics, including mean scores and standard deviations: (RQa,
RQb
,
RQc
,
RQd
)
T-Tests: (
RQe
,
RQf
,
RQg
)Slide12
RQ1: How do faculty perspectives of characteristics of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship differ from student perspectives within and across disciplines?
Positive Attributes and Characteristics
Negative Attributes and Characteristics
Roles and Functions
Relationship Behaviors
Faculty M
58.047
8.97
75.90
58.36
Students M
56.47
10.12
71.42
56.09
p
.05*
.001*
.001*
.027*
Academic Success
Professional Socialization
Engagement Faculty M38.5050.1317.53 Students M37.2346.2117.85 p.036*.000*.54
Note.
Asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference between groupsSlide13
Relationship Construct 1
Attributes and Characteristics:Top three Attributes and Characteristics for advisors and students: honest, helpful, and professionalSignificant differences found between advisors and students for
positive and negative attributes of an
advisor
Faculty agreed with
positive descriptors
more than
students (
p
= .05
)
Students agreed more with
negative
descriptors than
faculty (
p
= .001
) Slide14
Relationship Construct 2
Roles and Functions:Students strongly perceived: advisors encouragement to present at and attend professional conferences and scholarly meetings; helping students learn behaviors appropriate to their
discipline
Faculty
advisors
perceived their role as helping
students become independent in their ability to plan, conduct, and execute research
projects
Less faculty agreement with role in encouraging
student involvement, specifically outside of the
department
Significant
differences
between
all faculty and all students (
p
= .
001)Slide15
Relationship Construct 3
Relationship Behaviors:Students perceived advisors should have regularly scheduled meetings with their adviseesFaculty perceived mentoring as part of advising
Faculty and students indicated difficulty with discussing
personal conflicts within the advisor/advisee relationship.
Significant differences between faculty
and students (
p
= .027
)Slide16
Success Factor 1
Academic Success:Students perceive regularly scheduled meetings with their advisor are importantAdvisor perceptions
emphasize
assessing individual needs, and supporting student progress through
feedback
Advisors did
not perceive it as being their responsibility to initiate meetings with their
adviseesSlide17
Success Factor 2
Professional Socialization:“An advisor serves as a mentor” was the highest scored item for both students and faculty Student
and faculty
both agreed less with “advisors
help prepare students for careers after graduation by allowing them to practice job talks, and helping them with their curriculum
vitae”Slide18
Success Factor 3
Engagement:Students and faculty both agree advisors plays a role in student engagementOverall
lowest
score for both groups: “advisors
prompt student engagement less than peers of the student prompt
engagement”
Students perceived
advisors to
support
student involvement in departmental groups and activities,
advisors perceive they
encourage
involvement in departmental groups and
activitiesSlide19
Limitations
Limitations Include:The time when the survey was deployedThe number of participants
Limitations
with
analyses
Lack
of generalizability of
resultsSlide20
Significance of the Research
Contributions to existing body of literature on the topic:Used a quantitative approach while utilizing qualitative research as a basisExamined students at three stages in their program and in two different disciplines.
Examined
the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship from both
perspectivesSlide21
Implications
Future Research:The advisor/advisee relationship including the roles of the adviseeExamination of university and departmental policies and procedures which help to define the role of the advisor and the advisor/advisee
relationship
Research
using a national sample so findings may be generalized to a larger
audience
Practice
:
Need for formal guidelines
Development of training for doctoral advisors Slide22
References
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor’s perspective.
Innovative Higher Education, 33
, 297-315.
Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Archer, S. A. (2010). Characteristics that matter most: Doctoral students’ perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes.
NACADA Journal, 30
(1), 34-46.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2008).
Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline
demographic data from the
ph.d.
completion project.
(Executive Summary).
Crede
, E., & Borrego, M. (2012). From ethnography to items: A mixed methods approach to developing a survey to examine graduate engineering student retention.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, XX
(X), 1-19.
Dillman
, D.A., Smyth, J.D. & Christian, L.M. (2009).
Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method
(4
th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Fink, A. (2009). How to conduct surveys (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Fowler, F. J. (1988). Survey research methods (Vol. 1). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Gardner, S. K. (2005). “If it were easy, everyone would have a Ph.D.” Doctoral student success: Socialization and disciplinary perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman.Gardner, S. K. (2010). Faculty perspectives on doctoral student socialization in five disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 39-53.Gardner, S. K., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 1-19.Girves, J.E., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree progress. Journal of Higher Education, 59(2), 163-189.Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 101, 55-64.Harding-DeKam, J. L., Hamilton, B., & Loyd, S. (2012). The hidden curriculum of doctoral advising. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 5-16.Lovitts, B. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137-154. doi: 10.1080/03075070500043093.Schlosser, L.Z., Knox, S., Moskovitz, A.R., & Hill, C.E. (2003). A qualitative examination of graduate advising relationships: The advisee perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 178-188.Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.