An advising evaluation program is currently being considered in order to obtain feedback from students on their academic advising experiences, according to Undergraduate Council Advising Committee Chairperson, Ruth Darling.
The program will consist of online evaluations for academic advising sessions where students can voice their opinions about their advising experiences at the university.
SGA passed the bill for the evaluations last spring and hoped to institute a pilot program, ready for testing as soon as possible, Darling said.
The program was targeted for 2002, she said, but was put off so that collaborations could be made between the Undergraduate Council and Office of Information Technology to post the evaluation forms online.
“It was a very cumbersome paper process,” Darling said, “and the technology is finally here for this.”
Darling, SGA President Sara Keeton, OIT personnel and Missy Parker, head of arts and sciences advising, met yesterday to discuss the final details of this project.
If successfully completed, the forms should be available for access next semester, Darling said.
“The evaluations will ask the student what kind of experience they had with advising,” Keeton said.
The evaluations will also cover a wide variety of questions, including how the student prepared for the advising session, who their adviser was, where they were advised and what they found helpful about the session.
Darling said the evaluation will be similar to current instructor evaluations filled out at the conclusion of classes each semester. There will be a ranking scale which asks students to give appropriate numerical estimates in categories such as “Did the adviser express genuine concern during the session?”
“Advising is very important to the students’ academic experience,” Darling said, “and these evaluations focus totally on the improvement of student experience.”
Darling hopes the evaluations will achieve three primary goals – to raise awareness of what is currently happening in the advising departments, educate students about the importance of their involvement in the advising process and get valuable feedback on the students’ advising needs.
“I’m very hopeful that these (evaluations) will accomplish these three goals,” she said.
She also adds that the student feedback from the evaluations might serve an additional purpose.
“They might benefit in getting increased education and training for advisers,” she said.
Keeton and Darling agree that these evaluations should be done at least once a year to ensure better quality of advising.
“We (SGA) hear about it (poor advising experience) all the time, but we don’t think the advisers themselves hear about it,” Keeton said. “I think it will let different advising departments and colleges know what they need to do.”
Darling added, “It’s very important to get student information on academic advising, and it needs to be done every year.”
Darling also stresses that participation in the evaluation program is strictly voluntary and highly confidential, and students will not be judged based on their responses.
“You can’t really require students to participate in this, but they should know that it is confidential and encrypted by a Web-based security team,” Darling said.
If the finalities pass, Darling says that the program should be available during the Spring 2004 semester to begin evaluations for the College of Arts and Sciences.
She hopes the program is successful enough in its pilot semester to be adopted by other advising centers, and eventually be adopted by individual departments to assess advisers.
“Most all departments have expressed interest in the program,” she said, “and we hope to make it available for every department.”
