Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Understanding academic advisor training and professional development experiences
(USC Thesis Other)
Understanding academic advisor training and professional development experiences
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Understanding Academic Advisor Training and Professional Development Experiences
Siobhan T. Littlejohn
USC Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A Dissertation presented to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024
© Copyright by Siobhan T. Littlejohn 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Siobhan T. Littlejohn certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Sheila M. Banuelos
Harold Waters
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
This study employs social cognitive theory and situated expectancy value theory to understand
the training and professional development experiences of academic advisors at Borden
University (BU, a pseudonym). The purpose of this study is to explore the opportunities
available to academic advisors and their perceptions of these opportunities. Using a mixedmethods approach, I surveyed 54 academic advisors and interviewed six academic advising
administrators. I utilized descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative survey data and thematic
coding to analyze qualitative survey and interview data. Both qualitative and quantitative data
revealed that training and professional development experiences varied across schools at BU.
Advisors who had received school- or department-level training felt that it was helpful and met
their needs, but satisfaction with professional development opportunities was lower among those
who had not received school- or department-level training. Recommendations for practice
include facilitating interactions among advisors, incorporating more relational training content,
and providing dedicated time for training and professional development.
v
Dedication
To my friends and family.
To Liliana Johansen, whose decades of friendship has been a tremendous source of joy and
encouragement.
To Ashley Jackson and Karen Sanchez, who were crucial to helping me find my place in college
and have been invaluable friends in the years since.
To my parents, Letha Hamer and Roland Littlejohn: my mom, who has always been a strong
advocate and never let anyone put limits on my intellectual curiosity. My pops had an
unwavering belief that his daughters deserved whatever they set out to achieve; he lived long
enough to see me start this program but not to finish it. I know he would have been proud to see
me cross the stage at graduation; he also would have said something incredibly witty and
outrageously inappropriate during the ceremony. He was unapologetically himself and I miss
him deeply.
To my grandmother, Shirlese Hamer, whose constant pride and love bolstered me my whole life.
To Jose Gutierrez, Kevin Romero, and Gianni De La Cruz; thank you for the roles you’ve played
in shaping me into the person I am today. To Francisco, whose embrace of me has shown me
what dedication to family means.
To my sisters, Brandi Gutierrez and Dr. Krystale Littlejohn. Brandi is a model of strength, for
how to be comfortable in your own skin, and how to lead. She is a constant source of fun and
support. Krystale is my inspiration and, more than anyone, has helped me find my way in this
world. She kept me grounded while I pursued this degree and is the kind of constant cheerleader
we all need in this world. Thank you for your encouragement and belief in me.
To everyone who helped get me to this point, I extend my heartfelt gratitude and thanks.
vi
Acknowledgements
It took a village to get me to this point. First, I would like to thank my dissertation
committee members. My chair, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, who has been an exceptional guide
throughout the program and taught me the necessary content and skills to make it a smoother
process. Dr. Sheila Banuelos, whose feedback and experience in academic advising helped me
think more deeply. And Dr. Harold Waters, whose genuine interest in my ideas and years-long
support of my professional and academic endeavors have encouraged me to pursue my passions.
I am incredibly grateful for all of your insights and support.
I would also like to thank the educators and colleagues who have shaped me along the
way. My high school teachers, Salvador Quezada and Deborah Lowe, who helped set me on a
path toward higher education and gave me the skills to thrive in college and beyond. They both
showed a devotion to and compassion for students that inspires me to this day. To my current
and former supervisors who saw my potential when I first interviewed and have provided
numerous opportunities for me to grow professionally, whose humor and professional style
provided a practical approach for translating my STEM educational background to advising, and
whose deep compassion got me through a very difficult time in my personal life. To my
colleagues who I have worked with tirelessly to build a program from the ground up, who have
indulged me when I got into the weeds about the “fun,” nerdy things I love, and who have helped
me think more deeply about the impact we can have. To the advisors I have worked with along
the way and served as such a tremendous source of support. Lastly, to the Rossier Educational
Leadership Class of 2024 cohort: thank you for the years of encouragement and intellectual
development. You have inspired me from day one, and I am grateful to have been in community
with you the last few years.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Literature Review................................................................................................................ 3
Training and Professional Development in Higher Education Settings ................. 4
Transfer of Training................................................................................................ 8
Theoretical Foundations...................................................................................................... 9
Positionality ...................................................................................................................... 11
Methods............................................................................................................................. 11
Research Questions............................................................................................... 12
Context of the Study ............................................................................................. 12
Participants......................................................................................................... 13
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 15
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 16
Data Analysis........................................................................................................ 17
Findings............................................................................................................................. 18
Research Question 1: What Kinds of Training and Professional
Development, if Any, Do Academic Advisors Engage In at Borden
University?............................................................................................................ 18
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions of Borden University
Academic Advisors of the Value and Helpfulness of These Training and
Professional Development Experiences?.............................................................. 28
Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................... 33
Recommendations................................................................................................. 35
viii
Limitations and Future Research .......................................................................... 37
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 38
References..................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................... 45
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 53
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents……………………………….14
Table 2: Interview Participants……………………………………………………………….. 15
Table 3: Methods Used in Department- or School-Level Training (N = Number of
Responses).………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Table 4: Content Covered in Department- or School-Level Training………………………... 24
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Satisfaction With Professional Development………………………………….31
1
Understanding Academic Advisor Training and Professional Development Experiences
To work effectively, academic advisors in higher education need training and
professional development. Strikingly, the 2011 National Survey of Academic Advising found
that only 40% of respondents’ institutions offered internal pre-service advisor training, less than
half offered other types of internal professional development (such as regularly scheduled
meetings), and 8.8% did not offer any internal training or professional development (Carlstrom
& Miller, 2013). Anecdotal information exists about training and professional development at
Borden University (a pseudonym), a private research university on the west coast of the United
States. However, it is difficult to find empirical evidence of school-level training practices,
advisor experiences during training, and professional development needs. As training and
professional development varies widely across institutions, it is important to examine
experiences at the institutional level.
The National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) describes academic advising
as a process that involves both teaching and learning, a process during which advisors guide
students on diverse activities that include selecting courses, making decisions, and developing
goals (2006). The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS)
provides a guideline for academic advisor program training content (2015), and BU offers a
campus-wide mandatory academic advisor training program. While this type of training is a first
step, Brown (2008) called for more long-term training and professional development programs.
Although this call for longer-term programs was made in 2008, studies of academic advising do
not generally focus on the training program itself. Instead, advising program assessment has
traditionally examined student satisfaction with advising services and often recommended
additional advisor training (e.g., Sutton & Sankar, 2011). After a review of such advising
2
assessment practices, Wisniewski-Aiken (2011) called for a shift to assessing student learning
outcomes rather than simply measuring student satisfaction. Both approaches to advising
assessment leave out advisors’ perspectives and whether their professional development needs
are met. A study by Dial et al. (2021) is an exception to this traditional focus on students in that
the authors also examined the structure of the advisor training and onboarding program itself.
While all BU advisors attend university-level training during onboarding, the training
does not cover all school- or department-level policies. Information is scant regarding whether
schools offer additional training. It is also challenging to determine what school- or departmentlevel training or professional development (if any) consists of and whether it aligns with
advisors’ professional development needs. It is important to address this gap in knowledge to
fully support academic advisors’ professional development needs.
As such, the purpose of this study is to understand the on-the-job training opportunities
available to academic advisors and advisors’ perceptions of these opportunities. This study used
a mixed methods approach to learn more about what training occurs across BU, whether advisors
find value in the training, and whether advisors believe that training practices support their
professional development needs. Gaining a deeper understanding of academic advisor training
and advisor experiences provides valuable knowledge that could inform future advisor training
and professional development programs.
Well-trained, skilled academic advisors who feel supported are a key part of the strategy
to achieve institutional retention goals. Academic advisors play a strong role in supporting
student success in college and contact with an advisor has been linked to higher grade point
average (Mu & Fosnacht, 2019; Young-Jones et al., 2013), self-efficacy, more effective study
skills (Young-Jones et al., 2013), and holistic attainment (Holland et al., 2020). Effective advisor
3
training and professional development is an important aspect of supporting both students and
advisors. In a study about the elements that influence academic advisor job satisfaction,
professional development ranked highest for importance and second highest on the importancesatisfaction gap, showing that professional development is one area for institutions to focus on
(Donnelly, 2009). Training has also been employed as a strategy to improve staff retention (e.g.,
Mattox & Jinkerson, 2005), with U.S. companies and educational institutions estimated to spend
an average of $1207 per learner in 2022 (Freifeld, 2022). This has special significance for higher
education; one study reported that 45% of student affairs professionals in the study left the field
completely within the first 5 years (Marshall et al., 2016). Institutions need data to determine
how best to use training budgets and how to improve training programs to meet employee and
organizational needs. Thus, it is of utmost importance to obtain a deeper understanding of
advisor training and professional development programs at BU to better meet the needs of
advisors, which ultimately benefits students and the institution itself.
Literature Review
Studies show that strong academic advising has positive outcomes for multiple
stakeholders. NACADA (2006) describes academic advising as a process in which advisors
guide students on diverse activities that include selecting courses, making academic and
professional decisions, and developing related goals. Studies of academic advising range from
those that examine student satisfaction with advising alone (Chan, 2016) to those that relate
satisfaction to student success measures (Dial et al., 2021; Sutton & Sankar, 2011). Contact with
an academic advisor is correlated with higher grade point average (Mu & Fosnacht, 2019;
Young-Jones et al., 2013), self-efficacy (Young-Jones et al., 2013), and holistic attainment
(Holland et al., 2020). Advisors themselves tend to be highly satisfied with their interactions
4
with students (Donnelly, 2009), which may contribute to a professional sense of fulfillment.
Finally, academic advising has broader positive impacts on educational institutions: Student
satisfaction with advising is correlated with advising learning related to degree requirements
(Smith & Allen, 2018) and student study skills (Young-Jones et al., 2013), both important
components of student success and retention. Overall satisfaction with advising has also been
linked to the quality of interactions with advisors (DeLaRosby, 2017), and the quality of
interactions with advisors is included on the National Survey of Student Engagement’s Advising
Listening, Respecting, and Caring scale. The National Survey of Student Engagement (2020)
found that 1st-year students who intended to return to their institutions had higher ratings on the
scale than those who did not plan to return, another line of evidence that supports the role that
academic advising plays in student retention. Overall, the potential positive impacts of advising
on stakeholders across the institution is evident, and training is a key component of ensuring
quality academic advising.
Training and Professional Development in Higher Education Settings
Within higher education, academic advisor training programs can have positive impacts
on student achievement. For example, Dial et al. (2021) describe the University of South
Carolina’s advisor training and professional development program and its relationship to student
outcomes. The university’s program includes online courses, four levels of advisor certification,
continuing professional development (via staff meetings, workshops, etc.), and advisor
mentorship. Compared to surveys sent to undergraduate students prior to implementing the new
advisor training program, Dial et al.’s (2021) survey results show that a higher percentage of
students felt that their advisors gave accurate information on curriculum, campus resources, and
career opportunities. Additionally, they show that students were more satisfied with advising
5
than they had been pre-implementation. For institutional outcomes, the authors found that there
was a nearly 4% increase in the 4-year graduation rate over a 2-year period after implementing
the advising changes. While the study could not determine that improved outcomes were due to
the new advising program itself, they did find that ratings for advisors in the new training
program were higher than the average rating for all advisors across the institution.
The literature also identifies several academic advisor professional development needs.
Recommendations for foundational training include incorporating informational content such as
institutional resources and policy; conceptual content such as theory and advising approaches;
and relational content such as how to build rapport with students (Brown, 2008; CAS, 2015;
NACADA, n.d.; NACADA, 2017). Academic advisors also support specific training to enhance
relational skills (McGill et al., 2020). Strong interpersonal skills are especially important because
having quality interactions with advisors has been linked to overall student satisfaction with
advising (DeLaRosby, 2017). These studies demonstrate professional development needs based
on scholarly recommendations and practitioners’ stated needs.
In addition to recommending training content, studies highlight professional development
methods. Academic advisors’ and student affairs professionals’ preferred methods include
learning with a mentor and discussions with colleagues (Roberts, 2007); and attending
conferences (Haley et al., 2015). However, Renn and Hodges (2007) found that new
professionals had difficulty finding a mentor, indicating a potential gap between desired
professional development and engagement in such an experience. Additionally, professional
development needs and preferred methods differ across experience levels between novice and
experienced advisors (Grabsch et al., 2019; Haley et al., 2015). These studies highlight both
professional development methods and a potential need for differentiation.
6
While the literature identifies needs and recommendations, there is some disagreement
about who is responsible for meeting these needs. Janosik et al. (2007) suggests that institutions
and/or professional organizations are responsible while Roberts (2007) puts the onus on
individuals. This disagreement underscores the need to gain a better understanding of academic
advisors’ professional development experiences.
While these studies highlight professional development needs and the importance of
training, training in higher education is not as robust as it could be. The 2011 National Survey of
Academic Advising found that only 40% of respondents’ institutions offered internal pre-service
advisor training (i.e., training delivered prior to the advisor beginning to advise students), less
than half offered other types of internal professional development (such as regularly scheduled
meetings), and 8.8% did not offer any internal training or professional development (Carlstrom
& Miller, 2013). Additionally, Donnelly’s (2009) study on academic advisor job satisfaction
found that professional development had the highest mean value for importance and the second
highest mean gap between the importance and satisfaction ratings, indicating misalignment
between advisors’ beliefs about the importance of training versus how satisfied they were with
their institutions’ offerings. This suggests that institutions can focus their efforts on training to
improve advisor experiences. Renn and Hodges’s (2007) study of new student affairs
professionals (most in residential life positions) found that some were surprised at how little
training they received while on the job and had hoped for more support. Thus, even when
training is readily available, advisors may still want a different type of training than is usually
offered.
When institutional offerings do not fully meet their needs, individuals employ various
strategies to supplement their institution’s formal professional development. In general,
7
conference attendance is a common pathway for individuals to promote their professional
development (Haley et al., 2015). Additionally, Pasquini and Eaton (2019) document academic
advisors’ efforts to create an online community of practice via Twitter while West (2017)
describes how African American women in student affairs seek out identity-based conference
workshops to support their growth. While these efforts tend to be individual and voluntary,
studies recommend that institutions offer more formal ways for their employees to pursue this
kind of professional development (Haley et al., 2015; Janosik et al., 2007). Without consensus on
who should be responsible for supporting professional development and given these documented
individual efforts, it is important to gain a better understanding of academic advisors’
professional development experiences.
While there is not much literature that examines academic advisor training programs with
respect to institutional outcomes, the literature on general organizational training demonstrates
its importance for organizational success. A meta-analysis by Arthur et al. (2003) found that
training had a medium to large effect size on a range of outcomes, including improved learning
and behavioral changes. While there was a decline in training effectiveness when measuring
learning outcomes versus behavioral or organizational outcomes, Arthur et al. (2003) posit that
this could be due to limited opportunities for participants to implement their new skills and
knowledge in their work environments. Training can also have a positive impact on retention
within organizations. Indeed, Mattox and Jinkerson (2005) found that a 3-day training
intervention for experienced hires resulted in employees staying with the company 160 days
longer (on average) than those who did not experience training. Thus, there is evidence that
training has a key role to play in organizational learning, behavioral changes, and employee
retention.
8
In summary, the literature supplies ample evidence of the importance of training.
Generally, training is used to improve employee skills and retention. Studies within and outside
of higher education show that training can have a positive effect on meeting organizational goals.
Within higher education specifically, studies demonstrate both that academic advisors want more
training and that institutions can address training limitations to improve their experiences.
Transfer of Training
An important aspect of training and professional development (whether driven by the
institution or the individual) is how well the learned material translates to changes in the work
environment. Baldwin and Ford (1988) describe “training transfer” as using the skills and
knowledge learned in training back in the work context and maintaining that knowledge and skill
over time (p. 63). Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) review of the training literature provided a general
framework to understand the inputs (trainee characteristics, training design, and work
environment) that influence training transfer. The review by Burke and Hutchins (2007) builds
on this early work by identifying 17 specific inputs that have strong empirical support for their
relationship to transfer. Grossman and Salas (2011) further narrow these characteristics by
singling out the 11 factors that have the strongest, unambiguous empirical support for improving
transfer: trainee characteristics that include cognitive ability, self-efficacy, motivation, and
perceived utility of training; training design including behavioral modeling, error management
training, and a realistic training environment; and work environment characteristics including
transfer climate, support, opportunity to perform, and follow-up. These reviews highlight the
elements that help explain how training skills and knowledge might transfer to the workplace.
While the literature identifies specific elements that influence transfer, the simple
presence of these elements in training and the work environment may not always lead to
9
effective transfer. According to Burke and Hutchins (2007), between 10% and 60% of training
results in behavior change in the work environment, and these percentages decline over time.
The degree of training transfer may also vary depending on whether training focuses on technical
or soft skills (Laker & Powell, 2011) and on an individual’s initial efforts to transfer trained
skills and knowledge (Blume et al., 2019). Additionally, Holton III et al. (2003) posit that
organizational culture may dictate which factors are most important to influence transfer. They
provide the example of a team-oriented organization where supervisor support may not be as
necessary for transfer as peer support. Thus, understanding a particular organization may be
more effective for understanding how to support transfer than developing general guidelines that
apply to all organizations. These elements are important considerations when evaluating whether
academic advisor training meets professional development needs while ensuring that all
stakeholders benefit from academic advising.
Theoretical Foundations
This study draws on social cognitive theory to understand academic advisors’
professional development experiences. Bandura’s (1986, 1988, 1993) social cognitive theory
rests on triadic reciprocality, the idea that personal factors, behavioral factors, and environmental
factors interact and together explain how a person functions. Personal factors include thoughts,
values, and beliefs; they influence the activities a person chooses to engage in and how they
interact with their environment. Environmental factors include the learning context as well as
other individuals a person encounters; these factors play a role in a person’s beliefs about their
capabilities and the activities they pursue. Behavioral factors include an individual’s actions;
these experiences can influence changes in personal beliefs as well as changes in environmental
contexts. Together, these three factors help explain how a person learns and functions.
10
Drawing on social cognitive theory, among others, situated expectancy-value theory
(SEVT; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) is a framework that examines the social, cultural, and
cognitive processes that influence performance and decision making. Two main concepts in
SEVT are an individual’s expectancies for success (perceptions of how well they will perform on
a task) and task value. Task value is further composed of intrinsic value (that related to interest in
the task), attainment value (that related to identity), utility value (that related to usefulness), and
the cost value of pursuing one task over another (p. 4). These four components comprise the net
value that a person assigns to a task. Together, expectancies for success and task value dictate a
person’s performance and task choice.
This study applies social cognitive theory and SEVT to understand academic advisors’
professional development experiences. Advisor training and professional development methods
are the environmental component while beliefs about the usefulness of training (utility value)
represent the personal component. The efforts that advisors make to supplement their
professional development and the transfer of trained skills/behaviors represent the behavioral
component. Task value influences a person’s task choice, which may have long-term impacts on
the types of experiences advisors seek out, the professional development they pursue, and how
they choose to engage with their organizations. Eun (2019) argued for the need to explore how
theory helps us understand professional development models, and well-designed training can
improve task value (Andersson & Palm, 2018). In this study, training methods, such as those that
include modeling or opportunities for mastery experiences, may also be factors that influence
personal beliefs. While studies have examined the relationship between advising and student’s
personal beliefs (Erlich & Russ-Eft, 2013; Young-Jones et al., 2013), the current study seeks to
11
understand the constellation of advisors’ training experiences to get a better sense of how the
training environment might support their needs and training transfer.
Positionality
I have strong, positive, long-term relationships with advising administrators at Borden
University. These relationships create power dynamics that could feel coercive to potential
participants, and thus I did not interview advisors at BU. Additionally, I preserved participant
anonymity using a survey so that respondents felt free to give honest responses without fear of
how that would affect relationships with their colleagues or their supervisors. As a Black woman,
I am also acutely aware of how my intersecting identities shape my experiences. I acknowledge
that participants have different experiences due to their own race, gender, and relationship to
power in their organizations. Throughout the research process and especially during data
analysis, I practiced reflexivity to ensure that my own experiences did not introduce bias to the
study. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) describe reflexivity as “the process of intentionally
accounting for your assumptions, biases, experiences, and identities” (p. 95). To this end, I used
Maxwell’s (2013) Researcher Identity Memo exercise (p. 34) to surface my feelings,
assumptions, and values related to this study as well as strategies to mitigate their influence
throughout the research process. I strove to center my participants’ perceptions and not
misinterpret them based on my own experiences; practicing reflexivity throughout helped reach
this goal. After interviews, I consulted with the participants regarding the accuracy of my
interpretation. Together, these strategies aimed to address issues of power and positionality.
Methods
This study used a mixed-methods approach to examine training and professional
development methods at a single higher education institution. Using a combination of survey and
12
interviews, this study sought perspectives of both academic advisors and advising unit leaders to
get a well-rounded picture of the training landscape at the institution.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand the on-the-job training experiences that
influence academic advisors’ professional development. The research questions are:
1. What kinds of training and professional development, if any, do academic advisors
engage in at Borden University?
2. What are the perceptions of Borden University academic advisors of the value and
helpfulness of these training and professional development experiences?
Context of the Study
Borden University (BU) is a private 4-year research institution on the west coast of the
United States. BU employs nearly 22,000 faculty and staff and serves almost 50,000 students,
with most students identifying as White/Caucasian and Asian/Asian American. The university
offers bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees, with both online and on-ground programs at the
graduate level. Faculty and staff academic advisors at the university may work with
undergraduates only, graduates only, or with both populations. Academic advisors at BU are
required to complete centralized, university-level advisor training. Any additional advisor
training may be decentralized by school (i.e., advisors across schools receive different training)
and sometimes also by department (i.e., advisors within the same school received different
training depending on their department). Selecting a single site was important because the
organizational context can influence training transfer, and academic advisor training looks very
different across institutions. Conducting research at this site allowed for a better understanding of
the institution-specific training context and advisor experiences.
13
Participants
There are approximately 550 individuals at BU with academic advising duties. To
address the research questions, I used non-probability, purposive sampling to recruit 54 BU
academic advisors. I selected academic advisors at BU because the research questions focus on
their experiences and perceptions of training and professional development. Respondents
represented 11 of 23 (48%) schools at BU and advising encompassed an average of 72% of their
job duties. As seen in Table 1, most respondents were female (n = 44, 81%), worked with
undergraduate students (n = 42, 78%), had been in their current advising role less than 3 years (n
= 31, 58%), and had earned a degree or credential related to academic advising (n = 43, 80%).
The sample was racially diverse: one American Indian or Alaska Native (2%), four Asian (7%),
five Asian American (9%), eight Black or African American (15%), 23 Hispanic or
Latino/Latinx (43%), 20 White (37%), and one person (2%) who marked Other.
Additionally, I interviewed six BU advising administrators to triangulate quantitative findings for
Research Question 1 and to elicit administrators’ perspectives. I focused on academic advising
unit administrators (most in positions titled assistant director, associate director, or director)
because they had knowledge about the training and professional development offered in their
school. As seen in Table 2, participants represented both undergraduate and graduate advising:
three for graduate advising, two for undergraduate advising, and one who oversaw both
undergraduate and graduate advising. All names used are pseudonyms.
14
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents
Characteristic Received
school/department
training
Did not receive
school/department
training
Full sample
n % n % n %
Gender
Female 30 86 14 74 44 81
Male 5 14 5 26 10 19
Non-binary/third gender 0 0 0 0 0 0
Race*
American Indian or Alaska 0 0 1 5 1 2
Native
Asian 3 9 1 5 4 7
Asian American 3 9 2 11 5 9
Black or African American 5 14 3 16 8 15
Hispanic or Latino/Latinx 14 40 9 47 23 43
Native Hawaiian or other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacific Islander
White 14 40 6 32 20 37
Other 0 0 1 5 1 2
Student population*
Undergraduate 32 91 10 53 42 78
Graduate 7 20 16 84 23 43
Non-degree seeking 2 6 1 5 3 6
Time in current role
Less than 1 year 8 23 7 37 15 28
1 year to less than 3 years 12 34 4 21 16 30
3 years to less than 5 years 7 20 4 21 11 20
5 years to less than 7 years 5 14 2 11 7 13
7 years or longer 3 9 2 11 5 9
Received education/credential 29 83 14 74 43 80
related to advising
Average percent of time spent 35 75 19 67 54 72
on advising
Note. N = 54. An asterisk (*) denotes that respondents may select more than one response and
totals may exceed 100%.
15
Table 2
Interview Participants
Pseudonym Student population
Amanda Graduate
Anton Undergraduate
Julian Undergraduate
Maritza Graduate
Phyllis Graduate
Reza Graduate and undergraduate
Instrumentation
This study used an online survey (see Appendix A) and interview protocols (see
Appendix B) to collect data. I chose a survey to maintain respondent anonymity. The online
survey consisted of 22 questions, 19 closed-ended and three open-ended. There were nine
demographic questions, ten questions about preparation for the advising role, two questions
regarding beliefs about training and professional development, and a final question that asked for
any additional thoughts. The survey was designed to elicit information about advisor training
experiences, which addresses the first research question and supplies data for the behavioral and
environmental elements of the theoretical framework. To maximize reliability, I piloted the
survey with four members of the target population to ensure that survey questions were clear,
relevant, and arranged to minimize cognitive load. Attending to such design elements lowers
measurement errors that result from respondent confusion and misinterpretation and can also
improve response rates (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Minor edits were made to improve
question clarity.
16
Training and professional development literature informed the survey items. Literature
about training content (Brown, 2008; CAS, 2015; NACADA, n.d., 2017) and methods
(Carlstrom & Miller, 2013; Grabsch et al., 2019; Haley et al., 2015; Pasquini & Eaton, 2019;
Roberts, 2007; West, 2017) along with personal experience as both trainee and trainer informed
response options. Data about training methods and content provided information about the
experiences that may influence beliefs about the helpfulness and value of training (e.g., a mock
advising training opportunity allows the advisor to practice). The literature about conditions that
support training transfer (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Burke & Hutchins, 2007; Grossman & Salas,
2011) informed response options related to beliefs about training; these questions addressed the
second research question and provided information about the factors that influence training
transfer.
Qualitative interviews were chosen as a second method for triangulation purposes. The
interview protocol included nine questions: two introductory questions, six questions about the
training and professional development the department offers, and one closing question. The
interview questions addressed the first research question and provided information about the
environmental component of the theoretical framework.
Data Collection
I collected data using an online survey and interviews. I administered the survey online
via Qualtrics, and the survey lasted 7–10 minutes. To maximize response rates, I launched the
survey during a less busy time of the semester (late-September) when academic advisors may
have had more mental energy to engage with a survey. I used publicly available BU websites to
locate academic advisors’ work contact information and emailed them to recruit for the survey. I
sent periodic reminders and closed the survey in December, which allowed advisors to get
17
through their busy season. Qualitative survey responses were uploaded to Atlas.ti software for
analysis. For the interviews, I compiled an initial list of 20 advising administrators from publicly
available BU websites and used non-probability, purposive sampling to solicit participation via
their work email. The goal was to recruit participants who represented the range of schools at BU
(arts and non-arts, large and small schools, graduate and undergraduate advising) and who
represented the same schools as survey respondents. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and
lasted 26 minutes on average. I took notes, recorded the interviews with the participants’
permission, and transcribed them using Zoom. I reviewed the recorded interviews and checked
the transcripts for alignment; I edited the transcripts as needed to address transcription errors.
Interview transcripts were uploaded to Atlas.ti software for analysis.
Data Analysis
I used Qualtrics to calculate descriptive statistics and thematic coding for the qualitative
data (three open-ended survey questions and all interviews). This study utilized two data
collection methods as a form of triangulation to check survey data against interview data. I also
employed triangulation by using different sources of data, collecting data from both academic
advisors and advising unit administrators to gain multiple perspectives. I analyzed the interviews
using thematic coding. Some codes were developed a priori and were derived from the literature
review; they included codes related to potential training methods (such as “behavioral
modeling”), training content (such as “relational”), and training design elements related to
transfer (such as “reference materials”). These codes were developed a priori because interviews
were used to triangulate with quantitative survey data, and the codes served as a systematic way
to track consistency of data between methods. Additional codes were developed as I reviewed
the data and included codes such as “limited time” and “knowledge gaps.” Categories were
18
developed based on the literature review (such as “transfer supports”) and as I reviewed the data
(such as “barriers to training”). During analysis, I also used member-checking to confirm that my
interpretations accurately represented interview participants’ thoughts.
Findings
Both qualitative and quantitative data revealed that training and professional development
experiences varied across schools at BU. Of the 54 advisors who responded to the survey, 35
indicated that their school offered school- or department-level training. Although experiences
varied, the majority of these advisors felt that the training was valuable and met their needs.
Satisfaction with professional development among all respondents was less clear-cut and differed
based on whether respondents had received school- or department-level training. Lastly,
qualitative data revealed that time functioned as a barrier to both training and professional
development. The following sections delve deeper into these findings.
Research Question 1: What Kinds of Training and Professional Development, if Any, Do
Academic Advisors Engage In at Borden University?
Variation in Training and Professional Development Across Schools
Training and professional development experiences varied across schools at BU.
Variation existed across training methods and materials, training content, and professional
development opportunities. Each of the following sections first discusses the quantitative
evidence, then the qualitative evidence, and finally the alignment between data sources.
Training Methods. Advisors experienced a variety of training methods during training,
but these methods were not uniformly offered across schools at BU. As seen in Table 3, methods
that involved other advisors were among the most common: observing advising appointments (n
= 28, 80%), advising students with supervision (n = 25, 71%), and question and answer sessions
19
(n = 21, 60%). Less commonly, respondents indicated that they were assigned a mentor (n = 11,
31%) or had practiced advising in a role-playing situation (n = 10, 29%) as part of their training.
The aspects of training that were less common across schools at BU included a
lecture/presentation format (n = 17, 49%) and reviewing case studies (n = 16, 46%), which were
reported by nearly half of respondents but occurred in only three of the schools that offered
additional training. Case studies offer a chance to apply new knowledge to real-life situations, so
limited access to case studies across schools at BU also means that advisors have fewer
opportunities to practice applying knowledge prior to doing so in a real-world situation. Overall,
a variety of training methods were employed at BU, but these methods were not present in every
school across BU.
Table 3
Methods Used in Department- or School-Level Training (N = Number of Responses)
Training method n Percentage
Review of BU websites 29 83
Observing advising appointments 28 80
Advising students with supervision 25 71
Question and answer sessions 21 60
Knowledge checks/tests 17 49
Lecture/presentation 17 49
Case study 16 46
Assigned a mentor 11 31
Practice advising in a role-playing situation 10 29
Other 1 3
I don’t recall 2 6
Note. Thirty-five participants received department- or school-level training. Participants could
select more than one training method.
20
The qualitative interviews with six advising administrators confirm that advisor training
looked different across schools at BU. Each advising administrator interviewed came from a
school that was also represented in the quantitative survey. Five participants indicated that their
school offered training in addition to the university-level training, and the final participant had
been creating a training manual for future use. Four interviewees confirmed that training
methods included observing advising appointments and three confirmed advising with
supervision as another method. Julian, an advising administrator who worked with undergraduate
students, provided insight on the role of the senior advisor during training, saying, “we have
tandems where the new advisor, or the new advisor to our program, kind of takes the reins and
advises students right with the senior advisor there, kind of observing and giving sometimes realtime feedback.” Thus, new hires had an opportunity to practice while also receiving feedback to
help them improve. Less common training methods included case studies (confirmed by two
participants) and knowledge checks/tests (one participant). The qualitative data thus
demonstrates the variety of training methods that exist at BU and how the methods used vary
across schools.
Although both quantitative and qualitative data demonstrate that training methods differ
across schools at BU, there were some inconsistencies between the data sources. For example,
only three advising administrators mentioned that advisors had an opportunity to advise with
supervision, which did not completely match with school-by-school data from the survey. This
mismatch may be due to decentralized training practices within individual schools, which may
have led to advisors in one department within a school receiving different training from an
advisor in another department. Additionally, many schools have different administrators who
oversee undergraduate and graduate advising, so training for an undergraduate advisor may be
21
different from that for a graduate advisor. Finally, training programs may have changed over
time. Indeed, one undergraduate advisor surveyed said, “my training (25 years ago), consisted of
being handed a key and [figuring] it out on my own. Times have changed an[d] I think our
department has a much more robust training program.” Thus, the training an advisor received
many years ago may differ significantly from that an advisor may have received just 6 months
ago. While there are some discrepancies between the quantitative and qualitative data, both
indicate that training methods vary across BU.
Training Materials. In addition to experiencing different training methods, survey
results showed that advisors had access to different types of materials during training. For
example, the majority of advisors across schools at BU reviewed BU websites (83% of
respondents, n = 29) during training, had access to an advising handbook or other reference
material (89%, n = 31), and had access to a resource hub/website (n = 23, 66%). These serve as
reference points that new hires can use throughout their training and beyond. It was less common
for advisors to have access to an academic department handbook (n = 17, 49% of respondents) or
recorded training (n = 16, 46%). As with some of the less common training methods discussed
previously, these latter reference materials existed in only three of the schools that offered
additional training. The finding that many schools did not provide an academic department
handbook has implications for new hires because it may not be easy to determine how a
department operates, and there would have been no central handbook to reference when
procedural questions arose. Similarly, limited access to recorded training may increase reliance
on memory and notes from training. Access to both of these materials could improve efficiency
and potentially reduce errors, but that is beyond the scope of this study. In conclusion, advisors
had access to reference materials, but the type of material generally varied.
22
Administrators mainly discussed access to a shared cloud drive that housed training
materials. Materials in these drives were often used for self-study (n = 5), and that included
reviewing various training documents (n = 4) or recorded training sessions (n = 1). Examples of
documents included course-planning materials, email templates, and department-specific
curriculum information. While many departments had reference materials, Amanda, an
administrator who worked with graduate students, discussed the difficulty that came with not
having written departmental policies to reference. Amanda discussed the challenge when
advisors provided incorrect information, saying, “nobody tells you that it’s a thing until you
messed up. And now you’re in trouble because you said something that wasn’t true, but how are
you supposed to know if nothing—if it’s not written out anywhere.” Amanda’s example
demonstrates challenges that may arise when reference materials are not available even when the
school or department provides training. As with training methods, the qualitative data here
revealed that access to reference materials differed across schools.
The data gathered from advisors and administrators did not always align on the training
materials that advisors had access to. They agreed regarding access to a resource hub/website
such as a cloud drive and that access to recorded training was uncommon, but there was
misalignment regarding access to handbooks and reviewing websites. Misalignment related to
handbooks may result because interview participants talked more specifically about reference
materials, whereas the survey included more general response options. For example,
interviewees mentioned materials that could be included in an advising or department handbook
(such as curriculum information or the advising mission), but they did not generally refer to a
“handbook.” Another discrepancy is that no administrator specifically mentioned reviewing BU
websites as part of their training program, whereas the majority of advisors (n = 29) indicated
23
doing so in the survey. It is possible that advisors did so on their own accord during training to
familiarize themselves with the institution and resources. Refining interview questions
may help determine whether there was true misalignment for the latter reference materials.
Training Content. The survey revealed that the content covered during training also
varied across schools at BU. As seen in Table 4, content that covered the technical information
needed to advise students was among the most common: curriculum and/or policy review (n =
28, 80%), avoiding misadvisement (n = 20, 57%), advising mission or learning outcomes (n =
19, 54%), and using technology (n = 17, 49%). It is reasonable that technical content is the most
common because advisors need this crucial information to carry out their duties. Content that
covered conceptual ideas related to advising as a profession was also common: advising
approaches (n = 22, 63%), working with diverse populations (n = 16, 46%), and student
development theories (n = 14, 40%). This content also makes sense because it relates to how to
be an effective advisor. Content that addressed interpersonal interactions was among the least
common material covered during training: interacting with parents (n = 10, 29%), advising
students in an online environment (n = 8, 23%), and professional communication (n = 8, 23%).
Limited training regarding advising online and professional communication was surprising given
the prevalence of virtual advising post-COVID and how much of the advising profession relies
on clear and effective communication. It was rare for respondents to receive training on
leading/managing others (n = 4, 11%) and training others (n = 4, 11%), but this may result
because the survey was not sent to advising administrators who would be more likely to be in a
management position where such training might be needed. Thus, the most common content
across schools addressed informational aspects of advising while the least common content
addressed interpersonal interactions.
24
Table 4
Content Covered in Department- or School-Level Training
Training content n Percentage
Curriculum and/or policy review 28 80
Advising approaches 22 63
Avoiding misadvisement 20 57
Advising mission or learning outcomes 19 54
Using technology 17 49
Working with diverse populations 16 46
Student development theories 14 40
Interacting with parents 10 29
Advising students in an online environment 8 23
Professional communication 8 23
Leading/managing others 4 11
Training others 4 11
Note. Thirty-five participants received department- or school-level training.
Interview data reflected a heavy training focus on the technical information that is needed
to advise students. Five participants mentioned that program curriculum was covered during
training. While Reza mentioned that advisors could review curriculum “cheat sheets,” Amanda
described assigning an advisor homework so they could reinforce the curriculum, saying, “you
should talk to your department that schedules your classes, and build out for yourself: What do
my students take in fall? What do they take in spring, and what do they take in summer, et
cetera.” Both Reza and Amanda reviewed curriculum as part of their training, but their
approaches reflect the variation in training methods and access to reference materials that was
discussed earlier in this section. The rest of the training content administrators discussed tended
to vary widely. For example, Reza discussed his school’s advising mission during training,
saying, “so, we share the mission statement of our office. … My style is very much of, like, you
25
take that as your guiding principle, and you apply it in your own practice, however that’s
manifest.” In this case, the administrator left it up to the individual to decide how to translate the
advising mission into their everyday work. In other cases, there might be a model. For example,
Julian mentioned the plethora of email templates their advisors had access to, which could
ostensibly serve as a model of professional communication. Overall, administrators did discuss
various training content but mainly focused on technical information.
Qualitative data aligns with quantitative data regarding the popularity of informational
content during training but does not align with other training content seen in the survey data.
Both quantitative and qualitative data showed the heavy focus on information that advisors need
to advise students. Interviewees were not presented with a list of training content options (as was
presented in the survey), so this may explain why responses do not align better. It may also be
that administrators discussed informational content more since those topics were most common
in training, as the survey revealed.
Professional Development Experiences. Just like training varied across schools at BU,
respondents’ professional development experiences also varied. Of the 54 advisors who
responded to the professional development questions in the survey, 44% (n = 24) indicated that
their school provided funding for external professional development, 20% (n = 11) indicated that
their school did not provide funding for external professional development, and 35% (n = 19)
were unsure. It is notable that more than one-third of participants were unsure about funding for
external opportunities. This might have implications for whether advisors seek out these
opportunities to begin with when they do not know whether their school will provide funding.
Respondents were also asked about their peers’ and supervisors’ role in encouraging
them to pursue professional development. Sixty-nine percent (n = 24) agreed or strongly agreed
26
that “my colleagues encourage me to pursue professional development opportunities” and 66%
(n = 23) agreed or strongly agreed that “my supervisor encourages me to pursue professional
development opportunities.” The culture around seeking out professional development might
influence whether advisors actively seek out opportunities, so it is notable that the majority of
respondents were encouraged by peers and supervisors to pursue opportunities.
While the quantitative data provided information about the work culture surrounding
professional development, the qualitative data provided insight about specific professional
development opportunities. Five advising administrators indicated that they funded external
professional development. While most administrators I interviewed provided their own training,
they often had a different approach with professional development: Four participants relied on
campus-based or national advising organizations to provide advisors with professional
development. As Reza put it,
a lot of it is just very, like, ‘well, let’s talk through what are more things you wanna learn
about?’ Right? ‘How—what are—what are the offices that you’d want to connect with?’
And I largely rely on [the campus advising association] for that.
Fewer administrators offered professional development directly via department or school events
(n = 3) and regular meetings with advising staff (n = 2). Thus, professional development
opportunities across schools varied, with some schools providing their own opportunities and
others relying on external organizations to do so.
Qualitative and quantitative data generally align regarding professional development.
School-by-school data aligns for all but one school regarding professional development funding;
that school did not offer funding but many advisors from that school were unsure about funding
options. Most administrators also encouraged advisors to take advantage of professional
27
development through advising organizations, which aligns with survey data showing that more
than half of advisors indicated that their supervisors encouraged them to pursue professional
development.
Individual Efforts to Learn
While most study participants received training in addition to the university-level advisor
training, some participants took initiative to train themselves and others in response to absent
department- or school-level training. For example, one graduate advisor wrote, “I had to contact
advisors within other departments and university departments to request peer training.” Another
graduate advisor had a similar experience: “My current department tends to hire folks who
already have experience in advising. … We just use our previous advising experience and other
resources on campus (including more senior advisors in the school) to better advise our
students.” Both respondents relied on their own efforts to get the training they needed, often
involving other advisors in the process. Similarly, Maritza spoke of her own efforts to learn her
role and said, “so, I’ve had to go out of my way just proactively, meeting with lots of staff who
are still at [my school] but have experience either in my role or with our office.” Maritza
compiled what she had learned into a graduate advising manual for her office, which she hoped
would be a training resource for anyone who came after her. In all of these examples, other
advisors served as valuable sources of support and training, and one graduate advisor
recommended “creating channels of communication so that advisors across different schools can
share experiences with each other.” These responses demonstrate that advisors rely on each
other, and the last participant highlighted a need to make it easier for advisors to have these sorts
of interactions.
28
The participants discussed above wrote of other advisors as valuable training resources,
and Amanda (an administrator who also advised graduate students) provided insight from such a
resource as she discussed her efforts to train newly hired graduate academic advisors outside of
her own department. She described how she worked with administrators from other departments
in her school to provide training, saying, “when I knew there was a vacancy, I would often be
called in, and then I would work it out like, ‘okay. … You figure out your events and your
admissions with that person but let me train them on advising.’” Amanda leveraged her
relationships with other administrators to provide needed training for new hires despite that not
being a part of her role. Both survey and interview data show that advisors had unofficial
channels for receiving or providing training, and this may be an important facet of the informal
training landscape at BU that was not investigated in this study.
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions of Borden University Academic Advisors
of the Value and Helpfulness of These Training and Professional Development
Experiences?
Advisors who had received training in addition to that offered at the university level
indicated that the training met their needs, but satisfaction with professional development varied
depending on whether advisors had received additional training. A second finding is that time
served as a barrier to pursuing training and professional development. The following sections
describe the findings in more detail.
Satisfaction With Training and Professional Development Opportunities
Of the 35 advisors who had received school- or department-level training, the majority
felt that the training was valuable and helpful. Indeed, 97% agreed or strongly agreed that the
training was helpful, 100% agreed or strongly agreed that it was worth their time, 97% agreed or
29
strongly agreed that the training was relevant to their work, and 89% agreed or strongly agreed
that the training met their needs. This finding suggests that even though training experiences
varied widely, advisors generally felt that the training they had received was helpful.
Advisors’ satisfaction with training was also evident in the qualitative data. Advisors
were not asked open-ended questions regarding their feelings about training, but they expressed
their sentiments when asked to describe the ideal training experience. Ten advisors expressed
positive experiences with training, and one undergraduate advisor wrote, “the leadership and
training and professional affirmation I received from the central advising office was crucial to
who I am as an advisor now.” One graduate advisor had a similarly positive training experience
and expressed that “I feel so supported during my 5+ years here and now get to pay this back by
training our new advisors, which is just a joy.” Both advisors discussed positive experiences and
the impact it had on them later in their careers, demonstrating some of the potential long-term
impacts that training might have on advisors.
While more advisors expressed positive sentiments about training in the qualitative data,
there were some advisors who were unsatisfied with specific training methods or content. For
example, an undergraduate advisor felt that “making a person read a training manual on their
own and ask questions at the end isn’t effective training.” This reliance on self-study was not a
desired method for this advisor and seemed to contribute to their negative experience. Another
undergraduate advisor described how their training could have been improved:
A lot of my training just focused on learning the [BU] policies and curriculum. I still
think some shadowing or case studies specific to my student population would have been
helpful. Even as an experienced advisor, it can be helpful to shadow appointments with
your new student population when possible to learn what type of questions that
30
population tends to ask and identify any knowledge gaps before beginning meeting with
students 1:1.
This advisor’s experience highlights not only that specific training methods and content
influenced their experience, but also that experienced advisors may still desire training. This is
an important point, especially in light of the earlier finding regarding an experienced advisor’s
efforts to self-train given their department’s perceived habit of hiring (but not training)
experienced advisors. Thus, while advisors were generally satisfied with training, there were
important nuances related to specific training methods that played a role in their perceptions of
training.
While feelings about training were overwhelmingly positive, satisfaction with
professional development opportunities differed based on whether the advisor had received
additional school- or department-level training. Those who agreed or strongly agreed that they
were satisfied with professional development opportunities never surpassed 60%. Advisors who
had received school- or department-level training had relatively consistent ratings across the
different sources of professional development, suggesting that much can be done to meet their
needs for both internal and external opportunities. As seen in Figure 1, advisors who had not
received school- or department-level training had markedly lower satisfaction ratings with
professional development available within their department or at BU more broadly than those
who had. The fact that these advisors do not receive school- or department-level training and the
evidence that they are mostly unsatisfied with professional development opportunities
demonstrates the need for further investigation to understand how to better meet these advisors’
needs on both fronts. For both groups of advisors, the evidence is clear that there is much room
to improve professional development offerings and opportunities at BU.
31
Figure 1
Satisfaction With Professional Development
Note. For those who received school- or department-level training, n = 35. For those who did not
receive school- or department-level training, n = 19. Respondents selected on a 4-point scale
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). The above items complete the stem: “I am
satisfied with professional development.”
Indeed, the qualitative survey data support this notion. 43% of survey respondents (n =
23) expressed that being able to attend conferences would aid their professional development. An
advisor who wrote about limited opportunities to do so said, “we don't have that opportunity or
option, it seems, either due to lack of funding or lack of concern.” This advisor linked
professional development opportunities not only to funding but also perceptions of their
department’s regard for them. While decisions about funding may be strictly a budgetary
consideration, this quote is an important reminder that opportunities (or lack thereof)
communicate messages beyond those that the institution may have intended.
32
Time as a Barrier to Training and Professional Development
Although participants expressed general satisfaction with training and professional
development opportunities, the qualitative data highlights that limited time posed a barrier for
both advisors and administrators. This was an inductive finding mentioned by 9% of survey
respondents (n = 5) and five of six administrators. Advisors expressed the desire to attend more
conferences, but they also expressed feeling too busy to engage in professional development.
Indeed, one respondent wrote that they would like “[t]ime to attend [professional development]
without feeling like a mountain of work will be waiting for me.” Advising administrators also
expressed this feeling of a time crunch. In describing a shorter-than-ideal training period for a
new advisor, Phyllis said, “we didn’t have the luxury of letting them, you know, take their time.”
Both participants used language that clearly conveyed how time impacted them, whether it was
coming back to a “mountain of work” after time away for professional development or
describing time as a “luxury.” Additionally, one advising administrator pointed out difficulties
that arise even if they could overcome the time barrier to engage in professional development.
Julian explained, “it does no good if we are so busy with our current workloads that we can’t
even implement what we learn, because we don’t have the time to think about them from, like, a
holistic space.” For this administrator, it was not enough to engage in professional development;
rather, time to apply that learning in a professional setting was needed for both staff and students
to fully benefit from the opportunity. These insights provide important nuance to this study,
demonstrating the role that time plays in both training length and the ability to take full
advantage of professional development opportunities.
33
Discussion and Recommendations
Personal, behavioral, and environmental factors are features of advisors’ contexts that can
help explain how they function in their daily lives, a key insight gained from applying social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) to academic advisor training. Adequate advisor training is a
crucial component of the environmental context that shapes each advisor’s ability to work
effectively. Best practices in advisor training suggest that advisors receive conceptual,
informational, and relational content (NACADA, 2017), but advisors also have preferences for
how they receive training. This study focused on understanding advisor opportunities for, and
perceptions of, training offered at Borden University. The findings provide a deeper
understanding of the training and professional development landscape at BU in order to shed
light on how training opportunities relate to the advising skills needed and their perceptions of
the support provided by the institution. This section opens with a discussion of these key findings
and implications contextualized by guiding theories, discusses practical recommendations and
limitations of the current study, and ends with recommendations for future research.
First, the current study revealed that training and professional development varied across
schools at BU and advisors took steps to fill gaps in their training when needed, highlighting the
interplay between environmental and behavioral factors as outlined by social cognitive theory.
Training that includes modeling, a realistic training environment, and strategies for error
management can be effective at facilitating use of trained skills in the work environment posttraining (Grossman & Salas, 2011). In my study, participants had opportunities to observe
advising appointments and advise with supervision (modeling), advise in a role-playing situation
(realistic environment), and training to avoid misadvisement (error management). In all but the
role-playing situation, these training elements were present for at least half of the participants
34
who had received school- or department-level training. However, even when advisors had
limited or no training (which was uncommon), advisors sought each other out to both get training
for themselves and, in one instance, to proactively provide training for others. The findings of
advisor peer-to-peer support in the absence of formal training contributes to the literature on
advisor help-seeking to shore up their skills by focusing on intra-institutional measures versus
drawing on external resources such as online communities (Pasquini & Eaton, 2019) or
conference attendance (Haley et al., 2015; West, 2017).
Second, advisors who had received school- or department-level training generally felt
that training was valuable and met their needs, which is an important motivational factor in
situated expectancy value theory and contributes to understanding the personal factors that
influence individual functioning in social cognitive theory. According to both theories, positive
feelings about a task suggest that individuals might be more motivated to engage in and exert
effort in that task (Bandura, 1986; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Indeed, one advisor surveyed in my
study wrote about how supported she felt during her own training and how that influenced her
involvement (and joy) in formally training new advisors years later. This suggests a reinforcing
interaction, at least in this instance, that both enriches the training environment and increases
positive feelings about training. It can also help us understand why advisor peer-to-peer support
was so helpful in the absence of formal training and why advisors’ preferred methods include
learning with a mentor and discussions with colleagues (Roberts, 2007).
Lastly, satisfaction with professional development opportunities varied depending on
whether the advisor had received school- or department-level training—once again underscoring
the centrality of environmental factors. Advisors who did not receive school- or department-level
training had markedly lower satisfaction ratings of professional development opportunities than
35
those who did. This difference highlights the potential side effects of expecting individuals to
take charge of their own development (as suggested by Roberts, 2007) rather than institutions
taking on that responsibility (as suggested by Janosik et al., 2007). Indeed, some BU advisors’
negative experiences with little to no training (or perceived poor training) highlight the downside
of placing the responsibility on individuals. Given advisors’ belief in the importance of both
training and professional development found in the current study and in that by Donnelly (2009),
this finding suggests an area for advising administrators to focus on to better meet professional
development needs.
Recommendations
The study findings have several implications and suggest several practical
recommendations for advising administrators to improve academic advisor training.
First, facilitating interactions between advisors could support advisors’ training needs.
Not only do advisors prefer training methods that allow interactions with other advisors (Roberts,
2007), Grossman and Salas (2011) demonstrate that some of these same interactions (such as
opportunities for modeling) support training transfer. Facilitating interactions may be especially
important for graduate advisors at BU given that participants described some limitations of
available supports through campus organizations, which either focus heavily on undergraduate
advising or on duties outside of advising. For advising administrators who have very small
advising teams where an experienced advisor may be unavailable to interact with new advisors,
administrators might consider collaborating with larger advising teams to facilitate modeling
experiences for trainees.
Second, administrators might consider incorporating more relational content in their
training or professional development programs. For example, working with a challenging student
36
or a student in crisis is difficult even for the most experienced advisor. Providing formal
opportunities to discuss strategies amongst advisors, review case studies of both successful and
unsuccessful interactions, or even role-play can fill this need. These strategies play the dual role
of facilitating interactions between advisors while also incorporating training methods that
support transfer (i.e., modeling, error management, realistic training environment).
Finally, providing dedicated time for training and professional development will be a key
component of both fulfilling advisors’ professional needs and supporting transfer. This may be
the most difficult recommendation given how busy advising can be, but it is important for
organizational effectiveness and for the individual advisor’s professional growth. Effective
training and professional development provide individuals with the skills and knowledge they
need to be successful in their roles. This training contributes to individual and collective selfefficacy, which has been shown to positively influence transfer (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
Investing in advisors’ training and professional development also communicates that
administrators value advisors and acknowledges the key role advisors play in achieving the
university’s goals. Practical strategies that demonstrate how to prioritize professional
development include modeling proper calendar management (i.e., scheduling time to engage in
professional development), sharing strategies to balance advising duties with professional
development needs, and creating an organizational culture that gives permission to take time for
professional growth. As pointed out by Gilpin-Jackson and Bushe (2007), the most significant
influence on transfer in their study was organizational norms that either supported or inhibited
transfer. Thus, it is not sufficient to say, “schedule time for professional development.” Rather,
administrators should proactively model the behavior themselves and reward such behavior in
others.
37
Limitations and Future Research
This study sought to understand academic advisor training and professional development
experiences. Future additional research is needed to fully understand this context and address the
limitations inherent in any study.
First, there are advantages and disadvantages of being positioned as a researcher where
one is employed. As an insider, I had ease of access to participants who may have been more
willing to participate in the study. On the other hand, participants may have been hesitant to
speak directly with me or to be completely honest because of my positionality within the
institution. To mitigate this, I did not interview advisors who I have positional power over or
who I may potentially supervise later. I also used triangulation between survey and interview
data to see how advisor reports aligned with those of administrators. My efforts to triangulate
helped ensure the study’s credibility and trustworthiness, but one can never completely remove
threats of bias in research. Nonetheless, the results of this study are consistent with others in the
field and help contribute new insights on advisor training and perceptions. Second, as is the
nature of cross-sectional studies, I cannot draw causal conclusions and the study was designed to
examine training experiences at only one institution. Future research could address causal
limitations and the limits to generalizability by conducting a study based on a probability sample
of advisors at multiple institutions.
In addition to filling gaps left by this study’s limitations, the study points the way to
further research that is needed to understand the influence of training design on training transfer
and advising effectiveness. Future research should explore the interplay between the training and
professional development environment, individual behaviors, and personal thoughts and beliefs
about training to understand how the elements influence each other. Finally, research might also
38
address the informal training aspect that was not explicitly examined in this study. This study
examined training experiences that were facilitated by an advisor’s school or department, but
both formal and informal training contribute to effective advising. Future research also should
explore advisors’ individual efforts to develop skills to understand how to better support them in
their efforts to engage in informal learning, a crucial practice in the absence of school- or
department-level training.
Conclusion
This study employed a mixed-methods approach to understand academic advisors’ onthe-job training and professional development experiences at a private, West Coast research
university. Findings revealed that advisors had varying training experiences, and they generally
felt the training they had received was valuable and helpful. Findings also suggested that some
training programs may have been better positioned to support training transfer than others, which
has important implications for whether training programs lead to effective advising across the
institution. These findings provide important contextual information about the current training
and professional development landscape while pointing to practical recommendations to enhance
advisor training programs with an eye toward supporting transfer and effective advising. Future
research in this area also points the way forward to a more comprehensive understanding of
training at BU to both meet academic advisors’ professional needs and achieve institutional
goals.
39
References
Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2018). Reasons for teachers’ successful development of a formative
assessment practice through professional development—A motivation perspective.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 576–597.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1430685
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in
organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future
research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1988.tb00632.x
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Surface, E. A., & Olenick, J. (2019). A dynamic model of training
transfer. Human Resource Management Review, 29(2), 270–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.11.004
Brown, T. (2008). Critical concepts in advisor training and development. In V. N. Gordon, W. R.
Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed.,
pp. 309–322). John Wiley & Sons.
40
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review.
Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307303035
Carlstrom, A. H., & Miller, M. A. (Eds.). (2013). 2011 NACADA national survey of academic
advising (Monograph No. 25). National Academic Advising Association.
https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/2011-NACADANational-Survey.aspx
Chan, Z. C. Y. (2016). A qualitative study of freshmen’s and academic advisors’ perspectives on
academic advising in nursing. Nurse Education in Practice, 18, 23–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.02.010
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS professional
standards for higher education (9th ed.). Council for the Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education.
DeLaRosby, H. R. (2017). Student characteristics and collegiate environments that contribute to
the overall satisfaction with academic advising among college students. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(2), 145–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115611618
Dial, M., Bouknight, J., & McKeown, P. (2021). Appreciative onboarding and professional
development of academic advisors. Journal of Appreciative Education, 8(2021), 47-61.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/jae/article/view/2162
Donnelly, N. (2009). A national survey of academic-advisor job satisfaction. NACADA Journal,
29(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-29.1.5
41
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Erlich, R. J., & Russ-Eft, D. F. (2013). Assessing student learning in academic advising using
social cognitive theory. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 16–33.
https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-135
Eun, B. (2019). Adopting a stance: Bandura and Vygotsky on professional development.
Research in Education, 105(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523718793431
Freifeld, L. (2022, November 16). 2022 training industry report. Training.
https://trainingmag.com/2022-training-industry-report/
Gilpin‐Jackson, Y., & Bushe, G. R. (2007). Leadership development training transfer: A case
study of post‐training determinants. Journal of Management Development, 26(10), 980–
1004. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710833423
Grabsch, D. K., Moore, L. L., Muller, K., & Mazzolini, A. (2019). Student affairs professionals’
self-reported professional development needs by professional level. College Student
Affairs Journal, 37(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2019.0011
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Haley, K., Jaeger, A., Hawes, C., & Johnson, J. (2015). Going beyond conference registration:
Creating intentional professional development for student affairs educators. Journal of
42
Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(3), 313–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1050034
Holland, C., Westwood, C., & Hanif, N. (2020). Underestimating the relationship between
academic advising and attainment: A case study in practice. Frontiers in Education, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00145
Holton III, E. F., Chen, H.-C., & Naquin, S. S. (2003). An examination of learning transfer
system characteristics across organizational settings. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 14(4), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1079
Janosik, S. M., Carpenter, S., & Creamer, D. G. (2007). Intentional professional development:
Feedback from student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 43(4), 1323–1342. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1726
Laker, D. R., & Powell, J. L. (2011). The differences between hard and soft skills and their
relative impact on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1),
111–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20063
Lochmiller, C. R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Marshall, S. M., Gardner, M. M., Hughes, C., & Lowery, U. (2016). Attrition from student
affairs: Perspectives from those who exited the profession. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 53(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1147359
Mattox, J. R., & Jinkerson, D. L. (2005). Using survival analysis to demonstrate the effects of
training on employee retention. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(4), 423–430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.07.006
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
43
McGill, C. M., Heikkila, M., & Lazarowicz, T. (2020). Professional development, performance
expectations and academic advisors’ perceptions of relational skills: A sequential
explanatory mixed methods study. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development, 32(4), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20296
Mu, L., & Fosnacht, K. (2019). Effective advising: How academic advising influences student
learning outcomes in different institutional contexts. The Review of Higher Education,
42(4), 1283–1307. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0066
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. (n.d.). Excellence in academic
advising. Retrieved March 18, 2023, from https://nacada.ksu.edu/Programs/Excellencein-Academic-Advising.aspx
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. (2006). NACADA concept of
academic advising. Retrieved November 20, 2022, from
https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Pillars/Concept.aspx
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. (2017). NACADA academic
advising core competencies model.
https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Pillars/CoreCompetencies.aspx
National Survey of Student Engagement (n.d.). Academic advising: Listening, respecting, and
caring. NSSE Interactive Reports. Retrieved June 3, 2023 from
https://tableau.bi.iu.edu/t/prd/views/NSSEAdvisingLRC/NSSEAdvisingLRC?%3Aiid=1
&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aembed=y.
Pasquini, L. A., & Eaton, P. W. (2019). The #acadv community: Networked practices,
professional development, and ongoing knowledge sharing in advising. NACADA
Journal, 39(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-18-031
44
Renn, K. A., & Hodges, J. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new professionals in
student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1800
Roberts, D. M. (2007). Preferred methods of professional development in student affairs. NASPA
Journal, 44(3), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1836
Robinson, S.B. & Leonard, K.F. (2019). Designing quality surveys. Sage Publications.
Smith, C. L., & Allen, J. M. (2018). Predictors of advising learning. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 55(3), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1474754
Sutton, K. L., & Sankar, C. S. (2011). Student satisfaction with information provided by
academic advisors. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(7), 71–
85.
West, N. M. (2017). The African American Women’s Summit: A student affairs professional
development program. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(3), 329–342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1202118
Wisniewski-Aiken, S. (2011). Implications for assessment. NACADA Clearinghouse of
Academic Advising Resources.
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Implications-forassessment-2011-National-Survey.aspx
Young-Jones, A. D., Burt, T. D., Dixon, S., & Hawthorne, M. J. (2013). Academic advising:
Does it really impact student success? Quality Assurance in Education: An International
Perspective, 21(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881311293034
45
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
1. What is your race/ethnicity? Select all that apply.
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Asian American
• Black or African American
• Hispanic or Latino/Latinx
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
• White
• Other (please specify).
• I prefer not to answer.
2. What is your gender?
• female
• male
• non-binary/third gender
• I prefer not to answer.
3. Approximately what percentage of time do you spend on academic advising in your
current position?
4. How long have you worked in your current academic advisor position?
• less than 1 year
• 1 year to less than 3 years
• 3 years to less than 5 years
46
• 5 years to less than 7 years
• 7 years to less than 9 years
• 9 years to less than 11 years
• 11 years to less than 13 years
• 13 years to less than 15 years
• 15 years or longer
5. In total, how many years have you worked as an academic advisor in your career?
• less than 1 year
• 1 year to less than 3 years
• 3 years to less than 5 years
• 5 years to less than 7 years
• 7 years to less than 9 years
• 9 years to less than 11 years
• 11 years to less than 13 years
• 13 years to less than 15 years
• 15 years or longer
6. Have you completed a credential, certificate, master’s degree or higher in academic
advising, higher education, or a related field?
• yes
• no
7. Which academic unit at [BU] do you advise within?
• [school 1]
47
• [school 2]
• [school 3]
• [school 4]
• [school 5]
8. Which population do you advise? Select all that apply.
• undergraduate students
• graduate students
• non-degree-seeking students
9. Are students in the programs you advise required to attend [BU] in person or online?
Select all that apply. (Response set for multiple selection)
• in-person
• online
• hybrid
10. [BU Advisement Training] is a mandatory academic advisor training program offered
by [BU]. Have you completed [BU Advisement Training]?
• no
• yes
• in-progress
11. Does your department or school offer training in addition to [BU Advisement
Training]?
• no
• yes
48
12. How long were you in your current role before beginning to advise students?
• less than 1 week
• 1 week to less than 2 weeks
• 2 weeks to less than 3 weeks
• 3 weeks to less than 1 month
• 1 month or longer
• I’m not sure.
• I have not yet begun advising students.
13. Outside of any formal training, which resources have prepared you to advise students
in your current role? Select all that apply.
• [BU]-sponsored professional development
• non-[BU]-sponsored professional development
• other advisors
• other faculty or staff
• other offices on campus
• previous advising experience
• graduate education
• articles about advising
• [BU] websites
• professional associations/organizations
• social media
• Other (please specify).
49
• none
14. Does your school or department provide funding for external (outside of [BU])
training or professional development?
• no
• yes
• I’m not sure.
15. What would the ideal training experience look like for a new advisor joining your
department?
16. Which of the following materials were included in your department- or school-level
training? Select all that apply.
• academic department handbook
• recorded training sessions
• advising handbook or other reference material
• resource hub or website
• none of the above
• I don’t recall.
17. Which of the following methods were used in your department- or school-level
training? Select all that apply.
• assigned a mentor
• case study review (working through a written or spoken advising scenario for
practice)
• advising students with supervision
50
• knowledge checks
• observing advising appointments
• practice advising in a role-playing situation
• question and answer session
• review of [BU] websites
• lecture/presentation
• other (please specify)
• none
• I don’t recall.
18. Which of the following topics were included in your department- or school-level
training? Select all that apply.
• advising approaches
• advising mission or learning outcomes
• advising students in an online environment
• leading/managing others
• curriculum and/or policy review
• professional communication
• avoiding misadvisement
• interacting with parents
• training others
• student development theories
• using technology
51
• working with diverse populations
• Other (please specify).
• none of the above
• I don’t recall.
19. Select how much you agree or disagree with each statement below, where 1 =
strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.
• My school or department training was helpful.
• My school or department training was worth my time.
• My school or department training was relevant to my work.
• My school or department training met my needs.
• I often use the skills/knowledge from training in my work.
20. Select how much you agree or disagree with each statement below, where 1 =
strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.
• Training and professional development is important for effective advising.
• My colleagues encourage me to pursue professional development
opportunities.
• My supervisor encourages me to pursue professional development
opportunities.
• I am satisfied with the professional development available in my school or
department.
• I am satisfied with the professional development available at [BU].
52
• I am satisfied with opportunities to pursue professional development outside
of [BU].
21. What other professional development, if any, would help you feel more successful in
your role as an academic advisor?
22. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If there is anything else you
would like to add, please share below.
53
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to share your time and experiences with me today. In this study, I
hope to understand the on-the-job training experiences that influence academic advisors’
professional development. You were chosen because you’re an advising unit administrator and
know about training and professional development within your department.
Your responses will remain confidential, and hopefully you had a chance to review the
Study Information Sheet I provided via email. I would like to record this interview to ensure that
I capture what you say accurately. Is that ok with you?
I’d like to start by asking about your personal experiences.
1. Can you tell me about how you came to be in this role?
2. Were you an academic advisor before your current administrative role? If so, can you
please describe what training and professional development, if any, you received?
Next, I’d like to ask about the academic advisor training and professional development
offered by your department.
1. There are many approaches to advisor training. For example, some training involves
being paired with a more experienced advisor while other methods rely on self-study
of written materials (websites, handbooks/manuals, etc.). What is your department’s
approach?
2. I’d like to walk through training for a recently hired advisor. What kind of training do
they get? Follow-up (if needed): About how long do they train before advising
students for the first time?
3. After initial training, what continuing professional development, if any, does your
department offer? And how is this delivered?
54
4. Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, have there been any changes to how your
school or department approaches training and professional development for advisors?
5. Does your department or unit provide funding for outside training or professional
development? Is there a budget line item for this? How do you decide who gets
access to these funding resources?
6. Finally, if time and money were no obstacle, what training and professional
development would you like to offer your advisors?
Thank you again for talking with me. Is there anything else that you’d like to add
regarding training or professional development?
I very much appreciate you taking the time to share your experiences with me, and what
you have shared today is very valuable. Do you have any questions for me?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Graduate academic advisor training course
PDF
Understanding Native American women’s beliefs, values, and expectations for engagement with the Girl Scout organization
PDF
Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis
PDF
Injecting warm fuzzies into cold systems: defining, benchmarking, and assessing holistic, person-centered academic advising
PDF
A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy
PDF
Novice Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) school administrators' professional development and adult learning
PDF
An academic and professional preparatory curriculum design and supplemental academic advisement tool: self-regulation, ethics, and communication for engineering graduate students
PDF
Growing international student enrollment from developing markets
PDF
What will I be when I grow up? Understanding how the lived experiences of African American community college students impact their academic major choices
PDF
Well-being and healing as resistance: testimonios of Latina students’ arrebatos in California community colleges
PDF
Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors
PDF
California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training
PDF
Minimizing academic ableism and maximizing course accessibility: a social justice pedagogical approach to faculty development
PDF
Mid-level Latina leaders in predominantly White institutions: balancing identities and cultural incongruity
PDF
Success factors for global virtual team leaders: a qualitative study of leaders of global virtual teams in a global professional service firm employing grounded theory
PDF
Student support professionals: drivers of community cultural wealth aligned practices through support programs for first-generation college students of color amidst institutional shortcomings
PDF
A case study in how middle school counselors mentor students at risk for emerging academic disengagement
PDF
Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students
PDF
A cyclical approach to professional development: a case study of the San Bernardino School District
PDF
Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer
Asset Metadata
Creator
Littlejohn, Siobhan T.
(author)
Core Title
Understanding academic advisor training and professional development experiences
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-05
Publication Date
06/14/2024
Defense Date
05/13/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic advising,professional development,situated expectancy-value theory,social cognitive theory,training
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Banuelos, Sheila M. (
committee member
), Waters, Harold (
committee member
)
Creator Email
slittlej@usc.edu,stlittlejohn@hotmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113996WOX
Unique identifier
UC113996WOX
Identifier
etd-Littlejohn-13107.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Littlejohn-13107
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Littlejohn, Siobhan T.
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240619-usctheses-batch-1170
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
academic advising
professional development
situated expectancy-value theory
social cognitive theory