University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors

(USC Thesis Other)

Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CARING FOR STUDENTS IN CRISIS: THE TRAINING AND PREPARATION OF
ACADEMIC ADVISORS
By
By Julieth H. Kim

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Julieth H. Kim

ii
DEDICATION
Dedicated to my Mom and Dad, Joshua, Audrey, Emily, and Zoey.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have much gratitude for my dissertation committee members. Thank you to Lynette
Merriman and Mary Andres for their feedback and help with my dissertation. A huge thank you
to my dissertation chair, Tracy Tambascia. She believed in me and encouraged me to finish
when I had lost faith and confidence in myself. She also gave generously of her time to review
and provide feedback on my dissertation many times. Thank you so very much to all my
committee members.
From the bottom of my heart, I thank my mother and father. They immigrated to
America 36 years ago, and every single day, they worked hard and made unbelievable sacrifices
to ensure our family thrived and was successful in this amazing country. I would not be where I
am today without them.
My friends have been greatly supportive of me through this long process. Thank you to
Karen Ravago for lending her books to me. I took so long that she eventually just gave them to
me. Thank you to Liz Chiang, Kattie Johnson, and many friends for their support and words of
encouragement (and listening to me complain). Thank you to Katrina Hermoso for her
friendship and support while we went through class together a very long time ago. Cheers
everyone!
I am happy to share this accomplishment with my three beautiful daughters, Audrey,
Emily, and Zoey. Audrey was a toddler when I started the program, Emily attended classes with
me while I carried her, and I carried Zoey when I started the dissertation process. They have
been with me through the entire process of earning this degree. It was a beautiful moment when
all three of my daughters attended my commencement ceremony. Perhaps, the delays in my
degree progress were worth it to have them all with me to celebrate this achievement.

iv
Finally, this degree is shared with my wonderful husband, Joshua Wong. We did it! He
cheers me on, encourages me, makes sacrifices, takes care of the children, and supports me in
everything – our family, my education, my career, and my crazy ideas. He never doubts and is
always by my side. He is my best friend, and I thank him for being the most generous,
supportive, and caring person. He is also pretty funny too, and I thank him for making me laugh
through the last few years as we both worked in different ways to earn this degree together.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii

Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................6
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................7
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................7

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................8
Defining Campus Violence ..................................................................................................8
Historical Context of Violence in Higher Education .........................................................10
The Impact of Virginia Tech ..............................................................................................12
Campus Attacks: Targeted Violence Affecting Institutions of Higher Education Report .14
Threat Assessment .............................................................................................................15
Campus Threat Assessment ...............................................................................................18
Success of Threat Assessment Teams ................................................................................20
Academic Advisors ............................................................................................................21
Mental Health of Students in Colleges ..............................................................................28
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................37
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................39
Methodological Approach .................................................................................................40
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................42
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................43
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................45
Researcher Bias ..................................................................................................................47
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................47

Chapter Four: Presentation of Data ................................................................................................48
Chapter Overview ..............................................................................................................48
Online Survey ....................................................................................................................48
Interview Participant Profiles ............................................................................................54
Findings from Interviews ...................................................................................................61
Analysis of Institutional Advising Guidelines ...................................................................72

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations..........................................................................77
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................77
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory .......................................................................................81
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................84

vi
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................85
Future Research .................................................................................................................88
Limitations .........................................................................................................................89
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................89

References ......................................................................................................................................91

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................103
Appendix A List of College Mass Shootings in the United States ..................................103
Appendix B Online Survey ..............................................................................................104
Appendix C Interview Protocol .......................................................................................106
Appendix D Information Sheet for Research ...................................................................107

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Educational Backgrounds of Survey Participants ............................................................49
Table 2: Number of Years of Experience of Survey Participants ..................................................50
Table 3: Interview Participants ......................................................................................................54

viii
ABSTRACT
The training and preparation of advisors to work with students has changed due to the rise of
student psychological problems and campus crises. The current training and preparation of
advisors may not be adequate in preparing them to work with students requiring high levels of
emotional and counseling support. Also, attitudes towards students can be shaped by events like
campus mass shootings, which can result in changed views and treatment of students treated.
This qualitative study included academic advisors at a research university to understand the
preparation and training they received to work with students in crisis. Data was collected
through an online survey, structured interviews, and university training documents and websites.
Nancy Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) was the theoretical framework used in this study.
The four themes that emerged from this study are significance of an advisor’s educational
background and its impact on professional ability, student desire for more than academic
advising, institutional referral culture, and changing feelings towards students – an increase in
empathy towards students.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions.
The university is shocked and indeed horrified” Virginia Tech President Charles Steger
(Associated Press, 2007)

On April 16, 2007, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Virginia Tech), Seung-Hui Cho, went on a campus mass shooting rampage, killing 32 people
and wounding 17 (Virginia Tech Review Panel Report, 2007). The United States President,
George W. Bush, called the shooting the worst day of violence in the history of the United States
(The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2007). At that time, the Virginia Tech shooting
was considered the deadliest shooting in United States history (Bonanno & Levenson, 2014), and
it is “most responsible for the dramatic shift of the higher education community’s safety and
security mentality” (Gray, 2008, p. 1).
Adding to the mounting trepidation about campus safety, ten months after the Virginia
Tech shooting, Steven Kamierczak, a former student of Northern Illinois University, killed five
people, injured 21 students, and then took his life in another highly profiled campus mass
shooting. This shooting, in addition to the incident at Virginia Tech, added to the feelings of fear
the higher education community was already dealing with.
Crime and violence have always been a part of colleges (Roark, 1993), and they are not
isolated in the twenty-first century (Smith, 1989). A history of violence in colleges (henceforth
understood to include universities), is discussed in chapter two and it reveals episodes of
violence that include premeditated murder, mass mutinies that resulted in the death of
individuals, rape, robbery, and other forms of violence that can be traced back to medieval
universities and to the University of Oxford, the first university of higher education (Smith,
1989). However, the nature of violence has changed over time, especially with the inclusion of

2
campus mass shootings. One of the first contemporary campus mass shootings of particular note
was the Columbine High School shooting that occurred in 1999 (Nicholson, 2007). Two senior
students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people, injured 24 additional students, and
committed suicide. Following the Columbine High School shooting, more campus mass
shootings occurred in elementary schools, middle schools, and colleges.
During the different periods in which campus mass shootings have occurred, varying
reasons have been attributed to the cause of the shootings. The investigation of the Columbine
High School shooting centered on “fears about violent video games and trench-coat wearing
students who were social outcasts” (Knop, 2012, p. 54). The investigation also revealed Klebold
and Harris both had psychological problems that included schizotypal personality disorder,
hallucinations, paranoid delusions, grandiose delusions, narcissism, lack of empathy, and sadism
(Langman, 2009). The school shootings between 2000-2006 increased concerns about gun
control policies (Knop, 2012). In 2007, after the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois shootings,
the concern shifted to mental health issues (Knop, 2012). The investigation of the Virginia Tech
shooting revealed Cho had psychological problems and suffered from paranoid delusions and
grandiose delusions (Langman, 2009). Similarly, the Northern Illinois shooting investigation
revealed Kazmierczak struggled with psychological problems, suffered from depression, and had
tried to kill himself four times (Schmadeke, 2008).
There have been many more campus mass shootings since Virginia Tech (see Appendix
A for a list of campus mass shootings). Stanford University Libraries created the Stanford Mass
Shootings of American (MSA) to track and analyze all mass shootings in the last five decades
(Stanford University Libraries website, n.d.). The MSA is the first online comprehensive
collection of the phenomena of mass shootings (Stanford University Libraries website, n.d.).

3
The MSA data revealed the largest percentage of mass shootings took place at colleges or
universities, approximately sixteen percent (Stanford University Libraries website, n.d.).,
compared to other identified categorical locations such as an entertainment venue, government
facility, restaurant/cafe, etc. Shootings on college campuses that were included in the database
fell into one of three categories: college, university, or adult education. One of the analysis tools
used by Stanford University Libraries tracked the percentage of psychological problems
associated with shooters. According to the analysis, the largest number of shooters have no
obvious reason to engage in a mass shooting except that they have a history of psychological
problems. The second-largest number of shooters engaged in a mass shooting due to termination
or reprimands at work. The analysis revealed that individuals with psychological problems
committed over half of mass shootings. These are concerning statistics for colleges because
psychological problems have been on the rise (Cook, 2007; Guthman, Iocin, & Konstas, 2010;
Harper & Peterson, 2005; Kitzrow, 2003).
After the Virginia Tech shooting, in April 2010, three federal government agencies
consisting of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, United States Secret Service, and the United
States Department of Education, released a report that examined campus mass shootings. One of
the recommendations that emerged from this report was a process for disruptive individuals, but
it also recommended keeping a close eye on individuals who exhibited psychological problems
such as thoughts of suicide or violent behavior (Drysdale, Modzeleski, & Simons, 2010). This
recommendation lit a spotlight on student psychological problems.
The Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois shootings serve as indicators that violence on
college campuses has changed, and they also serve as catalysts for the changes in the higher
education community’s safety and security policies and procedures. These shootings were

4
catalytic events that drew attention to the phenomenon of campus mass shootings and
psychological problems. It forced colleges to examine the current policies they had in place to
respond to students with psychological problems, and how to deal with the possibility of a
campus mass shooting (Thrower et al., 2008).
Many colleges responded by reviewing their campus safety, security policies, and
procedures, revising student handbook language about disturbing or threatening student behavior
and creating an awareness campaign about disruptive student behavior (Lederman, 2008).
Numerous colleges created threat assessment teams (TAT; LaBanc, Krepel, Johnson, &
Herrmann, 2010). After the Virginia Tech shooting, there was a rise in TATs and the United
Educators Insurance estimated that before the Virginia Tech shooting, approximately a quarter of
its higher education clients had threat assessment teams but afterward, approximately three
quarters had implemented such teams (Hoover, 2008). Key personnel on college campuses
involved in TATS included campus security, emergency management personnel, student affairs
professionals, and human resources. Threat assessment teams are responsible for assessing the
potential for violence informed by many sources that include students, faculty, staff, and persons
of interest outside of the institution.
Threat assessment teams include student affairs professionals and insight from those that
work directly with students, such as academic advisors who can provide valuable input into the
evaluation of students who are a concern to the community. However, little is known about the
training and preparation of academic advisors and how they respond to students who are a
concern to the community.

5
Statement of the Problem
There is a great deal of information about how to plan, prepare, and react to a campus
crisis such as a campus mass shooting, and published material on how to identify and deal with
disruptive students. However, there is little information on how academic advisors are prepared
to identify and respond to students who are a concern to the community. An academic advisor is
someone why may frequently interact with students to advise them of program requirements.
They may also often provide much-needed information for students who need to utilize services
outside of academic advising, such as counseling services.
Academic advisors who actively work with students are not required to have counseling
backgrounds, nor are they trained to deal with students who may be suffering from psychological
problems. However, advisors are often the first to notice changes in student behaviors or to be
treated as a confidante by students. Despite increased efforts and the creation of new resources
and training, few, if any, academic advisors may truly be prepared to identify or respond to a
student who is a concern to the community. Especially since an academic advisor’s training is
focused on how to best advise students about academic matters. It is not the role of the academic
advisor to diagnose psychological problems or to act in the role of a mental health professional.
However, training and awareness of how to assess students who may need help for psychological
problems can be part of threat assessment management. It is important to understand the
implications of this type of responsibility and accountability of those who work directly with
students within the scope of threat assessment management.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the level of training and preparation academic
advisors receive, if any, to identify and respond to disruptive students, threatening students, or

6
those dealing with psychological problems. The research also examines the attitudes academic
advisors have about students, and their feelings of professional competence related to responding
to disruptive students, and those dealing with psychological problems in connection to the idea
of campus mass shootings.
These questions guide the research:
1. Do academic advisors receive preparation and training to assist them in identifying students
who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus community? If yes, what kind of training
and preparation? If no, what kind of training do they desire?
2. How prepared are academic advisors in working with students who exhibit concerning
behavior in the campus community?
3. Have events like campus mass shootings created changes in the assumptions advisors have
about themselves and their dealings with students? If so, how?
Significance of the Study
This study provides a better understanding of how academic advisors interact and manage
students related to campus threat management. When completed, findings may be useful to
senior-level administrators in charge of hiring and training academic advisors. The current
traditional training of academic advisors involves preparing individuals to help students manage
their academic decisions. This research may highlight the need to add additional training and
education related to talking to students about psychological problems, being able to identify
signs of psychological problems, and working with students who suffer from psychological
problems.

7
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as used in this dissertation:
Academic Advisors: Academic advisors refer only to staff who have the first line of contact with
students in an academic advisory role.
Mass Shootings: A mass shooting is an event where four or more people are murdered in the
same incident as defined by the FBI Crime Classification Report (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2009).
Conclusion
In Chapter One, I discussed the brief background of campus mass shootings and provided
a statement of the problem and purpose of the study. I also touched on the significance of the
study.
In Chapter Two, I review the literature relevant to this study, including definitions of
violence from a historical and modern point of view, a discussion of threat assessment,
understanding how academic advisors interact and manage students, and the mental health status
of students in colleges. Chapter Three covers methodological tools; Chapter Four delves into the
presentation of data; and Chapter Five is a discussion of the findings.

8
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Campus mass shootings have compelled colleges to examine their policies and
procedures more critically to understand and prevent it. Another result of this critical
examination is the scrutiny of mental health services and the behavior of students.
In Chapter One, I discussed the phenomenon of campus mass shootings in higher
education related to academic advisors. The purpose of chapter two is to review literature
germane to the phenomenon of campus mass shootings, student mental health, and training of
academic advisors.
Chapter Two begins by outlining campus violence in a historical and modern context.
This section provides an overview of how campus violence has changed over time and the
responses colleges have developed. This is followed by a section on the development of threat
assessment teams to illustrate the modern measures institutions have taken to address the
changes in campus violence, especially related to campus mass shootings. Following the
discussion on threat assessment is a discussion on academic advisors and psychological
problems.
Defining Campus Violence
There are many ways in which to define campus violence; two different views of campus
violence are discussed below. Carr (2007), adopted the World Health Organization definition of
violence to articulate violence on college campuses:
The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself,
another person, or against a group or community, that either result in or has a high
likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or
deprivation (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi & Lozano, 2002, p. 305).

9
Roark (1993) defined campus violence as “behavior which by intent, action, and/or outcome
harms another person” (p.10). Both definitions are similar in intent and breadth. However,
Roark’s definition can be interpreted to include both physical and psychological actions. Other
researchers, such as Lystad (1986) and Iglitzin (1970), also included both physical and
psychological actions in defining general violence (as cited in Roark, 1993). The problem with
including psychological actions as part of campus violence is that it is both difficult to prove and
report. In general, Roark (1993) pointed out that defining violence is difficult because it can
“vary by time, community reaction, and individual subjectivity” (p. 7).
Roark (1993) also made a sound argument about how difficult it is to define the word
“campus.” The word campus can describe a physical space beyond a college’s geographic
limitations because “campus boundaries are relatively permeable, and the limits of the word
‘campus’ are not easily established” (Roark, 1993, p. 6). She questioned whether the definition
of a campus should be the demarcated campus areas or if off-campus commercial establishments
and personal residents should also be included in the definition. As she astutely pointed out,
there are reporting and legal ramifications to how a college or university defines its campus
boundaries. For example, if a student living in non-university housing was physically assaulted,
would this incident be categorized as a campus-related crime? The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of
Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) provides clarification on
the physical parameters in which the college or university is responsible for reporting a crime to
the federal government. According to the Clery Act, colleges are required to disclose statistics
for reported crimes if the crime occurred “(1) on campus, (2) on public property within or
immediately adjacent to the campus, and (3) in or on noncampus buildings or property that your
institution owns or controls” (U.S. Department of Education, 2011, p. 11).

10
Historical Context of Violence in Higher Education
Violence in college campuses is not a 21
st
-century phenomenon. Education history
records reveal The University of Oxford, the first known university of higher education, had
violent campus events. Schachner’s (1938) research on medieval universities noted that in 1354,
the University of Oxford had a violent riot that continued for three days (as cited in Smith,
1989). Many students died, and two chaplains were beaten to death. Across the Atlantic Ocean
in America, the 1800s were trying times for pioneering institutions such as Harvard University,
University of Mississippi, University of Virginia, and Yale University. Between the 1820s to
1840s, the University of Virginia experienced many student riots, and one of them ended in the
death of a college professor (Smith, 1989). In the 1840s, Yale University students were involved
in multiple altercations with the New Haven firefighters that resulted in the destruction of
firefighting equipment, the death of a bartender, and ultimately led to the “Firemen’s Riot” in
which a student shot and killed a firefighter (Smith, 1989). In 1850, a Harvard medical professor
was convicted of murdering another Harvard physician (Smith, 1989). Just before the Civil War
in 1861, at the University of Mississippi, one student wounded another student with a pistol in a
dueling match over a woman (Smith, 1989). These incidents at Oxford University and American
higher education institutions serve as evidence that violence is threaded throughout the history of
higher education.
Over time, the level and magnitude of violence have changed (Roark, 1993; Smith,
1989). According to education historians, violence on the campuses of colleges in the 1800s was
due to a rising nation grappling with the tension of “Calvinistic morality” and the “frontier
pattern of heavy drinking and brutal fighting” (as cited in Smith, 1989, p. 7). In the period
between the Civil War and World War II, there is a lack of information and statistics on-campus

11
crime and violence in colleges (Smith, 1989). However, in 1945, after World War II, colleges
faced steep changes due to several events such as a need for more educated workers, a GI Bill of
Rights that assisted war veterans in obtaining college educations, and a “Baby Boom”
generation. These events increased enrollment in colleges (Smith, 1989). By the 1970s, colleges
had a much more diverse student body population that was nontraditional in the sense that many
students were older, enrolled part-time, commuted to campus, were ethnically or racially diverse,
and driven to obtain degrees for jobs in certain industries and businesses (Smith, 1989).
This infusion of nontraditional students into colleges was a reflection of the mainstream
American population and it brought the same types of societal problems. In the 1970s, due to
political uprising, colleges experienced violent incidents on their campuses because of the Civil
Rights Movement and the Vietnam War protests. The 1970 Vietnam War protests at Kent State
University resulted in the death of four students and the wounding of nine others when the
National Guard fired into a crowd of students (Smith, 1989).
The incidents of crime and violence described above and noted by education historians
were selected for this research to help frame the idea of crime and violence from a historical
context on the campuses of colleges. It is difficult to gain a fuller understanding of the types of
different crimes and violent acts that happened on college campuses before the late 1980s
because a systematic attempt to collect this type of data was lacking (Pezza & Bellotti, 1995). In
addition to the lack of data, different definitions of what constituted a crime or a violent act
varied from college to college. Moreover, even defining the campus perimeters were not clear
cut.

12
The Impact of Virginia Tech
Campus violence took a gruesome turn in April 2007, when a student, Seung-Hui Cho
shot and killed 32 students and faculty, wounded 17 more, and then took his own life at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). At the time of the shooting,
this campus mass shooting was considered the deadliest university shooting in United States
history. The President of the United States at that time, George W. Bush, described the Virginia
Tech shooting as the worst day of violence in the history of the United States (The White House
Office of the Press Secretary, 2007). Multiple task forces were initiated from within Virginia
Tech and the federal government to study this phenomenon of a mass shooting on a college
campus. Ten months later, in February 2008, Steven Kazmierczak shot multiple people in a
classroom of Northern Illinois University. He killed five, injured 21 students, and then took his
own life. These events stunned the nation.
Task Forces
The Virginia Tech shooting ignited a firestorm of national scrutiny of violence that
occurred on American college campuses and resulted in two federal task forces. The first task
force was formed at the direction of President George W. Bush. The task force was made up of
the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and the Department of
Justice. They were charged to interview institutional and state leaders in the United States to
gain an understanding of campus mass shootings so that the federal government could provide
future preventative aid. There were five key findings of this task force that were published in the
report, “Report to the President: On Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy” (Leavitt,
Spellings, & Gonzales, 2007). First, the task force discovered that the sharing of critical
information was negligent between education officials, healthcare providers, and law

13
enforcement personnel due to the misunderstanding of the Federal Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA). Second, information about individuals prohibited from owning
firearms in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) needed to be
improved. Third, parents, students, and teachers needed to be educated to recognize warning
signs of troubled students so they could encourage them to seek help. Fourth, colleges needed to
provide the appropriate services for students who suffered from psychological problems; Lastly,
recognizing that even though there were some states and institutions that already had plans in
place to deal with a violent incident, they needed to continue to improve them (Leavitt et al.,
2007).
Findings
These key findings by the federal task force were important in the formation of threat
assessment management teams and the development of policies aimed at minimizing the
potential for a violent campus attack at various colleges in the United States. A more in-depth
look at threat assessment management teams and how they impact the relationship between
academic advisors and students are discussed further in this chapter.
The second task force was formed at the recommendation of the task force that wrote the
“Report to the President.” This task force that included the United States Secret Service, United
States Department of Education, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was charged with
understanding the scope of the campus mass shooting problem. The ultimate goal was to provide
information for college and university leaders dealing with campus security issues, health, and
student affairs, so they could effectively deal with “identifying, assessing, and managing
violence risk” (Drysdale et al., 2010, p. iii). The findings from this task force are discussed
below.

14
Campus Attacks: Targeted Violence Affecting Institutions of Higher Education Report
The objective of this report was to provide an understanding of campus shooters and to
help colleges to identify and conduct threat assessments to prevent future tragedies. This report
highlighted the fact that there were many factors to consider when conducting a threat
assessment, and not one type of profile was associated with an individual who may potentially
commit violence on a large scale. It further highlighted the difficulty of conducting a threat
assessment, especially on how to account and investigate possible threats by individuals who are
unaffiliated or indirectly affiliated with colleges. The report also recommended that campus
threat assessment teams thoroughly investigate and evaluate individuals who may pose a risk and
danger to the campus. The recommendations involved a three-prong approach in which the
threat assessment team needed to (a) Identify the individual whose disruptive behavior may pose
a danger to the community, (2) Assess the ability of the individual to carry out an act of violence
towards an individual or to the campus community and whether the individual had developed
plans to carry out the attack, and (3) Circumvent and strategize on how to prevent the possible
danger posed by the individual. The report acknowledged the challenges associated with this
three-prong approach, such as inadvertently creating alarmist outlooks that result in a false
positive identification of individuals who pose a risk, respecting and fostering academic freedom,
and respecting student privacy (Drysdale et al., 2010). These are the current challenges that
student affairs professionals are dealing with. The following section discusses the preoccupation
with mass shootings in colleges.
One infamous mass campus shooting case in 1966 involved Charles Whitman, a 25-year-
old student and former marine who climbed an observation tower at the University of Texas,
Austin and fired a rifle for 96 minutes before police killed him. He killed 13 people, and 31

15
were wounded on campus. The day before he started his shooting rampage, he had killed his
mother and wife and planned the campus attack (Drysdale et al., 2010). Violent occurrences like
this observation tower shooting are a part of higher education history, and recent mass shootings
have propelled it again into the public’s minds. The current phenomenon of mass shootings
whether in a college setting or elsewhere continues to affect colleges and on a larger national
scale. Attitudes toward students have changed, and with violence prevention being key, students
who engage in disruptive behavior may be viewed differently due to mass campus shootings like
Virginia Tech and other similar events. The following section delves into the idea of threat
assessment, a method utilized by many colleges to prevent violence on their campuses.
Threat Assessment
The shooting at Virginia Tech catalyzed the campus safety measures that were
implemented throughout the nation’s higher education campuses (Flynn & Heitzmann, 2008;
Fox & Savage, 2009; Pollard, Nolan, & Deisinger, 2012; Randazzo & Cameron, 2012). In its
aftermath, attention was focused on the issue of campus security, and how campus mass
shootings can be prevented. For example, the International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) wrote the IACLEA Blueprint for Safer Campuses;
President George W. Bush formed a task force consisting of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Justice to analyze
violent tragedies to form a plan on how the federal government can help to prevent future
tragedies; and Virginia’s governor at the time, Timothy M. Kaine, signed more than two dozen
bills into law that were prompted by the Virginia Tech tragedy. One of those laws by Governor
Kaine required each public college or university in Virginia to have a threat assessment team
(Code of Virginia, § 23-9.2:10). The United Educators Insurance estimated that before the

16
Virginia Tech attack, roughly about a quarter of its clients in higher education had threat
assessment teams, but afterward, roughly three quarters had implemented such teams (Hoover,
2008).
Fear of Violence
Research jointly produced by the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Secret Service, and
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Drysdale et al., 2010) shows the increase in campus violence
over the past 100 years corresponds to the increase in student enrollment. This essentially means
that even though incidents of campus crimes have increased, there has not been a significant
change in crimes per student enrolled. However, the public perception of campus mass
shootings has been shaped by Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, and the public has
constructed the idea that mass shootings on campuses are an increasing problem that needs
immediate attention by higher education administrators and state and federal legislators (Pollard
et al., 2012). Many researchers criticize the media for creating a disproportionate fear over
incidents of campus mass shootings and the actual prevalence of it, exacerbating public fear of
school violence (Arnette & Walsleben, 1998; Brooks, Schiraldi, & Ziedenberg, 2000;
Schildkraut, Elsass, & Stafford, 2015).
Even though mass shooting events are considered rare, with only 17 fatal multiple
shootings that occurred on campuses across the United States since 1990 to 2010 (Fox, 2012),
the impact and the fear it has produced has driven new policy implementations at colleges and
have affected federal and state legislations.
School shootings are often lumped in statistically with mass shootings. An FBI Crime
Classification Report states a mass shooting is an event where four or more people are murdered
in the same incident, and the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting is cited as an example (Federal Bureau

17
of Investigation, 2009). According to current news reports such as the December 2015 New
York Times article citing the website Mass Shooting Tracker, there is on average one mass
shooting daily (LaFraniere, S., Cohen, S., & Oppel, R. A., Jr, 2015). This statistic may seem
alarming and may also feed into the idea that mass shootings are on the rise but to put it into
perspective, mass shootings are a “tiny subset of everyday gun violence in America” (LaFraniere
et al., 2015). According to a Congressional Research Service report highlighted in the December
2015 New York Times article, an average of 22.4 mass shootings a year occurred between the
years of 2009-2013 compared with 20.2 shootings a year during 2007-2012. However,
according to James Alan Fox, a mass shooting expert, if the study added 2014 and used a four-
year interval rather than a five-year interval, the average number of annual mass shootings would
decline from 2011-2014 (LaFraniere et al., 2015).
In summary, Fox stated, “there has been no discernible trend in the numbers” (LaFraniere
et al., 2015). However, due to the media coverage, the perception that mass shootings are
increasing has correlated positively with the increase in fear (Bissler & Conners, 2012; Burns &
Crawford, 1999; Cornell, 2006). The level of increased fear about mass shootings can lead to
over-reactions, especially within the school shooting context. In actuality, more people are killed
by general gun violence than there are mass killings. However, depending on how the data is
analyzed and reported, the general public is left to interpret the idea that mass shootings are on
the uptick. “In the ‘70s and ‘80s, we didn’t hear about it on the Internet—because there was no
Internet—and we didn’t have cable news channels that would devote 24 hours of coverage”
(LaFraniere et al., 2015).
School shootings are a fraction of mass shootings, and they are not as common as the
general public thinks. Fox (2012) states that media coverage plays an enormous part in creating

18
panic and belief that school shootings are on the rise. Clusters of school shootings invoke the
misguided belief that schools are unsafe. Even though this research examines campus mass
shootings on college campuses, examining K-12 data by some measures indicates schools are
getting safer and school homicides are still extremely rare (Zhang, Musu-Gillette, & Oudekerk,
2016).
Campus Threat Assessment
Threat assessment practices on college campuses existed before the Virginia Tech
tragedy, and threat assessment methodology has been in use for several decades (Randazzo &
Cameron, 2012). In 2010, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved a new
national higher education risk standard that recommended campus threat assessment teams be
implemented at colleges (ASMD Innovative Technologies Institute, 2010).
One method of threat assessment in colleges can be traced to the Secret Service
protective intelligence model that was used to evaluate threats against the president of the United
States. To understand the behavior of individuals who have committed assassinations or
attacked and tried to harm public officials and public figures, the Secret Service conducted the
Exceptional Case Study Project (Randazzo & Cameron, 2012). They found that general violence
risk factors, such as a history of violence, were often not present in perpetrators who assassinated
or attacked public figures. But other pre-attack indicators included thought out plans of attack or
communication to others to indicate an interest or intent to attack. The Secret Service used these
findings to enhance their ability to investigate, evaluate, and manage the threats and developed
its protective intelligence model for threat assessment against individuals they protected such as
the president and public officials (Fein & Vossekuil, 1999).

19
Since the Virginia Tech tragedy, it is estimated that 80% or about 1,600 of colleges
nationwide have threat assessment teams compared to about 20% before the Virginia Tech
tragedy (Marklein, 2011). The threat assessment teams are also known by different names such
as threat assessment and management, behavioral intervention, or student of concern committees
(Marklein, 2011). The teams are usually made up of many campus departments such as the
office of student affairs, campus safety, counseling, disability services, residence life, and legal
counsel (Pollard et al., 2012). Threat assessment teams may also include human resources
personnel. The main purpose of the threat assessment team is to identify and manage individuals
who may pose a threat to the campus community, and this can include more than students such
as faculty and staff members and persons of interest outside of the institution. Also, touching
back on the Virginia Tech Review Panel Report (2007), the report made a major point about the
importance of communication between the campus departments that were involved in student life
that was also very important to threat assessment teams. The lack of communication between
departments at Virginia Tech was cited as a major flaw in how the information regarding the
shooter was managed.
Threat assessment is based on the analysis of behavior and is a deductive process and not
necessarily about profiling and prediction (Randazzo & Cameron, 2012). Profiling focuses on
ferreting out commonalities shared by past offenders to predict behavior (Pollard, et al., 2012;
Randazzo & Cameron, 2012; Reddy, et al., 2001), and researchers have noted it may not be an
appropriate analysis tool for targeted violence such as a campus shooting (Randazzo & Cameron,
2012). The federal government’s analysis of targeted violence has indicated that there is no clear
profile of individuals who may engage in targeted violence on a college or university campus
(Drysdale et al., 2010). Further evidence reveals, in examining characteristics of adolescent

20
school shooters, that even though there are general characteristics such as evidence of being
victims of bullying, family problems, or a preoccupation with violence, these characteristics can
be found in many students, and therefore it is not possible to develop a profile that can identify
students that are truly capable of targeted violence (Cornell, Sheras, Gregory, & Fan, 2009).
Developing and relying on a profile has the danger of falsely identifying many students who may
not be dangerous.
According to Pollard et al. (2012), the threat assessment team needs to seek information
from everyone who may have had contact with the student, also referred to as the subject of
concern (SOC). This can include information from within the university and also from outside
such as from employers, law enforcement records, Internet records such as social media posts,
community connections, and previous academic records. The purpose is to gather as much
information as possible so that the threat assessment team can evaluate and decide about the
SOC’s potential for violence or self-harm. This evaluation can include whether the SOC has
begun to think about violence, identified targets, has developed a plan, and has access to
weapons. The ultimate concern of threat assessment is whether an SOC poses a threat, not
whether he or she has made a threat (O’Toole, 2000). If an SOC is determined to pose a threat,
the threat assessment team must develop a case management plan that includes responding to the
present circumstances and also developing a plan for future monitoring.
Success of Threat Assessment Teams
There is very little empirical evidence that the recent proliferation of threat assessment
teams on the campuses of colleges has prevented mass campus shootings. In fact, it is truly
difficult to quantify success because there is never a way of knowing what was prevented.
However, there is anecdotal evidence that points to the fact that there might be alarmist attitudes

21
towards students who may not pose a danger but are evaluated by a threat assessment team
because of disruptive or unconventional behaviors that in the past may not have been thought of
as threatening. Currently, due to threat assessment teams actively trying to intervene and prevent
minor or major tragedies, the act of intervention may be enacted before any student conduct or
policies are violated (Hoover, 2008). Deisinger, a leading expert on campus safety, a licensed
psychologist and deputy chief and director of threat management of the Operations Division at
Virginia Tech, believes most individuals assessed under threat management are not a threat. He
states, “We’re not looking to identify campus shooters, we’re looking to identify students at risk”
(Hoover, 2008, p. A10).
The mental health of college and university students has taken a prominent role in the
discussion of campus safety, especially in the evaluation process done by campus threat
assessment teams. The task force that developed the Report to the President (Leavitt et al.,
2007) recommended that it is key for colleges to provide appropriate services for students who
suffer from psychological problems. The task force members that analyzed the Virginia Tech
shooting were drawing a correlation between mental health and a campus mass shooting. The
following section is a review of the literature on academic advisors dealing with the
psychological health of students in colleges.
Academic Advisors
There is much literature written about the important role academic advisors play in the
lives of students within colleges. Historically, faculty members played a pivotal advisory role in
the lives of students because they essentially acted as a parent. This parent role that faculty
occupied can be traced back to the start of the colonial colleges when most students lived in
dormitories (Nuss, 2003). The dormitory students were supervised and cared for by the faculty

22
because they were considered “immature adolescents requiring counsel, supervision, vocational
guidance, and, frequently, remedial classes” (Leonard, 1956, as cited in Nuss, 2003, p. 66).
Colonial colleges were encouraged to act in loco parentis and “were therefore free to
develop and enforce rules and regulations as if they were the parents” (Nuss, 2003, p. 66). The
doctrine of in loco parentis persisted until the 1960s when social changes began to influence the
change in policy (Pollet, 2002). Also, in the early 1900s, the field of college student personnel
work began to become professionalized with the creation of national associations for the dean of
students and with the conferment of the first degree in student personnel in 1913 at the Teacher’s
College in Columbia University (Waple, 2006). Before the field of college student personnel
work becoming a legitimate field of study and profession, individuals who wanted to work with
students may have studied disciplines such as psychology, education, and sociology (Waple,
2006).
Since 1913, more colleges were offering degree programs in college student personnel
work or student affairs as it is presently known. By 1948, there were approximately fifty
institutions of higher education offering training and degree programs for students interested in
student affairs work (Waple, 2006). These training programs, such as Columbia’s first Master of
Arts degree and the Diploma of Dean of Women, required students to take courses on topics
such as “personal hygiene, sex education, educational psychology, history of family, educational
sociology, the philosophy of education, management of the school, problems in administrative
work, psychology of religion, and a practicum in which concrete problems confronted by the
dean of women were discussed” (McWeen & Talbot, 1998 as cited in Waple, 2006, p. 3).
Acting in advisory roles, faculty, and student services advisors have mainly been the first
and consistent contact between the student and the university, but it became more so with the

23
professionalization of student affairs work. Over the history of higher education, the advisors
advised students using different approaches. At times, the student and advisor interaction was
more hands-on within the paradigm that in loco parentis was the best way to work with students,
a much more prescriptive way of advising (Crookston, 2009). At other times, the interaction was
done in a more developmental relationship way in which, a give and take association governed
the advising exchange (Crookston, 2009). Whether the prescriptive relationship or the
developmental relationship was preferred, the main goal was to help students realize their
potential on an academic, personal, and professional level and to help them grow and mature
(Crookston, 2009). Contributing to the goal involved helping students to select the right type of
major, classes, giving them the advice to help them with personal growth, assisting with career
choices, and much more.
Presently, faculty and academic advisors continue to play an important advisory role in
the lives of students. However, advising a student from the early 1900s or even from the 1960s
in contrast to a modern student may be a very different experience for the advisor. Many reasons
account for this different experience. One main reason is that in loco parentis is no longer the
guiding doctrine for how academic advisors interact with students. Another change in modern
times is the increasing number of students who develop and experience psychological health
problems while attending college (Benton, Robertson, Tseng, Newton, & Benton, 2003; Stone &
Archer, 1990; Talley, 2019). Essentially, students who have been diagnosed with psychological
problems have drug and psychiatric therapy available to them that enable them to attend
colleges, which they may not have been able to do previously. Some students attend colleges
without a diagnosed psychological problem but develop it for many reasons that may have to do
with age, genetics, lifestyle change, and new stressors that come with a change in environment

24
(Gallagher, 2014; Guthman et al., 2010). More is discussed in a later part of this chapter on
psychological problems because it is a topic pertinent to this research. In this section,
psychological problems are discussed because as the changes in the student population continue,
the question of whether academic advisors are trained appropriately to identify and guide
students with psychological problems arises. This ability to appropriately identify and guide
students with psychological problems is important on many levels. On the first level, having the
ability to identify psychological problems or psychological stressors or knowing when to refer to
an expert can assist students in getting the help and support they need. On another level, this
ability can help assess and manage threat. It is often in the aftermath of a campus mass shooting,
and questions are asked about whether anyone was aware of signs that could have prevented
tragic events. The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report (2007) is a prime example of a report that
analyzed the shooting and compiled ways in which the institution could create new policies for
the future. As this report was compiled, the failures of the individuals and institutions were also
identified. It is hard to understand whether the campus shooting could have been prevented, but
the repercussions still involved institutional accountabilities.
Current Training of Academic Advisors
Individuals who work in student affairs have many different backgrounds. For example,
as established within the history of higher education, faculty have served as advisors to students
in many capacities. This relationship has changed through the eras, especially with the
introduction of professionalized student affairs staff (Crookston, 2009), but it is an enduring
relationship that may have many difficulties in modern times because members of the faculty are
not trained to be advisors. In their educational training, advising students is ancillary because the
faculty are trained to research and teach (Rice, 1991, 1996). Faculty who interact with students

25
on an advisory level may be more adept at advising students about academic and career matters
due to their lack of student affairs training. They may not be adept at identifying students in
crisis due to psychological problems.
With the professionalization of the field of student affairs, non-faculty members also
advise students. Many academic advisors have been trained through their education to work
with students. There has been much literature written about the common core of knowledge
every advisor should have in student affairs administration (Waple, 2006). Waple (2006) posits
the development of a common core education for student affairs administration has fallen short
because not enough research has gone into identifying the specific knowledge and skills that are
needed for this field. “There exists no clear consensus on how to proceed with ‘best’ training for
new professionals” (Waple, 2006, p. 4). Though there is no consensus, Waple (2006) states that
experts believe that academic study and preparation in student affairs administration is still
career critical.
In 2009, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and the Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) identified and established ten common core
competencies aimed at student affairs professionals and educators. The ten common core
competencies areas are (a) Personal and Ethical Foundations (PEF), (b) Values, Philosophy, and
History (VPH), (c) Assessment, Evaluation, and Research (AER), (d) Law, Policy, and
Governance (LPG), (e) Organizational and Human Resources (OHR), (f) Leadership (LEAD),
(g) Social Justice and Inclusion (SJI), (h) Student Learning and Development (SLD), (i)
Technology (TECH), and (j) Advising and Supporting (A/S) (College Student Educators
International & Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2015). These ten common
core competencies exist, but implementation within graduate programs may be negligent because

26
these competencies are not necessarily a part of program accreditation and required as standards
related to curricula. These ten common core competencies are guiding principles for
professionals in the field of student affairs.
Within the existing training models and competencies, there are three different types of
training programs for student affairs professionals (Waple, 2006). One type of program is
focused on the counseling aspect, another is focused on understanding the theory of higher
education and student development theory, and the last is focused on professional skills and
competencies (Hyman, 1985, 1988; Waple, 2006). Waple (2006) conducted a study to assess the
necessary skills and competencies of student affairs staff in entry-level positions for less than
five years. Using this study to examine skills related to identifying psychological problems or
assisting psychologically ill students, the closest skill was categorized under “crisis and conflict
management.” It was ranked 16 out of 28 for selected student affairs professional skills and
competencies attained through master’s level graduate study in student affairs. When the study
participants were asked to rank the same 28 skills they used in entry-level student affairs work,
“crisis and conflict management” was ranked number four. In this data scrutiny, an assumption
is made that working with psychologically ill students would fit under crisis and conflict
management because there is no explicit category that identifies counseling.
Limitations of Academic Advisors
In 2009, a qualitative study published by the British Journal of Guidance & Counselling
examined the student experience of mental health support within higher education (Quinn,
Wilson, MacIntyre, & Tinklin, 2009). This study was limited in scope and focused on one
higher education institution in Britain and not in the United States. Even though this study is not
based on an American institution, the implications of the study can be globally insightful. The

27
findings related to advisor support of students experiencing psychological health problems were
not very encouraging. It is very problematic to how advisors can contribute to threat assessment.
The study examined the literature surrounding mental health and concluded that only a
small proportion of students who experienced psychological health problems were likely to ask
for help (Quinn et al., 2009). There were many reasons listed for why this happened, but
focusing on student affairs, surveyed students felt this problem was compounded by the “often
variable response from staff” (Quinn et al., 2009, p. 406). According to this study, student
affairs staff often did not feel they were experienced, trained, or qualified to help students with
psychological health problems. As cited in this study, the Mental Health Foundation (2001)
surveyed academic and support staff about this disconnect and found that “staff made no links
between issues such as poor accommodation, isolation, and financial problems and students’
mental health and did not see it as their role to solve these problems” (Quinn et al., 2009, p. 407).
Students had experiences with student affairs staff that were dismissive of their problems as just
regular stresses of college life or attributing it to laziness.
Furthermore, surveyed students explicitly stated that faculty advisors needed to develop
more awareness and education about psychological health problems to be able to respond
appropriately. Although this study was focused on one institution and it is based in Britain, it is
an example of how students are changing, and the increase in psychological health problems is
not an American phenomenon. Also, the survey results have applicability in understanding the
advisor and student relationship.
An encouraging finding from this study revealed that even with the reluctance of students
seeking help for their psychological health problems, they first turned to a member of the
academic staff, who could then, in theory, help the students get the appropriate help from a

28
professional counselor (Quinn et al., 2009). Although this was encouraging, the students who
were reluctant to disclose their psychological health problems were afraid of getting stigmatized
or being embarrassed. Those students who did disclose to an academic staff member perceived
staff having a different attitude towards those who had psychological health problems versus
those students with learning disabilities.
Faculty and staff advisors are often the first point of contact for students. The student
population is changing, and the fabric of higher education has changed due to campus mass
shootings. Academic advisors may not have sufficient training to be able to identify and help
students with severe psychological health problems who ultimately may pose a campus safety
risk.
Mental Health of Students in Colleges
The mental health of students in colleges has been studied extensively for several decades
and more recently with the rise of reported psychological problems (Benton et al., 2003;
Gallagher, 2014; Johnson, Ellison, & Heikkinen, 1989; Lipson Lattie, & Eisenberg, 2019; Smith,
Hansell, & English, 1963). There is mounting research indicating that more mentally ill students
are attending college, and many of them already taking psychotropic medications (Gallagher,
2014). Some of the students are dealing with serious psychological problems that surpass
everyday depression.
In 1990, researchers Stone and Archer asserted that psychopathology among college
students and college counseling student clients had increased and expected that it would continue
to increase well into the 1990s. This assertion was based on a survey study of 95 college
counseling center directors, in which 85% of them felt that they saw an increase in the overall
pathology between the years 1983 to 1988 in comparison to the previous five years of 1978 to

29
1983. This upward trend continues twenty years later. The National Survey of College
Counseling (Gallagher, 2014), previously known as the National Survey of Counseling Center
Directors, has been conducted by the University of Pittsburgh since 1981. The survey is
distributed to administrative heads of college and university counseling centers in the United
States and Canada. This annual survey seeks to gather data on current trends in counseling
centers from counseling center directors. The 2014 survey results revealed that 94% of
counseling center directors felt that the trend of the increasing number of students with severe
psychological problems attending college continued to be true. The directors also reported that
on average, 52% of their student clients had severe psychological problems (Gallagher, 2014).
Over five years, the following percentages of counseling center directors noticed increases in the
following problem areas: 89% reported seeing an increase in anxiety disorders, 69% saw crises
requiring immediate response, 60% noted psychiatric medication issues, 58% saw increased in
clinical depression, 47% saw increases in learning disabilities, 43% saw increases in sexual
assault on campus, 35% saw increases in self-injury issues, such as cutting to relieve anxiety, and
34% saw increases in problems related to earlier sexual abuse (Gallagher, 2014). The survey
also reported that 86% of directors believed there had been a steady increase in the number of
students attending colleges already taking psychiatric medication. Fourteen percent of the
students were referred for psychiatric evaluation, and 26% were on psychiatric medication. This
latter number has steadily been increasing from 9% in 1994, 17% in 2000, and 20% in 2003.
More current research also supports the idea that psychopathology in colleges is on the
rise (Benton et al., 2003; Gallagher, 2014; Kitzrow, 2003; Lipson, et al., 2019; Mowbray et al.,
2006; Young, 2003). An important study in this area was conducted by Benton et al. (2003) that
examined whether if there was truly an increase in symptom severity in college counseling center

30
student clients or if it was perceived and exaggerated by counseling center directors and
therapists. The study participants were 13,257 student-clients who sought counseling services at
the campus counseling center, at a large Midwestern university campus. The researchers
examined the severity of problems over thirteen years, 1988 to 2001. The year 1988 was chosen
as the beginning date because, in that year, the mental health unit and counseling center of the
student health center had merged and begun to collect data that were necessary for the study.
The study’s researchers found increases in the severity of 14 of 19 identified problem areas. The
problem areas included relationship, stress/anxiety, family issues, situational,
educational/vocational, depression, developmental, abuse, medication used, academic skills,
physical problems, substance abuse, eating disorders, personality disorders, suicidal, grief,
chronic mental disorder, legal, and sexual assault. Other areas of significance included the
doubling of numbers of students seen for depression, a tripling of numbers of students seen for
issues related to suicide, and a quadrupling number of students seen for issues related to sexual
assault.
In conclusion, the study found three implications. The first implication provided
empirical evidence that college counseling centers were indeed seeing students with problems
that were more complex and severe in certain areas than a decade ago. This study provided
evidence that the impressions counseling center directors were forming about the increase in
mental disorders were, in fact, true and not exaggerated. The second implication of the study
validated the rising trend of psychopathology which could lead to better planning of services to
the constituency they served. Lastly, the third implication of the study affected how to prepare
mental health professionals better as they dealt with students with more serious problems.

31
According to the American Psychiatric Association (1994), a diagnosable psychiatric
disorder is a serious psychological problem such as depression, eating disorders, and substance
abuse. The effects of the disorder last at least a year and produce enough significant impairment
to be considered disabling. The idea of students with developmental stresses as well as serious
psychological problems attending colleges is not a new thought. Colleges are a microcosm of
society that exhibits the same type of afflictions that members of society experience (Mowbray et
al., 2006; Smith, 1989; Roark, 1993). In America, psychological problems are common and
approximately 26.2% of Americans ages 18 years and older are afflicted with a diagnosable
mental disorder in a given year (Kessler, Chiu, Demler, & Walters, 2005). This is approximately
one in four adults in America that have a diagnosable mental disorder. Furthermore, one in
seventeen Americans, about 6% of the American population suffers from serious mental
disorders such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Psychological problems are common in
America, and they are common in colleges.
Types of Psychopathology
Diagnosable psychiatric disorders typically include major depression, bipolar disorder,
schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders, severe anxiety disorders such as obsessive-
compulsive disorder, and eating disorders (Mowbray et al., 2006). Many students diagnosed
with these psychiatric disorders can attend colleges due to psychiatric drugs that enable them to
manage their disorders. According to Guthman et al. (2010), severe psychological problems
among college students is more common than they were a decade ago. More students go to
college with pre-existing mental health issues, many are already on medication, and these
students are more willing to seek counseling. Their research findings also suggest that students
with prior psychiatric diagnoses benefit from better education, medical and emotional support

32
during childhood that makes them more likely to attend college compared to past generations.
As a result, university and college counseling centers report a significant shift in the type of
services that are needed by the student clients. Rather than the standard services needed for
typical problems associated with developmental stress or problems with adjustment to college,
campus counseling centers must now be prepared to provide the care associated with severe
psychopathology (Pledge, Lapan, Heppner, Kivlighan, & Roehlke, 1998). Severe psychopathy
included “suicidality, substance abuse, history of psychiatric treatment or hospitalization,
depression and anxiety” (Pledge et al., 1998, p. 387).
Self-Perception of Emotional Health
An important indicator of how students perceived their emotional health is provided by
the American Freshman National Norms Survey conducted by the University of California, Los
Angeles Cooperative Institutional Research Program at the Higher Education Research Institute.
Each year, the CVUP Freshman Survey is administered by two-year colleges and four-year
colleges to entering first-year students during orientation or registration. The survey attempts to
collect information to assess the attitudes and beliefs of the entering freshman. The survey
results “provide a normative picture of American college first-year student population””
(Stolzenberg, Eagon, Aragon, Cesar-Davis, Jacobo, Couch, & Rios-Aguilar, 2017, p. 45). This
important survey helps college and university administrators to have a better understanding of
the entering student population which can lead to better programming options related to student
services.
The fall 2010 The American Freshman: National Norms report revealed a troubling fact
about how students perceived their emotional health. The survey required each participant to
rate a particular trait compared with the average person his/her age. The question also noted,

33
“We want the most accurate estimate of how you see yourself” (Pryor, Hurtado, DeAngelo,
Palucki Blake, & Tran, 2010). The participant then rated each trait, such as academic ability,
physical health, and emotional health with either “highest 10%,” “above average,” “average,”
below average,” or “lowest 10%.” The fall 2010 survey results revealed that students perceived
their emotional health at a record low since 1985, when the survey first asked the question (Pryor
et al., 2010). The actual survey question is limited and failed to define what emotional health is.
Therefore, it is difficult to understand what the survey is referring to within the concept of
emotional health. However, it is reasonable to assume emotional health can have links to
psychopathology syndromes such as depression and paranoia and the survey results contributed
another piece to the current trend of the increase of psychological problems in college students.
The authors of the report stated, students who expressed lower levels of emotional health were
more likely to experience challenges at matriculation and “are more likely to have been
‘frequently’ depressed as high-school seniors” (Pryor et al., 2010, p. 6). In other words, students
who have a history of depression may be more likely to face challenges when they enrolled in
college.
In 2017, reports posited that psychological disorders are more severe and are on the rise.
For example, of the students surveyed, approximately 10.7% of full-time students in 2016
reported a psychological disorder, like depression, in the past year compared to 3.8% in 2010
(Eagan, Stolzenberg, Zimmerman, Aragon, Sayson, & Rios-Aguilar, 2016).
Reasons for Increased Needs and Demands
Research has pointed to several potential explanations for the increase in student mental
health issues on college campuses. According to the National Survey of College Counseling
(Gallagher, 2012), over the past eighteen years, students already taking psychiatric medication

34
before attending college have increased from 9% in 1994 to 24.4% in 2012. Psychiatric
medication may be making it possible for students to attend college, where in the past, they may
not have been able to. This population of students attends colleges with a pre-existing condition
which may be a factor in the increased needs and demands of mental health services.
Aside from pre-existing conditions, there is a correlation between low levels of emotional
health and high levels of feeling overwhelmed (Pryor et al., 2010). Therefore, students who
were already emotionally fragile were more susceptible to being overwhelmed by the normal
challenges of transitioning and adjusting to college. Pryor et al. (2011, 2012) surveyed first-year
students and found that students were more driven to succeed than in previous years. According
to Kneser (2004) students lead “hyper-enriched lives” (as cited in Harper & Peterson, 2005).
These students who lead “hyper-enriched lives” are spread very thin between instant access
technology such as smartphones, computers, commitments related to classes, jobs, sports, family,
and interpersonal development related to travel and volunteer work. These commitments are
sometimes too much for some students to handle, which may lead to anxiousness and depression.
Kitzrow (2003) also pointed out that students are dealing with more complicated growing
pain issues such as cultural issues, inability to deal with disappointment and frustration, family
dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, and the lack of or weak interpersonal attachments. The
question is how these problems that current students deal with are different from what students
dealt with in the past and why they are a possible explanation for the manifestation of
psychological issues in colleges. The author points out that perhaps that more students are
seeking counseling assistance because of the destigmatization of mental health treatment and the
culture of how mental disabilities are dealt with has changed positively.

35
Psychological Issues Within the Context of Campus Mass Shootings
Recent campus mass shootings have drawn attention to the issue of student mental health.
In the 2011 National Survey of Counseling Center Directors (Gallagher, 2011) 68% of directors
reported that due to recent tragedies associated with colleges due to “emotionally disturbed
students, they have come under increasing pressure to share concerns about troubled students
who might pose a risk to others even though, the threat was not to a specific person” (p. 6). In
2012, 60% of directors continued to report this (Gallagher, 2012).
When mass shootings occur, the media and public at large have a tendency to attribute
psychological problems as a causal factor. Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization
that advocates for gun control, studied mass shootings of four or more people murdered between
2009 to mid-2015, and they discovered certain patterns. Only 11% of the mass shooting cases
had psychological problems associated with the gunmen. Domestic violence was a strong
motive, with 57% of the cases (LaFraniere et al., 2015). However, based on select shootings that
stand out in the narrative of campus mass shootings, such as the Virginia Tech shooting, there is
an impression that psychological problems are highly associated with mass shootings (McGinty,
Webster, & Barry, 2013; Metzl & MacLeish, 2015). According to researchers, Metzl and
MacLeish (2015), the four most frequent assumptions that arise after a mass shooting in the
United States are gun violence is caused by psychological problems, gun crime can be predicted
by psychiatric diagnosis, violent shootings are done by mentally ill loners who are deranged, and
lastly, gun control will do nothing to prevent another mass shooting. It is a dangerous way of
thinking because not all mass shooters are mentally ill, and by creating a strong correlation
between mental health and mass shootings, these assumptions can lead to erroneous, reactionary,

36
and short-sighted policy decisions on a national and community level as noted earlier in this
section.
Related to the idea of correlating mass shootings with psychological problems is the idea
of mental-health profiling. Many colleges are constructing policies and networks to profile and
detect potential student threats in an attempt to prevent future tragedies (Reiss, 2011). Reiss
(2011) editorialized that this new mental-health profiling may be analogous to racial profiling.
Many colleges nationwide have threat assessment teams that preemptively attempt to
identify students who may be considered dangerous to the community, usually related to sign of
mental instability (Marklein, 2011). The debate that has risen over threat assessment teams is
about the number of authority schools wield to identify students as dangerous to the community.
In one extreme case, the president of Valdosta State University expelled a politically active
student by suggesting the student was a danger to the campus prompting an investigation into the
student’s mental health. A lawsuit followed, and a federal judge ruled the president’s actions
were improper and were motivated by the student’s opposition to campus plans to build a
campus parking garage (Kruth, 2016; Reiss, 2011).
A case involving a student stabbing at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
may be relevant to how threat assessment is managed. In 2009, a pre-med student, Katherine
Rosen, was stabbed by a classmate, Damon Thompson. She survived the attacked and sued
UCLA for negligence. Her lawsuit charged that UCLA was aware of Thompson’s “dangerous
propensities,” and the institution was negligent by failing to warn and protect her (Dolan, 2018).
Initially, her lawsuit was unsuccessful, but nine years later, in 2018, the California Supreme
Court overturned a lower court ruling and ruled that Rosen’s initial lawsuit of negligence could
go forward. The court stated, “Public colleges have a duty to protect students from foreseeable

37
violence in classrooms and other places where they have ‘curricular’ activities” (Dolan, 2018).
This unanimous ruling is the first of its kind in the nation and creates an enormous amount of
responsibility and liability for colleges. The court cited the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting and
stated, public colleges and universities in California, “have a special relationship with their
students and a duty to protect them from foreseeable violence” (Dolan, 2018.
Another case that exemplifies the criticism of threat assessment teams is related to the
2011 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others who were shot by
Jared Loughner, a former student at Pima Community College in Arizona. Loughner had been
exhibiting increasingly disruptive behavior in classes, and the college suspended him in 2010 and
required him to have a mental health evaluation clearance to be readmitted (Reiss, 2011).
Loughner chose to drop out of college instead of complying with the college’s requirements.
After the shooting, Pima Community College came under criticism for not doing enough to
prevent the attacks. This criticism brings to the forefront the question of what obligation an
institution has after a student of concern leaves the community. This question has yet to be
answered in any legal case.
Theoretical Framework
To understand the training, preparedness, and attitudes of academic advisors,
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) is examined. This theory is often applied as a model for
students to help student affairs professionals understand the needs of students experiencing
change and transitions (Kotewa, 1995). However, this theoretical framework works very well to
frame how academic advisors navigate the new professional changes that are demanded of them
due to changes in perspective resulting from the prospect of campus mass shootings.

38
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory asserts, “a transition can be said to occur if an event or
non-event results in a change in assumptions about oneself and the world and thus requires a
corresponding change in one’s behavior and relationships” (Schlossberg, 1981, p. 5). There are
three different types of transitions: anticipated transitions, unanticipated transitions, and non-
events (Evans, Forney, & Guido-Debrito, 2009. Anticipated transitions are described as ones
that predictably occur, such as obtaining a job. Unanticipated transitions are described as ones
that unpredictably occur such as losing a job or losing a loved one. Non-events transitions are
described as ones that are expected to occur but do not such as failure to be promoted in a job.
In applying Schlossberg’s Transition Theory to academic advisors, they may experience
unanticipated transitions that create a change in their professional assumptions about themselves,
which requires a corresponding change in their behavior and relationships. Sargent and
Schlossberg (1988) identified three key points related to adult behavior. First, adult behavior is
not based on age but determined by transitions. Second, adults are motivated to “learn and to
change by their continual need to belong, matter, control, master, renew, and take stock”
(Sargent & Schlossberg, 1988, p. 58). Lastly, the readiness for change is dependent on the four
S’s, situation, support, self, and strategies.
Campus mass shootings have made an indelible mark in colleges, as noted by the
proliferation of threat assessment management protocols and policies in today’s times. Even
though this has occurred, due to unanticipated transitions, academic advisors may have feelings
of inadequacy and even incompetence related to how well they feel equipped to deal with a
possibility of a campus mass shooting or working with students who show signs of being a
danger to themselves or possibly to the community.

39
The four S’s, situation, support, self, and strategies, can help academic advisors to cope
with the transition. The first three are a way to take stock of a situation. The first S, Situation is
about knowing the details of the situation such as whether if it is expected or unexpected,
positive or negative, voluntary or involuntary, and if it is at the beginning, middle, or end phase.
The second S, Self is about self-introspection and whether the person possesses positive or
negative strengths, the kind of experience they have in dealing with a similar transition, and if
they are optimistic and can deal with ambiguity. The third S, Support, is related to people who
may be helpful or may hinder the process of the person getting through transition. Does a
community of family, friends, and colleagues exist as a support system? The last S, Strategies
for coping is related to the plan of action to deal with the transition.
Schlossberg’s Four S’s are factors that influence how academic advisors can cope with a
transition, especially an unanticipated transition. By applying the four S factors, researchers can
better understand how individuals can move from feeling incompetent to competent, especially
mastering new skills and situations related to campus mass shootings and working with students
who pose a danger to themselves or their community.
Conclusion
Chapter Two was a literature review that explored the historical context of violence,
campus mass shootings, threat assessment, student affairs advisors, the mental health of students
in colleges, theoretical framework, and the significance of the study. These topics were
discussed in depth to show the relevance of the topic, how violence and mass shootings moved
through the history of higher education, and the changes in reaction to mass shootings. The next
chapter is a discussion of the research methodology.

40
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
Chapter Three examines the methodology and research design of this study. The purpose
of this study was to examine the level of preparedness of academic advisors. This included the
types and amounts of training, as well as professional and emotional preparedness to respond to a
disruptive student who may cause harm in the era of campus mass shootings.
These questions guide the research:
1. Do academic advisors receive preparation and training to assist them in identifying students
who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus community? If yes, what kind of training
and preparation? If no, what kind of training do they desire?
2. How prepared are academic advisors in working with students who exhibit concerning
behavior in the campus community?
3. Have events like campus mass shootings created changes in the assumptions about oneself
and their dealings with students? If so, how?
Methodological Approach
A qualitative research approach was best suited for this study because it provided rich,
descriptive data about the training, preparedness, and attitudes of academic advisors. This study
included interviews, descriptive survey data, and a review of training and informational
documents. According to Patton (2002), interviews allow for open-ended questions and probes,
which can “yield in-depth responses about people’s experiences, perceptions, opinions, feelings,
and knowledge” (p. 4). Interviews also allow for “verbatim quotations with sufficient context to
be interpretable (Patton, 2002, p. 4). In this study, the interview data approach was appropriate
to understand the training, preparedness, and attitudes of academic advisors.

41
A case study approach was used in this qualitative study (Patton, 2002). A case study is “an
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,
especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin,
1994, p. 13). According to Gerring (2004), the case study method is often practiced but not well
understood. The case study is “best defined as an intensive study of a single unit with an aim to
generalize across a larger set of units” (Gerring, 2004, p. 341). He further argued the case study
method is a “particular way of defining cases, not a way of analyzing cases or a way of modeling
causal relations” (p. 341).
According to Patton (2002), qualitative data can be presented by itself, or quantitative data
can accompany it. This type of mixed methods research is quite common and “at the simplest
level, a questionnaire or interview that asks both fixed-choice (closed) questions and open-ended
questions is an example of how quantitative measurement and qualitative inquiry are often
combined” (Patton, 2002, p. 5). I used a questionnaire with fixed-choice questions and open-
ended questions, but the data used is not a true mixed methods methodology. This study was
primarily based on qualitative methodology but provided richer data by infusing descriptive
statistics. Case study participants self-identified as a volunteer participant when they completed
the survey questionnaire. The descriptive statistics produced from this survey added a layer of
rich data and provided data triangulation in support of the information gleaned from the
interviews and the training and information documents. According to Williams and Monge
(2001), descriptive statistics involve describing what is or what the data shows. Descriptive
statistics do not attempt to draw conclusions or infer from the sample data as done in inferential
statistics. This study does not include inferential statistics.

42
Sample and Population
Patton (2002) noted that to have a clear direction and framework for decision making and
action, a clear and well-conceived strategy must be engaged. Part of the strategy must include
design. Patton lays out three design strategies: naturalistic inquiry, emergent design, and
purposeful sampling. The naturalistic inquiry is the study of real-world situations and allowing
them to unfold naturally without manipulation or control. The researcher is open to all ideas and
does not put constraints or predetermination on the research outcomes or findings. Emergent
design is the flexibility and adaption of the researcher as understanding deepens and allows for
modification in the research design as events or information unfolds. Lastly, purposeful
sampling is the intentional selection of research subjects, topics, places, etc. for study in cases
because they are “information-rich” (Patton, 2002, p. 40). In Patton’s words, “they offer useful
manifestations of the phenomenon of interest…aimed at insight about the phenomenon, not an
empirical generalization from a sample to a population (p. 40). The design strategy for this
research had elements of all three but predominantly focused on purposeful sampling.
The participants in the study were all staff members who served in a primarily academic
advising role, and the sample comprised of those who responded to the survey and were
purposively selected for the interview. Interview participants were selected utilizing purposeful
sampling. They were selected because they were “information-rich,” meaning they provided
insight from a personal point of view and their own experiences. Participants of the interviews
were selected based on volunteers and were purposefully selected based upon online survey
responses. The subjects of the study were current academic advisors who worked directly with
students as an advisor. The type of students they worked with were either undergraduate or
graduate students. The strategy was to have a minimum of ten interviews. The interviews were

43
both open-ended and structured. An interview protocol was structured, but the emergent design
was part of the process. Consideration for flexibility and adaptation were kept in mind during
the interview process.
Site
The study was conducted at a research university on the west coast of the United States.
A pseudonym was assigned to the university: Carter Valley University (CVU). CVU is a highly
competitive private research university that offers over 130 undergraduate majors. It is
considered a most selective institution, and the acceptance rate is approximately 13%. The
population ranges from undergraduate students to postdoctoral students. CVU is known for a
strong undergraduate program but also for its strength in research programs. The student
population totaled approximately 43,000, including 19,000 undergraduates and 24,000 graduate
and professional students at the time of the study.
CVU was chosen due to the large student population. There are hundreds of student
services advisors, and the population they work with is extensive, ranging from undergraduate to
postdoctoral students. CVU also engages in annual active shooter training with the campus
safety and local police. It produces informational and training documents related to active
shooter events, how to deal with disruptive students, and specific programs that encourage peers
– students, faculty, and staff to report troubled peers or those that they are concerned about.
Data Collection
Data was collected through a survey, interviews, and examination of informational and
training documents. Each method of data collection is discussed below.
A survey questionnaire was distributed to academic advisors at CVU through an advisor
email list. The advisor email list contained email addresses of those who identified as an advisor

44
at the university. Advisors chose to participate in the email list voluntarily. This list of advisors
identified themselves as members the Academic Advisors Board (AAB). The AAB is a group
that works to organize academic advisors and their mission is to “share information, questions,
concerns, and celebrations on issues that affect students and advisors.” In addition to the email
sent to the advisor email list, I also recruited participants by making an announcement at their
monthly meeting and by printing fliers advertising the study which were distributed by email.
The survey questionnaire contained closed and open-ended questions related to the
identified inquiry areas: training, preparedness, and attitudes. Aside from the questions related to
the identified inquiry areas, this survey provided an opportunity for participants to volunteer for
an interview. A gift card drawing was used to encourage participants to volunteer for an
interview.
After obtaining a list of participants who wanted to participate further in this study
through an interview, ten interview participants were purposefully chosen. In both the online
survey and interviews, terms like “training” and “crisis” were not specifically defined and left for
advisors to interpret in their terms. In the interview, the terms were explained by offering
examples to frame the context but it was still left up to the advisors to interpret and define within
the context of their responses. According to Patton (2002), “...purposeful sampling is to select
information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study” (p. 46).
Information-rich cases do not provide empirical generalizations that can be applied widely, but it
is more nuanced in the sense that it provides a richer understanding of the study subject. In case
there were not enough volunteers, snowball sampling was an option. Snowball sampling is a
non-probability sampling technique in which research participants help to identify other
participants to participate in the research (Patton, 2002).

45
Finally, the last method of collecting data was examining the existing informational and
training literature published by CVU. There were two major pieces of information to be
examined: the literature associated with campus training of advisors and a publication guideline
piece on disruptive and threatening student behavior.
All new advisors are required to attend mandatory training. This training was developed
by faculty and advisors to train new advisors on the basics of academic advising and to help
them to learn about CVU policies and procedures. Although the training is done in person,
training materials and literature are produced to supplement the in-person training. The training
materials were examined to learn how advisors were trained and prepared to work with students
who may have or are developing psychological health problems.
The publication guideline piece on disruptive and threatening student behavior was
written by CVU. This document was examined for relevancy and how it contributed to training
academic advisors.
Data Analysis
According to Patton (2002), data analysis involves evaluating research data using
analytical and logical methodologies to make sense of the information to draw conclusions or
findings. Patton (2002) further notes that there is no direct formula or recipe to transform data
into findings and ultimately, it is a unique process for each researcher. To transform data into
knowledge, the researcher must look for patterns, themes, and make sense out of parts to create
meaning.
The parts of this research involved a survey questionnaire, interviews, and examined
information and training literature. The different parts of this research all aimed to investigate
the training, preparedness, and attitudes of academic advisors and how their roles ultimately

46
contributed to threat assessment management. There were three different sets of data to
triangulate data through cross verification. According to Patton (2002), data triangulation is a
powerful tool that uses multiple data resources to validate data findings and to transform data
into knowledge.
To analyze the data, first, I examined the quantitative data produced by the survey
questionnaire before the interviews because candidates for interviews were chosen from
volunteers who completed the online survey. The second part of the analysis was to analyze the
interviews. Each interview was recorded, and transcripts were produced. I analyzed the
transcripts as a whole to attain a first impression of the data. The second step began the coding
process and notating line by line any relevant words, phrases, action, concepts, etc. The third
step created categories by bringing the codes together. By coding and analyzing the data, it
allowed for themes and patterns to emerge (Patton, 2002). The purpose of data collected from
the interviews was to provide rich data to triangulate data from the survey questionnaire and
examination of information and training literature. The last piece of analysis involved the
examination of information and training literature from CVU. This last piece of the data
collection was purposively left last to review after the survey questionnaire and interviews. By
reviewing it last, I hoped to eliminate any bias from making assumptions about an advisor’s
training at CVU. The information and training literature were treated in the same manner as the
interviews. I reviewed all the documents to attain a first impression of the data. Then I began
the coding process and finally created categories by bringing the codes together. The interview
coding helped guide the coding of the information and training literature.

47
Researcher Bias
There are certain biases that I considered in this research endeavor. I am a student affairs
professional and have worked with students in different capacities over the past 20 years. Even
though my job title identifies me as a director, I still consider myself an academic advisor
because I have direct contact with students and have helped students with their academic
advisement but also have had many instances in which I have dealt with emotional and/or
disruptive students. I have worked with cases involving disruptive students and even a specific
case that examined one particular student for a campus threat assessment. My professional
experience helped prepare me to think about how academic advisors are trained and prepared to
work with students with psychological problems and disruptive or threatening behavior.
Even with these stated biases, I believe being objective was not difficult. I also believe
my background provided contextual knowledge that was helpful in that many concepts and ideas
related to student affairs and academic advising were not needed to be explained in depth to me
by those that I interviewed. “In short, closeness does not make bias and loss of perspective
inevitable; distance is no guarantee of objectivity:” (Patton, 2002, p. 49).”
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the qualitative methodology of this research and the three data
collection methods: survey questionnaire, interviews, and examination of information and
training literature. In Chapter Four, I presented data and findings from the online survey,
interview, and training literature.

48
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA
The purpose of this study was to examine the level of training and preparation academic
advisors received to identify and respond to disruptive students, threatening students, and those
experiencing psychological problems. The study also examined the attitudes academic advisors
had about students in crisis, and their feelings of professional competence related to responding
to disruptive students.
Three questions guided this research:
1. Do academic advisors receive preparation and training to assist them in identifying students
who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus community? If yes, what kind of training
and preparation? If no, what kind of training do they desire?
2. How prepared are academic advisors in working with students who exhibit concerning
behavior in the campus community?
3. Have events like campus mass shootings created changes in the assumptions advisors have
about themselves and their dealings with students? If so, how?
Chapter Overview
This chapter offers three sections of findings. The first section provides findings of
descriptive data based on the online survey. The second section provides findings from ten
academic advisor interviews and is organized by common themes informed by the interviews.
The last section is a document analysis of publications and tools intended to train academic
advisors created by Carter Valley University (CVU).
Online Survey
The Academic Advisors Board (AAB) of CVU included 300 emails of individuals
categorized as academic advisors. The academic advisors had varying job titles from the basic

49
academic advisor to the director of programs and services, but all were classified as academic
advisors by AAB. The online survey was sent to all 300 academic advisors on the list. Out of
the 300 academic advisors contacted, 63 responded (21% response rate). The survey participants
included 71.4% of females and 28.6% of males. The majority of survey participants were
between 25-34 years old (63.5%), and between 35-44 years old (23.5%).
Education
Out of the 63 survey participants, 98.4% had earned a bachelor’s degree, and 83.1% had
a master’s degree. Master’s degrees fell into three different categories: 37% in postsecondary
administration and student affairs, 27.8% in education counseling or marriage and family
therapy, and 35.2% in other fields with no relevance to academic advising. There were 11
(16.9%) survey participants who had earned doctoral degrees. The doctoral degrees included
66.7% in education leadership, and 33.3% in other fields such as medicine, occupational therapy,
and linguistics. Below is a table of the educational backgrounds of the survey participants.
Table 1
Educational Backgrounds of Survey Participants

Type of Student Population Advisors Advised
The survey participants advised all categories of students. The majority, 42.9%
exclusively advised undergraduates, 22.2% advised master’s students, 17.5% advised both
undergraduate and master’s students, 9.5% advised undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral
students, 3.2% advised undergraduate and doctoral students, and 1.6% advised doctoral students.

Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Doctoral Degree
1
1.6%
62
98.4%
54
85.7%
11
17.5%

50
Years of Experience
The range of total years of experience as an advisor of the 63 survey participants was one
year to 24 years. The average years of experience were 6.96 years. Approximately 50.8% had
between 1-4 years of experience as an academic advisor, 28.6% had between 5-10 years of
experience, 11.1% had 11-15 years of experience, and 9.5% had 15 years or more of experience.
Below is a table of the number of years of experience represented by the survey participants.
Table 2
Number of Years of Experience of Survey Participants

Training
The survey participants were asked to indicate if they had received job training related to
academic advising when they started their current position. Out of the 63 survey participants,
79.4% stated they had received advisor training either at the start of their job or sometime later.
There were 20.6% of survey participants who never received training. The majority of the
untrained participants had only had one to four years of job experience. CVU requires a
mandatory training course for all advisors and the advisors who stated they did not receive
training may have interpreted training differently from the mandatory training, or they were not
required to attend training by their supervisors.
Participants With Training
Out of the 50 survey participants who had received training, 44% indicated they had
trained to work with students dealing with psychological problems, and 40% indicated they had
trained on how to work with disruptive students. On the question of how prepared they felt
1-4 Years 5-10 Years 11-15 Years 15+ Years
32
50.8%
18
28.6%
7
11.1%
6
9.5%

51
working with students who may be suffering from psychological problems, this group of survey
participants felt fairly prepared with an Likert scale average response of 3.57. On a different
question of how they felt about their preparedness in working with students in crisis, the same
group of survey participants felt somewhat prepared with an average response of 3.19. The
evaluation of their preparation is the based on self-perception and this is the perspective from
which the data are presented.
On the topic of campus mass shootings, the survey participants were asked if campus
mass shootings had affected their attitude towards students. There were 42 responses, and 47.6%
stated “no,” 31% stated “yes,” and 21.4% stated “maybe.” Participants who responded with
responses of “yes” and “maybe” elaborated on their responses.
The responses included thoughts about being more careful about being alone with
students and paying more attention to signs. A male advisor who worked with both
undergraduate and master students with four years of professional experience wondered if his
response to a distressed student could trigger an act of violence. The responses fell into two
categories related to thoughts about their safety and thoughts about how to be aware to assist
better and identify students who needed help. A female advisor who advised undergraduates
with 11 years of professional experience stated:
I've become more cautious with students, and more thoughtful about the physical
positions that I put myself in. Normally I close my office door, but if I'm meeting with a
student who has had previous issues, I'll usually leave it cracked open, or I'll alert a
colleague that the meeting is happening and to keep an eye/ear out.
A male advisor who advised both undergraduates and master students with two total years of
professional experience stated:

52
I felt more empathetic towards their experiences and had a concern about their well-being
as students. I felt the need to provide support in whatever way possible in terms of
resources for students in case of a campus shooting.
On the topic of hypervigilant reporting, the survey participants were asked if they think academic
advisors more readily report disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of campus mass
shootings? There were 42 responses, and 21.4% stated “no,” 52.4% stated “yes,” and 26.2%
stated “maybe.”
Participants Without Training
The 21 survey participants who indicated they had not received training were asked two
questions related to how prepared they felt working with students suffering from psychological
problems and with students who may be a concern to the community. The survey participants
without training felt between average and good about their preparedness to work with students
who may be suffering from psychological problems (3.36). Survey participants with training
also had a similar response and felt between average and good (3.58), which is comparable to
participants without training.
On the question of how they felt working with students who may be a concern to the
community, the survey participants without training felt between fair and average (2.68). Survey
participants with training felt better prepared than those without training (3.19).
Related to the topic of campus mass shootings, the survey asked if campus shootings had
affected their attitude towards students. If the response was “yes” or “maybe,” participants were
asked to elaborate on their thoughts. Out of the 21 survey participants who had no training,
approximately 22.7% stated “no,” 36.3% stated “yes,” and 40.9% stated “maybe.” Participants
who responded with responses of “yes” and “maybe” elaborated on their answers.

53
The responses included thoughts on their behavior and how they needed to conduct
themselves so as not to trigger students, behavior that can potentially escalate to violence,
vigilant about reporting students and trying to be more thoughtful of recognizing students who
may need more help in and outside of school. A male advisor who worked with master students
with nine total years of professional experience stated:
Anytime I deliver news to a student that they won’t like, even if it’s just facts like
university policies, I do it in the most gentle way possible, just in case, this is the one
student who might hurt themselves or another. I’ve always been kind to students, and
believe advisors should be, but it is getting harder to hold firm on policies or use a firm
tone in communication because of this fear.
A female advisor who advised doctoral students with 11 total years of professional experience
stated:
It would be naive for any academic advisor to think that a mass shooting could not
happen on their own campus. I also now treat potential disruptive students more seriously
by doing outreach to various offices (campus safety, student affairs, my dean, and the
faculty in my program) at the first sign of anything disruptive, not when it becomes
serious. I am very cautious of the things I say and how I say them. I am cautious about
delivering news that students may not want to hear.
On the topic of hypervigilant reporting, the survey participants without training were
asked if they think academic advisors more readily report disruptive student behavior since the
proliferation of campus mass shootings. Out of the 21 survey participants without training, 9.5%
stated “no,” 33.3% stated “yes,” and 57.1% stated “maybe.”

54
Interview Participant Profiles
Participants of the online survey were asked to participate in interviews, and out of the 62
online survey participants, 34 indicated they were interested in interviewing. Ten participants
were chosen for interviews based on gender, years of experience, training, the population they
worked with, and their thoughts related to specific survey questions. Below is a table that
summarizes the interview participants’ background information. All names have been changed
to protect the identities of the participants.
Table 3
Interview Participants Needs a name
Name Gender Age Yrs Exp Training Population Q1* Q2**
Alexa F 25-34 2 Yes UG No No
Cameron F 25-34 3 No UG No Maybe
Allen M 25-34 1 Yes UG No No
Jane F 25-34 9 Yes UG, Grad Yes Maybe
Victor M 25-34 3 No UG, Grad Maybe Maybe
James M 25-34 6 Yes UG No Yes
Kate F 25-34 1.5 Yes UG Maybe Yes
Rick M 25-34 11 No UG, Grad Maybe Maybe
Tia F 35-44 1.5 Yes UG Yes Yes
Brent M 25-34 1 No Grad No No

*Q1: Have campus mass shootings affected your attitude towards students?
**Q2: Do you think academic advisors more readily report disruptive student behavior since the
proliferation of campus mass shootings?

Out of the ten interview participants, five were female, and five were male. The average
age was between 25-34 years old. The average years of professional experience were 3.9 years.
Six received advisor training for the job, and four did not. Six participants only advised
undergraduate students, three advised undergraduate and master students, and one advised only
master students. The interview participants' attitudes towards students related to the campus
mass shootings were split. Half of the participants felt their attitudes towards students had not

55
changed due to campus shootings, and the other half felt that their attitudes were or may have
changed. Also, six of the interview participants felt that they did or were more likely to report
disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of campus shootings while only three stated
they did not.
In the next section, each participant is described in more detail to provide richer details of
their background.
Alexa
Alexa identified as female, between the ages of 25-34. Her education included a
Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field. She was in the process
of obtaining her doctorate in education leadership. She worked as an advisor in the liberal arts
department and only worked with undergraduate students. She had been in this position for two
years and had two years of total experience advising students at higher education institutions.
She had never had another academic advising position. When she began her position at CVU,
she received training that included how to work with students dealing with psychological
problems and with disruptive students. She felt excellent about her preparedness to work with
students suffering from psychological problems and very good about her preparedness to work
with students who may be a concern to the community. Campus shootings have not affected her
attitude towards students, and she did not feel that academic advisors more readily reported
disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of campus mass shootings.
Cameron
Cameron identified as female, between the ages of 25-34. Her education included only a
bachelor’s degree. She worked as an advisor in a professional school and worked only with
undergraduate students. She had been in this position for four years and had four years of total

56
experience advising students at higher education institutions. She had never had another
academic advising position. When she began her position at CVU, she had not received training.
She received some training later on, but it was mostly related to technical applications like the
student information system and the advisement database. She felt good about her preparedness
to work with students suffering from psychological problems and with students who may be a
concern to the community. Campus mass shootings have not affected her attitude towards
students, but she did feel that academic advisors may more readily report disruptive student
behavior since the proliferation of campus mass shootings.
Allen
Allen identified as male, between the ages of 35-44. His education included a Bachelor’s
degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field. He worked as an advisor in the
liberal arts department and only worked with undergraduate students. He had been in this
position for one year and had one year of total experience advising students at higher education
institutions. He has never had another academic advising position. When he began his position
at CVU, he received training that included how to work with students dealing with psychological
problems but not how to work with students who may be a concern to the community. He felt
positive about his preparedness to work with students suffering from psychological problems and
with students who may be a concern to the community. Campus mass shootings have not
affected his attitude towards students, and he did not feel that academic advisors more readily
reported disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of campus mass shootings.
Jane
Jane identified as a female between the ages of 25-34. Her education included a
Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field. She worked as an

57
advisor in a professional school and worked with both undergraduate and master’s students. She
had been in this position for one and a half years and had nine years of total experience advising
students at higher education institutions. She had worked primarily as an advisor in different
departments working with professional and liberal arts fields. When she began her position at
CVU, she received training, but it did not include how to work with students dealing with
psychological problems and disruptive students. She felt excellent about her preparedness to
work with students suffering from psychological problems and very good about her preparedness
to work with students who may be a concern to the community. However, campus mass
shootings had affected her attitude toward students. Jane stated that “With the frequency of
campus shootings, this has been a concern. I have to ask myself more often if I am doing my due
diligence when a student is upset or needs support services.” Jane also indicated that she felt that
perhaps academic advisors more readily reported disruptive student behavior since the
proliferation of campus mass shootings.
Victor
Victor identified as male, between the ages of 25-34. His education included a
Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field. He worked as an
advisor in a professional school and only worked with undergraduate students. He had been in
this position for one year and had three years of total experience advising students at higher
education institutions. His last position was working at a community college as a success coach.
When he began his position at CVU, he had not received training. He received some training
later on, but it was mostly related to technical applications like the student information system
and the advisement database. Even without training, he felt very good about his preparedness to
work with students who may be suffering from psychological problems and with students who

58
may be a concern to the community. However, campus mass shootings have affected his attitude
toward students. Victor stated, “Depending on the campus climate and student population, they
determine my attitude. Funding environment, campus politics, student services/facilities,
open/closed campus, classroom logistics.” Victor also indicated that he felt that perhaps
academic advisors more readily reported disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of
campus mass shootings.
James
James identified as male, between the ages of 25-34. His education included a
Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field, and he was in the
process of obtaining a doctorate. He worked as an advisor in a professional school and worked
only with undergraduate students. He had been in this position for two and a half years and had
six-years of total experience advising students at higher education institutions. His previous
position included working as a graduate advisor. When he began his position at CVU, he
received training on how to work with disruptive students, but not how to work with students
dealing with psychological problems. He felt very good about his preparedness to work with
students suffering from psychological problems and good about his preparedness to work with
students who may be a concern to the community. Campus mass shootings have not affected his
attitude towards students, but he did feel that academic advisors do more readily report
disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of campus mass shootings.
Kate
Kate identified as female, between the ages of 25-34. Her education included a
Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field. She worked as an
advisor in the liberal arts department and worked only with undergraduate students. She has

59
been in this position for one and a half years and has one and a half years of total experience
advising students at higher education institutions. She has never had another academic advising
position. When she began her position at CVU, she received training that included how to work
with students dealing with psychological problems and with disruptive students. She felt good
about her preparedness to work with students suffering from psychological problems, and felt
only fairly good about her preparedness to work with students who may be a concern to the
community. Kate felt that campus mass shootings might have affected her attitude towards
students, and she did feel that academic advisors more readily report disruptive student behavior
since the proliferation of campus mass shootings.
Rick
Rick identified as male, between the ages of 35-44. His education included a Bachelor’s
degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field. He worked as an advisor in a
professional school and works only with undergraduate students. He had been in this position
for three years and has a total of 11 years of experience advising students at higher education
institutions. His past positions included working as an academic advisor and international
student advisor. When he began his position at CVU, he did not receive training. He received
some training later on, but it was mostly related to technical applications like the student
information system. Even without training, he felt very good about his preparedness to work
with students suffering from psychological problems and good about his preparedness to work
with students who may be a concern to the community. Rick felt that campus mass shootings
may have affected his attitude towards students. Rick stated that he is, “A little more
concerned/fearful of students who are experiencing psychological stress.” He felt that perhaps

60
academic advisors more readily reported disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of
campus mass shootings.
Tia
Tia identified as a female, between the ages of 25-34. Her education included a
Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a student affairs related field. She worked as an
advisor in the liberal arts department and worked only with undergraduate students. She had
been in this position for one year and had one and a half years of total experience advising
students at higher education institutions. Her past position included working as a success coach
at a community college. When she began her position at CVU, she received training that
included how to work with students dealing with psychological problems and with disruptive
students. She felt very good about her preparedness to work with students suffering from
psychological problems and with students who may be a concern to the community. However,
Tia felt that campus mass shootings had affected her attitude towards students. Tia stated that
she has “Slight fear (and is) more observant of student behaviors.” She felt that academic
advisors more readily reported disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of campus
mass shootings.
Brent
Brent identified as male, between the ages of 25-34. His education included a Bachelor
degree and a Master’s degree not in student affairs. He worked as an advisor in a science
department and worked only with graduate students. It should be noted that he was the only
participant who worked on a different campus focused on health. The campus was
approximately 7.4 miles away from the primary campus and catered to the medical and health
science fields. He had been in this position for one year and had one year of total experience

61
advising students at higher education institutions. He had never had another academic advising
position. When he began his position at CVU, he did not receive training, and he did not receive
training later on. He felt fairly good about his preparedness to work with students suffering from
psychological problems and with students who may be a concern to the community. Campus
mass shootings have not affected his attitude towards students, and he did not feel that academic
advisors more readily reported disruptive student behavior since the proliferation of campus
mass shootings.
Findings from Interviews
The interviews revealed information that was rich and nuanced and revealed four themes
that are discussed in more depth in the following paragraphs. The themes include the
significance of an advisor’s educational background and its impact on professional ability,
student desire for more than academic advising, institutional referral culture, and changing
feelings towards students – an increase in empathy towards students.
Educational Background and Impact on Professional Ability
Six of the interview participants who had received training from the university were
asked to elaborate further about their training. The interviews revealed that there was a
significant difference between the training provided by the university and training provided by
their departments or schools.
Liberal arts department. Out of all the different departments and schools represented
by the interview participants, the liberal arts department had the most comprehensive and
organized training system. The liberal arts department was made up of many different
departments. All the liberal arts department advisors received more comprehensive training,

62
which included talks with experts such as counselors, and visits to offices that handled different
student functions. Kate, an advisor in the liberal arts department, stated:
I’m a part of the (liberal arts department) central advising staff, so we received a pretty
in-depth training before I was actually placed in (my department). But besides that, we
actually just recently had a workshop at (the health center) where they help identify at-
risk students and also help kind of lead us in the conversation on how to refer them to
appropriate resources.
Another advisor, Alexa, had indicated she had received training when she was hired, which
included how to work with students dealing with psychological problems and disruptive
students. Her department had invited speakers from the safety department to conduct training on
dealing with urgent student situations due to an urgent campus issue in previous weeks. Alexa
referred to this by stating, “Within our advising team, we did have the (safety department) come
out and speak to us, but it was more so if there was a situation happening on campus already,
what would then be the protocol. They touched lightly on students but not completely.” Similar
to Alexa, many of the interview participants, especially those who worked in the liberal arts
department, revealed that more in-depth training was done within departments and within the
whole liberal arts department rather than directly through CVU.
Tia, an advisor in the liberal arts department, stated,
Our advisory training was pretty in-depth. She added, The (liberal arts school) training
was about four to five weeks long where we had different sessions where we met with
different campus entities, different advisors, different offices like overseas study,
thematic option (honors curriculum), things more academic-related, a few support
services but not many.

63
Tia, Kate, Allen, and Alexa all stated that there was a formal advisor training program
through the liberal arts department and had a similar recall of their training. Tia stated, “So
every advisor who starts literally gets a schedule based on the availability of the supervisors and
their trainers and the different campus offices that they work with. They get a customized
schedule when they start.” She also included that newly hired advisors spent part of their first
four to five weeks shadowing and working with different advisors at different campus offices.
These advisors also stated that the training was in-depth, and they had received training
on how to work with students dealing with psychological problems. Three of the four, Alexa,
Kate, and Tia, indicated they had training on how to work with disruptive students. The
experience that interview participants from professional schools had with advisor training was
vastly different from those who worked at the liberal arts department.
Professional schools. While all advisors from the liberal arts department had received
training, only two out of the six advisors from professional schools received training from CVU.
Another major difference between the two was that the liberal arts department had an internal
training system apart from the training CVU offered, and the professional schools did not. The
liberal arts department advisors talked about the four to six weeks of in-depth training, and the
advisors from professional schools had to figure things out for themselves. Brent stated,
“Training for this position pretty much only was technical in regards to the electronic systems we
use, or student information system. Other than that, I kinda had to piece advising together on my
own.” This was a running theme in how many of the professional school advisors received
training. Cameron, an advisor in a professional school, stated:

64
The only training I received was like on the database systems, and that’s pretty much it.
So I originally sort of created this document of like who to go to for certain issues, and
that that was condensed by our human resources.
Many of the advisors felt that they had to rely on their own experience, training from outside of
CVU, and from previously held positions.
The type of training that many of the advisors received from CVU and within
departments, especially those that worked in professional schools, was on the student
information system or a database. The additional advising training that may have involved how
to work with students with psychological problems or students facing difficult situations was not
consistent. However, to function in their jobs even though they did not have the training, many
of the advisors were forced to handle difficult situations, often relying on their personal
experience and training from outside of CVU. James stated, “I kind of rely on my counseling
skills that I’ve developed over the years to kind of deal with those hard situations. Similarly,
Rick stated, “I didn’t feel that the training was there to help prepare me, but through personal
knowledge and personal experience, I was able to translate that into an interaction that was
helpful to the student.” Allen stated, “I’m well trained because of my educational background.”
Allen has a degree in counseling. Five out of the ten interviewed had master’s degrees in
counseling. All five, Allen, Jane, Victor, James, and Kate, pointed out that they felt well
equipped to work with students, not because of the training they received from CVU or through
their department, but because of their educational background. Kate, who has a master’s degree
in counseling, felt that she was better equipped because many of the interpersonal and personal
situations that she was faced with in academic advising were covered in classes. James also
referred to his master’s degree in counseling as a resource that has helped him to work with

65
students presenting difficult situations. Jane stated, “In my master’s program, it’s part
counseling, part student affairs. So a lot of the soft skills like asking open-ended questions and
making sure that you’re exhibiting appropriate body language, nonverbal cues whenever you’re
talking to someone, trying to mirror their body language to help them feel more comfortable
(were covered).” Victor stated,
Luckily, through the Master’s program that I attended I was able to learn a lot of the
strategical ways on how to go about either trying to determine if a student is not well
enough to continue at school. But as well, I was able to learn and practice how to
motivate the student and as well, learn how to probe certain questions for the student to
answer so I can figure out more what’s going on with their personal life.
James mentioned that his prior experience working at a school that experienced a shooting
helped him to cope with students dealing with survivor’s guilt, depression, and anxiety better.
Student Desire for More than Academic Advising
One of the advisors, Kate stated that often, simply asking a student how they were doing,
opened up conversations about their psychological state, and problems they were facing.
Frequently, advisors listened to students confide in them, and many academic problems and
psychological problems went hand-in-hand. Students often talked about their personal problems
because it affected their schoolwork. The students confided in their advisors about suicide,
sexual assault, depression, anxiety, alcoholism, drug abuse, family problems, paranoia, physical
health problems, social problems, and much more. During the interview, Kate disclosed that
very recently, two students had come to her office to share they were hospitalized for attempted
suicide in their dorm rooms. Due to her master’s in counseling, she felt prepared to listen and

66
help her students. She also felt it was part of her duties as an advisor to listen and help counsel
students with matters other than academics.
On the other side, there were other advisors like Rick and Tia, who did not feel
comfortable speaking with students about their personal problems because they felt they were
not counselors who were equipped with skills and training geared towards helping students with
matters other than academics. Often Rick and Tia would reach out to counseling services while
the student was in their office, or even step out of their offices, leaving the student alone, to
discuss with a supervisor on how to handle a particularly sensitive situation. Rick stated, he
would perhaps feel more comfortable with training, but also stated, “I can’t imagine anybody
feeling comfortable when a life is at risk or lives are at risk.”
All the interview participants, even those who had only been in their positions for less
than two years, dealt with students confiding in them about their various student problems and
psychological states that ranged from depression to life-threatening issues such as suicide. All of
the interview participants felt that they could do more to help students because many students
were confiding in them about personal issues that had impacted their school work. For example,
even though Tia did not feel comfortable speaking with students about their personal problems,
she became more than an academic advisor when a student became comfortable with her, and
she became a regular visitor, demanding more of Tia’s time and resources. Tia stated,
I have one specific, I call it my special student who has depressive episodes and has
sought counseling on campus. She’s been to therapy, but she says none of those have
been very helpful so when I meet with that specific student, our appointments are about
an hour long. And she’s found, I guess, comfort in talking to me to where I’m her front
of the line person in that aspect.

67
When Tia was asked how prepared and comfortable she felt playing that role for her, she replied,
That was a conversation I actually had to have with my supervisor as to how much of a
resource I can be to this student and I felt comfortable because I felt like this student was
having some issues with finding a sense of belonging…I think bottom line (she) needed
someone to talk to, a friend, or someone to kind of just give her some reassurance to
establish her face on campus and I don’t think she was able to do that through any of our
services on campus.
Refer Students
All of the interview participants felt that CVU emphasized referring students to central
university administrators or counseling services. They felt that CVU did not want them to
engage with students or to counsel students in any way, but to refer them to counseling services
outside of their departments. Many of the interview participants, even coined their referral
actions as, “Refer, Refer, Refer!” Some interview participants, such as Allen, understood CVU’s
emphasis on referring as a message to advisors that they should not be counseling because they
were not counselors. However, Allen also pointed out that advisors cannot refer students without
having the ability to do an assessment. He stated, “every academic advisor (should) be
comfortable asking (students), have you had thoughts about self-harm, have you thought about
harming others.” He further stated advisors should be trained on how to respond with “our
emotions, our own physical responses, our facial expressions.”
Only one advisor felt very comfortable counseling students; the other nine felt
comfortable referring students to services. However, what they all struggled with was the
assessment portion, and not everyone was comfortable with asking hard questions such as,
“Have you thought about self-harm.” Many felt that they needed additional training to do the

68
assessment. James stated that he was not too confident or comfortable doing an assessment and
felt that is why the referral system is there. Cameron stated,
I definitely don’t feel prepared, but I don’t know if I’m supposed to feel prepared to
handle those things either. I feel like that’s why those offices exist because we’re not
supposed to handle those things…that we shouldn’t be giving any sort of advice…and
that we should just be directing them completely, like 100% to those offices.
She also added that she felt that by not responding to students or providing counseling, she was
detrimentally affecting her relationship with the student.
The only interview participant that was comfortable with counseling students on matters
was Kate. Kate did not like that there was an institutional culture of referring without any
counseling. She felt that her background in counseling enabled her to be more than an academic
advisor for her students, and she viewed it as part of her job. Kate stated,
I don’t like the fact that our job is to refer. I think that we should have more
training in handling those situations because whether the students receiving services
elsewhere or not, they’re still sitting in our office telling us the same thing that they
would be telling an actual counselor. So, do I wish I was more versed in that?
Absolutely. I don’t think that I am or will because I’m told my job is to refer. But do I
have to counsel? Absolutely. And we can pretend like I don’t, we can, “Oh no, I’m
referring, I’m not counseling, I’m doing practical things.” But if a student’s in my office
crying, I’m not gonna tell them to do their homework. I’m not gonna tell them that we
need to write for classes now. So yes, there’s definitely a counseling component. And
am I hundred percent prepared for it? Never.

69
The majority of the interview participants were comfortable with the institutional
message that they needed to refer students rather than counsel. Even though advisors like Tia
who readily admitted that she was not comfortable counseling, often did more than academic
advisement. Such as the situation mentioned in the previous section in which a student became
comfortable speaking with her and visited her consistently to talk about other things besides
academic advising matters. The relationship between Tia and the student had grown to a level in
which the student felt Tia offered her more help than a trained counselor she had seen at the
student health center. This type of situation was often experienced by many of the interview
participants because students confided in them. The interview participants found it difficult to
turn away students who were crying in their office or confiding in them about depression, eating
disorders, or their suicidal thoughts. They all had to act as a counselor before they could refer
students to services. Kate stated that she knew students would be more likely to follow-through
with the referral if she counseled them first.
Changing Feelings Towards Students
The interview participants revealed that due to campus mass shooting occurrences, their
attitudes and feelings towards students had changed, but this was not as straightforward as it
appeared. Their ability to detect atypical exchanges between themselves and students were
heightened regardless of whether they exhibited concerning behavior. With the heightened
awareness of psychological health and psychological illness, there were feelings of fear, but
there was also an increase in empathy towards students and wanting to view the student from a
more holistic lens versus just an academic advising lens.
James had a unique experience in comparison to all the other interview participants. He
had experienced a shooting associated with another university. The shooting happened near

70
campus and a total of six people died, including three students. He stated that due to that event,
he became less transactional about his interactions with students. He became more caring
towards the student’s wellbeing because he saw the “impact that caring has for students.” The
shooting also made him realize that students needed support in more ways than just academic
advising. The other interview participants also echoed James’ changed feelings towards
students. Cameron stated, “I think it’s definitely made me really sensitive to things that the
students maybe say that they’re going through, less likely to just sort of brush it aside . . . So
yeah (my attitude has changed).”
In addition to feelings of wanting to care for students more, there were feelings of anxiety
towards students. Jane and Tia both stated that the idea of campus mass shootings had affected
their attitude towards students in a negative way. Jane said,
It definitely has made me more aware of being present with a student…Because often,
always in shootings, there’s always a well this person displayed this behavior. We
noticed this thing, but no one ever says anything.
Tia had similar thoughts and feelings as Jane, and she stated,
(Campus mass shootings) has increased in occurrence. It’s happened way more often
than I feel like it used to…I am more mindful of behaviors, or I’m very communicative
about students who I feel may have a sense of hostility or discontent with my advising or
even any kind of encounter they’ve had at the university. I’m quick to tell my supervisor
just so it’s on our radar. Smaller things like the placement of my scissors at my desk
have changed.
Alexa had a volatile student situation during an advisement session with a male student.
She stated that things in the media made her fearful of the situation, and it made her believe that

71
she was possibly in danger. The student did not like what Alexa was telling him related to his
academic record, so he came around to where she was sitting, invaded her personal space, and
proceeded to take control over her computer and her mouse. She asked him to sit down, and he
started to yell at her, “You’re not the police, you’re acting like you’re the police on the computer.
Who told you, you owned this mouse?” She felt that his actions were threatening, especially
because her office door was closed. Through an office chat system, she asked for help from
another advisor. They stepped in and deescalated the situation enough that in the end, the
student apologized to Alexa. In hindsight, Alexa felt she was too quick to call for help, and she
should have tried to deescalate the situation herself. She said, perhaps she should have talked to
him more instead of calling for help immediately because she felt their future rapport might have
been negatively affected. When asked if she had reported this incident to her supervisor, she
indicated she had not because the student had apologized and explained himself, and she made
an assessment that he was not a danger to the campus community. However, she was cautious in
their next appointment and set boundaries of how he needed to behave. To accommodate him,
she moved the computer screen, so it was visible to him while they talked.
There were three interview participants, Alexa, Allen, and Brent, who felt that their
feelings towards students had not changed due to campus mass shootings. Alexa felt that her
attitude had not changed because she has always had a caring attitude towards students beyond
just talking with them about their academics. Her approach involved meeting with students, and
when she noticed something was wrong, she made an effort to have a conversation with them
about what was bothering them. Allen stated that his attitude towards students was not affected
in the slightest. He said, “I think I try to dig into the stats, and the likelihood of a mass shooting
happening at a campus that I work at is ridiculously small.” The last advisor, Brent, had a

72
different set of thoughts because he worked on a health sciences campus separate from the main
campus. He stated that students at the health sciences campus still felt pretty safe because they
viewed the campus as more like a workplace than a university. He felt that the campus was full
of labs and hospitals, and there were not that many lecture facilities.
There’s only really like a tiny quad area. So there’s not the campus like (feeling) pride
feeling or a sense of like university here. So I think when people are here, they don’t
necessarily feel like they’re in school if that makes sense.
The majority of the interview participants felt that they did not overreact to students'
situations because of campus mass shootings. Reporting unusual student situations to a higher
authority such as their supervisor was part of the protocol, and not necessarily an overreaction.
Advisors like Alexa, Cameron, Allen, Jane, James, Rick, Tia, and Brent all mentioned that when
dealing with student situations, many of them sought out the advice of their supervisor. They did
this to make their supervisors aware of the situation, but also to seek their advice about how to
handle the situation.
Analysis of Institutional Advising Guidelines
The last part of this research involved a document analysis of the institutional advising
training materials available to advisors either as print material or as an online source. There
were three main resources: 1. Advising 101 provided by CVU; 2. Disruptive Classroom
Behavior provided by the student judicial office, and 3. An online and printed guide of how to
respond to emergency and student situations. The following is an analysis of documents related
to each program and how they relate to preparing advisors.
Advising 101. Advising 101 was developed in 2001, and it was CVU’s mandatory
training for all new academic advisors. The training was completed over three days, and it was

73
offered once each semester. The topics covered in the three-day training sessions were advising
basics, advising theories and professional standards, serving special populations, students in
crisis, the career center, record keeping, retention efforts, case studies, and advice from veteran
advisors. Specifically focusing on the topic of students in crisis, I reviewed the three-day
schedule from previous years, and there was not a topical area called, “Students in Crisis.” The
closest topical area related to “Students in Crisis” was a 20-minute session on a specific
department that handled student support.
The session on student support did not cover how to advise students in crisis, and it was a
presentation about a specific department, and how to refer students to student support. The
advisors in this research wanted more training on how to work with students in crisis, especially
related to how to ask the right questions so they could make the student feel comfortable, and
ultimately be able to refer them to services or even to convince students to obtain services. This
session did not cover any of this, and it was a routine presentation of the functions of the student
support office.
I looked for more information about working with “Students in Crisis” in a two hour and
forty-minute session called “Overview of Academic Advising.” This session had information
about professional core values from the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA),
and the ethical standards from the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher
Education (CAS), using data in advising, CVU student data, and much more, but it did not cover
the topic of working with “Students in Crisis.” The closest it got to this topic was when a
participant asked a question on how to understand and validate working with the complexities of
individuals because everyone has a different diverse background. The participant used the

74
words, “first point of contact” to refer to advisors who work with students. The discussion did
not delve into how to work with “Student in Crisis.”
The Advising 101 archived videos on each presentation topic included 14 topics, but all
of the topics were either presentations on different offices or technical information.
Disruptive classroom behavior. In 2008, an online handbook titled, CVU’s Student
Affairs department released Disruptive & Threatening Student Behavior – Guidelines for Faculty
and Staff. This seven-page document had three purposes: 1. It provided guidelines to assist
departments in formulating a response to respond to students who were behaving unusually and
unpredictably; 2. Assist both faculty and staff members in handling an actual threat; and 3.
Provide referral and protocol information to handle the threat.
The Disruptive & Threating Student Behavior booklet is no longer available. Part of the
book is now available only as a webpage, and it is titled Disruptive Classroom Behavior. These
guidelines were provided by the student judicial office and were no longer intended for staff, but
only for faculty. The student judicial office now handles disruptive classroom behavior because
they were responsible for investigating and sanctioning any student problems.
CVU Emergency Response. The CVU Emergency Response document was made up of
four pages of information that contained flow charts, advice, and institutional resources. It
outlined what to do in an active shooter situation and the idea of, “See Something, Say
Something, Do Something.” This document was intended for everyone in the CVU community,
but it could serve as a resource guide for advisors working with students. For example, if a
student has suicidal thoughts or actions, the advisor is asked to note their observations and
interactions with the person, and contact the office that handles student support, and threat
assessment or the campus police. This tool provided information on what actions the advisors

75
needed to take, in line with CVU’s referring culture. This document intended to provide a
resource guide that anyone in the CVU community could review quickly and find actionable
resources.
In the interviews, all the advisors felt that CVU did not want advisors to counsel students,
but to refer them to services. One of the reasons why the advisors may have felt this way was
due to information documents like the CVU Emergency Response.
Student Counseling Services. The student counseling services provided a six-page
document for advisors that gives details on the type of indicators of distress advisors needed to
be looking for related to academic, physical, psychological, and safety risk. It had advice on
how to assess students and even went as far as to state, “Be Direct: Don’t be afraid to ask
students directly if they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, feeling confused, or having
thoughts of harming themselves or others. The document also provided information on CVU
resources and training for advisors. However, this document was not available online or easily
accessible and was available for advisors who interacted with a counselor from student
counseling services. The advisors from the liberal arts department may have received this as part
of their department training, but many of the advisors from the professional schools may not
have because their schools did not provide advisor training.
Conclusion
In Chapter Four, I provided findings on the descriptive data based on the data collected
from an online survey, discussed the four themes derived from the interviews I conducted with
ten academic advisors, and lastly reviewed the publications and tools available at CVU intended
to train academic advisors.

76
In Chapter Five, I provide an analysis of findings for each of the three questions, delve
into the theoretical framework, implications for practice, recommendations for practice, future
research, and finally, the limitations of this study.

77
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This research examined the training and preparation of academic advisors who care for
students in crisis. In Chapter Four, I discussed findings of descriptive data based on the data
collected from an online survey, examined the relevance of publications and tools intended to
train academic advisors, and identified the four themes that included: the significance of an
advisor’s educational background and its impact on professional ability, student desire for more
than academic advising, institutional referral culture, and changing feelings towards students –
an increase in empathy towards students. In Chapter Five, I provide an analysis of findings for
each of the three questions, delve into the theoretical framework, implications for practice,
recommendations for practice, future research, and finally, the limitations of this study.
Three research questions guided the research on examining the training and preparation of
academic advisors who care for students in crisis. The research questions are: Do academic
advisors receive preparation and training to assist them in identifying students who exhibit
concerning behavior in the campus community? If yes, what kind of training and preparation?
If no, what kind of training do they desire? How prepared are academic advisors in working
with students who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus community? And have events like
campus mass shootings created changes in the assumptions about oneself and their dealings with
students? If so, how?
Discussion
The questions guiding this study are: Do academic advisors receive preparation and
training to assist them in identifying students who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus
community? If yes, what kind of training and preparation? If not, what kind of training do they
desire?

78
Training
The survey data of 63 participants showed that the majority of advisors (66.6%) did
receive general advisement training, but there was a significant population of advisors (33%)
who did not receive general advisor training. Of the advisors who received general advisement
training, approximately 52.4% had training that addressed how to work with students dealing
with psychological problems, and approximately 30.8% had training that addressed how to work
with disruptive students. The survey data demonstrates that not all advisors receive preparation
and training to assist them in identifying students who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus
community.
The interview data revealed that that training and preparation to assist advisors in
identifying students who exhibit concerning behavior mainly involved how to ask for assistance
in urgent student situations. For example, advisors in the liberal arts department were trained to
ask for a specific colored folder or inquire about a deceased faculty member to alert other staff
members that they were in situations that needed intervention from other staff members or a
supervisor. Advisors, such as Kate, who earned a Master’s degree in education, and who had
received training to work with students dealing with psychological problems or were disruptive,
still did not feel prepared. In her survey response, she felt moderately prepared to work with
students dealing with psychological problems and less prepared to work with disruptive students.
In her interview response, she felt strongly that advisors needed more counseling training and it
was necessary. This finding is consistent with Schlossberg’s Transition Theory that asserts, “a
transition can be said to occur if an event or non-event results in a change in assumptions about
oneself and the world and thus requires a corresponding change in one’s behavior and
relationships (Schlossberg, 1981, p. 5).

79
The interview data also revealed that the advisors felt the culture of Carter Valley
University (CVU) emphasized immediately referring students to appropriate services such as
counseling without training them to understand how to help students and guide them to the
appropriate services. Advisors such as Allen and Rick felt that there was a key piece of training
missing in the middle of the conversation with students to understand, empathize, and to ask the
hard questions, to be able to refer students to appropriate services successfully. For example,
Allen pointed out advisors should be trained and equipped to ask a hard question, such as, “Do
you have suicide ideation?” It is difficult to ask these types of hard questions without training or
experience. Advisors like Allen and Kate felt when students share their personal lives because of
its effect in their school life, it was difficult to suppress the students from confiding in them and
awkward to ignore the student and move forward with suggesting counseling.
The interview data revealed that advisors felt it was part of their responsibility to
understand why a student was not doing well in school. They did not feel it was their
responsibility to counsel students at the level of a psychologist or a therapist, but they felt they
needed counseling training to speak with students and to ask the hard questions. Many of the
advisors such as James, Jane, Kate, Rick, Tia, and Allen, felt that training using case studies was
appropriate. Allen who had experience working with college students in residential life, stated
case studies were used as training tools, and they worked very well. Rick also recommended that
advisors go through routine annual or bi-annual online training to obtain new skills or keep their
skills up-to-date. He predicated this suggestion on the mandatory harassment training that CVU
requires of their faculty and staff.
The type of training that the interview participants wanted was: 1. How to determine or
recognize if a student is a threat to the campus community; 2. Training based on case studies; 3.

80
How to speak with difficult students such as what to say or what not to say; 4. Bringing more
awareness to psychological health by having a focused student psychological health day; 5.
Training with actual crisis counselors who have dealt with elevated situations with students; 6.
Counseling training; 7. Campus safety training specifically related to dealing with an active
shooter or campus mass shooting; and 8. Training on diffusing students who are either angry or
in the middle of distress or psychological trauma.
Preparedness
On the question of the level of preparedness of academic advisors in working with
students who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus community, the findings were the
interview participants’ preparedness depended on their education and their level of experience.
Interview participants who had counseling or student affairs educational backgrounds felt better
prepared than those who did not have relevant backgrounds. Also, interview participants relied
on their prior work experience with students to help them work with students in their current
positions.
Changed Work With Students
Events like campus mass shootings have created changes in the assumptions about
oneself and their dealings with students. One of the major assumptions about oneself that have
changed in all the interview participants regardless of age, gender, or years of experience, is their
shared feelings that they need additional training to work properly with students who are
exhibiting concerning behavior whether or not they are a concern to the campus community. All
interview participants felt that more training was needed because academic advising is more
holistic rather than it is about policies and curriculum requirements.

81
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory was an appropriate theoretical framework to examine
the development of academic advisors. This theory is often applied as a model to students to
help student affairs professionals understand the needs of students experiencing change and
transitions (Kotewa, 1995). By applying this theoretical framework to academic advisors, it
framed how academic advisors navigated the new professional changes that were demanded of
them due to changes in the higher education landscape, such as campus mass shootings.
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory asserts, “a transition can be said to occur if an event or
non-event results in a change in assumptions about oneself and the world and thus requires a
corresponding change in one’s behavior and relationships” (Schlossberg, 1981, p. 5). There are
three different types of transitions: anticipated transitions, unanticipated transitions, and non-
events (Evans, Forney, & Guido-Debrito, 2009). Anticipated transitions are described as ones
that predictably occur, such as obtaining a job. Unanticipated transitions are described as ones
that unpredictably occur, such as losing a job or losing a loved one. Non-events transitions are
described as ones that are expected to occur but do not, such as failure to be promoted in a job.
Both campus mass shootings, and working with students who may be a concern to the
campus community or who are disruptive, can be described as unanticipated transitions.
Academic advisors experienced unanticipated transitions that created a change in their
professional assumptions about themselves, which required a corresponding change in their
behavior and relationships. All of the interview participants were changed by current events
related to campus mass shootings, and their experience working with students. They all felt it
was necessary for advisors to receive training that involved more than just academic advisement
training.

82
Sargent and Schlossberg (1988) identified three key points related to adult behavior and
transitions. First, adult behavior is not based on age but determined by transitions. The two age
ranges of the interview participants were 25-34 and 35-44. The participants’ ages were diverse,
and transitions determined their thoughts and behavior.
The second key point is that adults are motivated to “learn and to change by their
continual need to belong, matter, control, master, renew, and take stock” (Sargent &
Schlossberg, 1988, p. 58). The interview participants were well educated, with many of them
having earned master’s degrees or even doctoral degrees. However, through their interactions
with students, and through the perceived danger of campus mass shootings, interview
participants wanted more training to recalibrate how they currently dealt with students. They
wanted to master additional skills to help them control and take stock of situations they felt they
were possibly ill-equipped to handle. Allen stated, “I think one of the biggest threats for us to be
able to do our jobs is overconfidence in our own abilities. So someone who’s been doing this for
30 years or someone who even has my experience (moderate level of experience), we still need
to practice to make sure that, are we doing it right?”
The third and final point is that readiness for change is dependent on the four S’s:
situation, support, self, and strategies. The four S’s can help academic advisors to cope with the
transition. Situation is about knowing the details of the situation, such as whether if it is
expected or unexpected, positive or negative, voluntary or involuntary, and if it is at the
beginning, middle, or end phase. The interview participants were very aware of the situation
because of media events, their own experiences with students, and the behavior of CVU and
other universities and colleges. Victor stated, “I know that the campus itself is taking proper
protocols and procedures in how to prevent that (campus mass shooting).”

83
Self is about self-introspection and whether the person possesses positive or negative
strengths, the kind of experience they have in dealing with a similar transition, and if they are
optimistic and can deal with ambiguity. The interview participants all had positive views of their
abilities, especially related to trainability. Perhaps, because training and education is part of the
cultural landscape of their profession, the interview participants did not have negative feelings
towards their abilities to be able to do new things. Many such as Rick, Kate, James, Victor, and
Allen all embraced the idea of additional training and had no qualms about their inability to
adapt.
Support is related to people who may be helpful or may hinder the process of the person
getting through transition. The interview participants viewed CVU and their immediate
colleagues and supervisors as helpful. None of the participants expressed negative feelings
towards CVU, or their colleagues and supervisors being negative towards the idea of embracing
the transition that propelled them to want to change and seek ways to better themselves related to
their advising skills. Many supervisors embraced it and encouraged additional training such as
how the liberal arts advisors like Tia were encouraged to seek out additional resources or to meet
with different staff members that worked with students on their psychological needs.
Strategies for coping is related to the plan of action to deal with the transition. The
interview participants did not have individual strategies for coping related to the transition. They
viewed CVU as being responsible for helping them deal with the transition. On a larger level,
the interview participants viewed it as an institutional responsibility to train everyone who dealt
with students, including faculty.

84
Implications for Practice
The idea of advisement training may not be as simple as learning systems, policies, and
knowing the curriculum well enough to advise a student. How to effectively train an advisor
should be re-examined in light of the needs modern students are exhibiting, and perhaps the
basics of psychological training need to be part of the routine advisement training or requiring a
counseling background.
Student psychological health needs have been on the rise (Cook, 2007; Guthman et al.,
2010; Harper & Peterson, 2005; Kitzrow, 2003; Lipson, et al., 2019), but advisor training has
largely remained focused on academic advising. The findings of a study in the British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling that examined the student experience of psychological health support
within higher education were not encouraging (Quinn et al., 2009). The study found that only a
small proportion of students who experience psychological health problems are likely to ask for
help. There were many reasons for this, but one that focused on advisors was that student affairs
staff often did not feel they were experienced, trained, or qualified to help students with
psychological health problems. Students had experiences with student affairs staff that were
dismissive of the problems as just regular stresses of college life or attributing it to laziness. The
students also felt that advisors needed to develop more awareness and education about
psychological health problems to be able to respond appropriately.
The current practice of training advisors at CVU touches very little on actual counseling
but focuses more on the resources available to advisors to refer students to. What may be
missing is the middle piece in which advisors play a critical role in helping students to realize
they may need help or recognizing signs and symptoms that may be concerning to the student or
the campus community. This finding is consistent with research by Waple (2006) and McGill

85
(2019) that indicated the common core education for student affairs professionals has fallen short
because not enough research has gone into identifying the specific knowledge and skills that are
needed for this field.”
Recommendations for Practice
There were many ways in which CVU could work with their staff of advisors as well as
working with the different departments and schools that make up CVU. I have identified four
recommendations for practice that include: 1. Adding a specific training module to the Advising
101 training using case studies to teach advisors about working with students in crisis; 2.
Developing training recommendations for departments; 3. Ensuring that managers were well
trained; and 4. Developing an online Advisor Tool Kit.
Recommendation 1: Advising 101 Case Study Session – Working with Students in Crisis
CVU offers a comprehensive three-day advising training program called Advising 101.
The topics covered in the three-day training sessions were: advising basics, advising theories and
professional standards, serving special populations, students in crisis, the career center, record
keeping, retention efforts, case studies, and advice from veteran advisors. In addition to these
topics, a session on working with students in crisis should be added.
This session on working with students in crisis should be interactive and case study
based. The training should be performed by a veteran advisor, and a trained counselor from the
counseling center. This session should be approximately two hours and should include group
work, modeling, discussion, and time for questions.
Within the two hour session, at least two case studies should be discussed. One case
study should be about how to ask the hard questions to a student in crisis to be able to help them

86
seek out the help they need from university services. The other case study should be about when
students become a concern to the university and how it needs to be handled.
The goals of the two-hour session should be that 1. Advisors become aware of how to
interact, assess, and encourage students in crisis to seek out the help they need; and 2. Advisors
understand what it means when a student is a concern to the university, and how to report it to
the university for further assessment. Advisors should have an in-depth understanding of the
counseling hand-off to be able to explain it to their student. The hand-off is the process in which
students engage with the institution’s health services to obtain the treatment they need. Students
may be more prone to follow-through with counseling if they receive support and encouragement
from someone like an advisor. A 2019 study on barrier of mental health treatment utilization
among first-year college students revealed that attitudinal barriers and not institutional structure
barriers were the most dominant reasons for hesitating or not seeking counseling services (Ebert
et al., 2019). The study further revealed that barriers to treatment were a student’s self-
perception that treatment was not needed, lack of time, fear of stigmatization, and attempts to
self-manage their own care.
Recommendation 2: Developing Training Recommendations for Departments
The liberal arts department is one of the few departments that offer a comprehensive and
established four to five-week training for new advisors. Many of the professional schools did not
have any internal training available to their advisors. My recommendation is for CVU to
develop training recommendations for departments to ensure that training is on-going and
internally developed for their staff.
Within many professions, such as the medical or teaching field, continuing education is
an important element of keeping professionals up-to-date on new professional practices or

87
making sure the professional continues to be well trained for the position. CVU should develop
recommendations for how departments and professional schools should conduct annual training
or refresher classes that build on the original Advisor 101 training. Continued training and
education is an important element of keeping well-trained staff to meet the needs of students and
their jobs.
Recommendation 3: Ensuring Managers are Well Trained
New employees hired as student advisors were required to go through training,
specifically the Advisor 101 training. However, new employees hired as managers, especially
those that were supervising advisors, were not required to take the Advisor 101 training, because
their jobs were to manage rather than to advise students. The research found that advisors have a
heavy dependence on the manager to guide them through difficult student situations such as
when a student is in crisis. Managers that manage advisors must have experience and a
comprehensive understanding of how to work with students in crisis.
In some departments, advisors may be managed by a faculty member or a department
chair that does not have any experience working with students in crisis or working with the
institution related to students in crisis or who may be a concern to the community. Since there is
a heavy reliance on managers to guide their advisors, a training resource should be made
available to managers. The training resource can also act as a continuing education tool to
ensure that managers are up-to-date on university resources. An online training similar to how
many universities use to train on harassment would benefit managers.
Recommendation 4: Online Advisor Tool Kit
Currently, CVU does not offer an online advisor resource page. The available online
resources, such as the Advising 101 resources, were hosted by the Academic Advisors Board

88
(AAB). The drawback of having it hosted by AAB is that the content is controlled by a board of
advisors leading the group, rather than it being a CVU effort.
The Online Advisor Tool Kit should bring together all the resources, training materials,
university links, all under one webpage, and presented comprehensively.
Future Research
Based on this research, there are other opportunities for future research.
Student Expectations of Advisors
As the needs of students continue to change in higher education, and with more and more
students who can attend college due to improved psychological care and drugs, it would be
interesting to understand what their expectations are of their academic advisors. In this research,
many students confided in their advisors about matters outside of academics. Does this type of
relationship happen because they feel comfortable talking to their advisors, do they feel that they
need to confide in their advisors, or do they see their advisors providing additional services
beyond the academic advisement? This type of research would help advisors understand the type
of expectations and roles students expect from them.
Counseling Referrals and Outcomes
CVU has as an emphasis on having advisors refer students to services, but often, advisors
have no idea if a student has followed through and obtained counseling services. There is no
way of knowing if a student is getting the help they need. Research in this area to gauge how
many students were referred to counseling services and how many follow-throughs would be
possibly eye-opening research. However, obtaining data on how many students followed
through with counseling services may be limited because the Health Insurance Portability and

89
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) does not allow disclosures of protected health information
such as names of patients receiving services.
Limitations
The study examined caring for students in crisis through the lens of the training and
preparation of academic advisors. The element of campus mass shootings and threat assessment
were added elements of this study. The first limitations of this study are that the interviews only
assessed ten individuals, and it was a diverse group. Based on this current study, there is merit in
research that examines the same topic based on gender, age, and level of experience.
A second limitation of this study is that CVU has multiple campuses, and the majority of
the participants (nine out of ten) were from the main campus. There was one participant from
the health campus, and his viewpoint of students was very different from the participants from
the main campus. Also, CVU is a large research university in a very large metropolitan city.
The campus and its surrounding areas have been identified in the past as possible terrorist attack
locations. These circumstances may have colored or enhanced the participants' viewpoints.
The third limitation of this study is the applicability of the results to other institutions that
are different in scope and size. Due to the large size of the CVU institution, results may not
apply to smaller or different types of institutions.
Conclusion
This research was focused on two aspects of working with students in crisis. The first
was how well trained and prepared academic advisors are. The second was how advisor attitudes
have changed, taking into context the number of mass campus shootings in modern times. There
are many changing forces in higher education that institutions like CVU need to be cognizant of.
First, it is a fact that there has been a steady rise in psychological problems in colleges (Cook,

90
2007; Guthman et al., 2010; Harper & Peterson, 2005; Kitzrow, 2003). Second, even though the
likelihood of a campus mass shooting happening is statistically small, the fact remains, campus
mass shootings happen (Fox, 2012). Academic advisors are often the first in line to work with
students, and they need more skills on top of the usual academic advisement skills. The students
want advisors to be skilled in working with students experiencing psychological problems
(Quinn et al., 2009). The participants of this study who are advisors want additional training. It
is important for institutions like CVU to fully recognize that advisors can play an important role
in helping students in crisis. Effective advisors who can work with students in crisis need to be
aware of university resources, but also be trained properly to identify, empathize, and assist
students to obtain the help they need.

91
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Arnette, J. L., & Walsleben, M. C. (1998). Combating fear and restoring safety in schools.
OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
ASMD Innovative Technologies Institute, LLC. (2010). A risk analysis standard for natural and
man-made hazards to higher education institutions. Washington, DC: Author.
Associated Press. (2007, April 16). Gunman killed 32 at Virginia Tech before being killed. NY
Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gunman-killed-32-
virginia-tech-killed-article-1.212056
Benton, S. A., Robertson, J. M., Tseng, W.-C., Newton, F. B., & Benton, S. L. (2003). Changes
in counseling center client problems across 13 years. Professional Psychology, Research
and Practice, 34(4), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.1.66
Bissler, D. L., & Conners, J. L. (Eds.). (2012). The harms of crime media: essays on the
perpetuation of racism, sexism and class stereotypes. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Bonanno, C. M., & Levenson, R. L., Jr. (2014). School shooters: History, current theoretical and
empirical findings, and strategies for prevention. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014525425
Brooks, K., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2000). School house hype: Two years later.
Washington, DC: Justice policy Institute/Children’s Law Center. Retrieved from:
http://www.cjcj.org/schoolhousehype/shh2.html

92
Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for a
moral panic. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 32(2), 147–168.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008338323953
Carr, J. L. (2007). Campus violence white paper. Journal of American college health, 55(5), 304-
319.
College Student Educators International & Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
(2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators. Retrieved
https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Competencie
s_FINAL.pdf
Cook, L. J. (2007). Striving to help college students with mental health issues. Journal of
Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 45(4), 40–44.
https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20070401-09
Cornell, D., Sheras, P., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2009). A retrospective study of school safety
conditions in high schools using the Virginia threat assessment guidelines versus
alternative approaches. The School Psychologist, 24(2), 119–129.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016182
Cornell, D. G. (2006). School violence: Fears vs facts. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crookston, B. B. (2009). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. NACADA
Journal, 29(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-29.1.78
Dolan, M. (2018, March 22). In ruling for victim in UCLA attack, California Supreme Court
says universities should protect students. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ucla-stabbing-court-20180321-story.html

93
Drysdale, D., Modzeleski, W., & Simons, A. (2010). Campus attacks: Targeted violence
affecting institutions of higher education. Retrieved from
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac.shtml
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Sayson, H. W., & Rios-
Aguilar, C. (2016). The American freshman: national norms fall 2016. Los Angeles, CA:
Higher Education Research Institute.
Ebert, D. D., Mortier, P., Kaehlke, F., Bruffaerts, R., Baumeister, H., Auerbach, R. P., . . .
Kessler, R. C. (2019). Barriers of mental health treatment utilization among first ‐year
college students: First cross ‐national results from the WHO World Mental Health
International College Student Initiative. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric
Research, 28(2), e1782. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1782
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice. Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
The Family Education and Privacy Act of 1974 § 1232g, 20 U.S.C. (1974)
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Serial murder: Multi-disciplinary perspectives for
investigators. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-
Fein, R., & Vossekuil, B. (1999). Assassination in the United States: An operational study of
recent assassins, attackers, and near-lethal approaches. Journal of Forensic Sciences,
44(2), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS14457J
Flynn, C., & Heitzmann, D. (2008). Tragedy at Virginia Tech: Trauma and its aftermath. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36(3), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008314787

94
Fox, J. A. (2012, April 2). CA campus shooting: Rare event, common pattern. Boston Globe.
Retrieved from http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/
04/ca_campus_shooting_rare_event.html
Fox, J. A., & DeLateur, M. J. (2013). Mass shootings in America: Moving beyond Newtown.
Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913510297
Fox, J. A., & Savage, J. (2009). Mass murder goes to college: An examination of changes on
college campuses following Virginia Tech. The American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10),
1465–1485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332558
Gallagher, R. (2011). National survey of college counseling. Alexandria, VA: International
Association of Counseling Services.
Gallagher, R. (2012). National survey of college counseling. Alexandria, VA: International
Association of Counseling Services.
Gallagher, R. (2014). National survey of college counseling. Alexandria, VA: International
Association of Counseling Services.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?” American political science
review, 98(02), 342, 354.
Gray, R. (2008). Virginia Tech 1 year later: How campuses have responded. Campus Safety
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/Virginia-Tech-
1-Year-Later-How-Campuses-Have-Responded
Guthman, J. C., Iocin, L., & Konstas, D. D. (2010). Increase in severity of mental illness among
clinical college students: A 12-year comparison. Paper presented at the 118th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association. San Diego, CA.

95
Harper, R., & Peterson, M. (2005).Mental health issues and college students. NACADA
Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Mental-Health.aspx
Hoover, E. (2008, April 18). Colleges grapple with the 'behavioral broken arm'. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Grapple-With-
the/27058/
Hyman, R. E. (1985, March) Do graduate preparation programs address competencies
important to student affairs practice? Paper presented at the annual conference of the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Portland, OR.
Hyman, R. E. (1988). Graduate preparation for professional practice: A difference of
perceptions. NASPA Journal, 26(2), 143–150.
Iglitzin, L. B. (1970). Violence and American democracy. Journal of Social Issues, 26 (1), 165–
186.
Johnson, R. W., Ellison, R. A., & Heikkinen, C. A. (1989). Psychological symptoms of
counseling center clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(1), 110–114.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.1.110
Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and
comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey
Replication. Archives of general psychiatry, 62(6), 617–627.
Kitzrow, M. (2003). The mental health needs of today’s college students: Challenges and
recommendations. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-
6014.1310
Kneser, G. (2004, April). College students leading hyper-enriched lives. St. Olaf E-newsletter.

96
Knop, B. (2012). “These kids are killing each other”: Gender-neutral vs. gender-specific framing
in the school shooting media discourse. In D. L. Bissler & J. L. Conners (Eds.), The
harms of crime media (pp. 53–63). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Kotewa, D. (1995). Transitions and adaptations: Theory and thoughts to ponder. Journal of
Student Affairs, 4, 45–52.
Krug, E.G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (Eds.) (2002). World report
on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Kruth, S. (2016). Censorship by crying wolf: Misclassifying student and faculty speech as
threats. University of Miami Law Review, 71(2), 461–493.
LaBanc, B. H., Krepel, T. L., Johnson, B. J., & Herrmann, L. V. (2010). Managing the
whirlwind: Planning for and responding to a campus in crisis. In B. O. Hemphill & B. H.
LaBanc (Eds.), Enough is enough: A student affairs perspective on preparedness and
response to a campus shooting (pp. 53–81). Sterling, VA: American College Personnel
Association and Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
Labarre, C. (1948). Graduate training for educational personnel work. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.
LaFraniere, S., Cohen, S., & Oppel, R. A., Jr. (2015, December 12). How often do mass
shootings occur? On average, every day, records show. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/how-often-do-mass-shootings-occur-on-average-
every-day-records-show.html?_r=0
Langman, P. (2009). Rampage school shooters: A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
14(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003

97
Leavitt, M. O., Spellings, M., & Gonzales, A. R. (2007). Report to the president: On issues
raised by the Virginia Tech tragedy. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2007/
June/vt_report_061307.pdf
Lederman, D. (2008, May 28). What changed, and didn’t, after Virginia Tech. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/28/vatech#sthash.zGoy
GUcl.dpbs
Lipson, S. K., Lattie, E. G., & Eisenberg, D. (2019). Increased rates of mental health service
utilization by US college students: 10-year population-level trends (2007–2017).
Psychiatric Services, 70(1), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201800332
Marklein, M. (2011, January 14). Students’ rights weighed as colleges try to assess threats. USA
Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-01-13-
colleges-keep-watch-for-violent-students_N.htm
McGill, C. M. (2019). The professionalization of academic advising: A structured literature
review. NACADA Journal, 39(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-18-015
McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., & Barry, C. L. (2013). Effects of news media messages about
mass shootings on attitudes toward persons with serious mental illness and public support
for gun control policies. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(5), 494–501.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13010014
Mental Health Foundation. (2001). Promoting student mental health: Updates, 2(11). London,
UK: Mental Health Foundation.
Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of
American firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), 240–249.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242

98
Mother Jones. (n.d). Number of victims of school shootings in the United States between 1982
And February 2018. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/476381/school-
shootings-in-the-us-by-victimr-count/
Mowbray, C. T., Megivern, D., Mandiberg, J. M., Strauss, S., Stein, C. H., Collins, K., . . . Lett,
R. (2006). Campus mental health services: Recommendations for change. The American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.2.226
Nicholson, K. (2007, April 19). Cho: Killers at Columbine “martyrs”. Denver Post. Retrieved
from http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5699066
Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives & d. B. Woodard, Jr.
(Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp 65–88). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
O’Toole, M. E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, VA:
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Pezza, E., & Bellotti, A. (1995). College campus violence: Origins, impacts, and responses.
Educational Psychology Review, 7(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214209
Pledge, D. S., Lapan, R. T., Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D., & Roehlke, H. J. (1998). Stability and
severity of presenting problems at a university counseling center: A 6-year analysis.
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 29(4), 286–289.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.29.4.386

99
Pollard, J. W., Nolan, J. J., & Deisinger, E. R. D. (2012). The practice of campus-based threat
assessment: An overview. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 26(4), 263–276.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2012.711142
Pollet, S. (2002). Is in loco parentis at the college level a dead doctrine. New York Law
Journal, 228(4).
Pryor, J. H., DeAngelo, L., Palucki Blake, L., Hurtado, S., & Tran, S. (2011). The American
freshman: National norms fall 2011. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research
Institute.
Pryor, J. H., Eagan, K., Palucki Blake, L., Hurtado, S., Berdan, J., & Case, M. H. (2012). The
American freshman: National norms fall 2012. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute.
Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., DeAngelo, L., Palucki Blake, L., & Tran, S. (2010). The American
freshman: National norms fall 2010. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research
Institute.
Quinn, N., Wilson, A., MacIntyre, G., & Tinklin, T. (2009). ‘People look at you differently’:
Students’ experience of mental health support within higher education. British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 37(4), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880903161385
Randazzo, M. R., & Cameron, J. K. (2012). From presidential protection to campus security: A
brief history of threat assessment in North American schools and colleges. Journal of
College Student Psychotherapy, 26(4), 277–290.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2012.711146
Reddy, M., Borum, R., Berglund, J., Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2001).
Evaluating risk for targeted violence in schools: Comparing risk assessment, threat

100
assessment, and other approaches. Psychology in the Schools, 38(2), 157–172.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.1007
Reiss, B. (2011, January 30). Campus security and the specter of mental-health profiling. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retried from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Campus-
Securitythe/126075
Rice, R. E. (1991). Rethinking what it means to be a scholar. In L. Ekroth (Ed), Teaching
Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy. Stillwater, OK: Professional and
Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
Rice, R. E. (1996). Making a place for the new American scholar (New pathways: Faculty
Career and Employment for the 21st Century Working Paper Series, Inquiry# 1).
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Roark, M. L. (1993). Conceptualizing campus violence, definitions, underlying factors, and
effects. In L. C. Whitaker & J. W. WhitakPollard (Eds.), Campus violence: Kinds,
causes, and cures (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.
Sargent, A. G., & Schlossberg, N. K. (1988). Managing adult transitions. Training and
Development Journal, 42(12), 58–61.
Schachner, H. (1938). The medieval universities. New York, NY: Barnes.
Schildkraut, J., Elsass, H. J., & Stafford, M. C. (2015). Could it happen here? Moral panic,
school shootings, and fear of crime among college students. Crime, Law, and Social
Change, 63(1-2), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-015-9552-z
Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. The
Counseling Psychologist, 9(2), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100008100900202

101
Schmadeke, S. (2008, July 10). NIU gunman reportedly tried to kill self 4 times. Chicago
Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-080710niu-
shootings,0,5417788.story
Smith, M. (1989). The ancestry of campus violence. New Directions for Student Services, 1989
(47), 516. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.37119894703
Smith, W. G., Hansell, N., & English, J. T. (1963). Psychiatric disorder in a college population:
Prevalence and incidence; exploratory methods in psychiatric epidemiology. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 9(4), 351–361.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160041005
Stanford University Libraries. (n.d.). Mass shooting in America. Retrieved from
https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america/charts
Stone, G., & Archer, J. (1990). College and university counseling centers in the 1990s:
Challenges and limits. The Counseling Psychologist, 18(4), 539–607.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000090184001
Talley, J. M. (2019). Addressing the mental health needs of post-secondary students:
Considerations for college administration. North Texas Journal of Undergraduate
Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.12794/journals.ntjur.v1i1.81
Thrower, R. H., Healy, S. J., Margolis, G. J., Lynch, M., Stafford, D., Taylor, W. (2008).
Overview of the Virginia Tech Tragedy and Implications for Campus Safety. Retrieved
from http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/PDFs/VT-taskforce-report_Virginia-Tech.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2011). The handbook for
campus safety and security reporting. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from website:
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/campus.html

102
Violence Prevention Committee; Threat Assessment Team, Code of Virginia § 23-9.2:10 (2008).
Virginia Tech Review Panel. (2007). Mass shootings at Virginia Tech April 16, 2007: Report of
the review panel. Retrieved from http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/
techPanelReport-docs/FullReport.pdf
The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2007). President Bush offers condolences at
Virginia Tech memorial convocation. Retrieved from website http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070417-1.html
Waple, J. N. (2006). An assessment of skills and competencies necessary for entry-level student
affairs work. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 1–18.
Williams, F., & Monge, P. R. (2001). Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative
research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Young, J. R. (2003, February 14). Prozac campus. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://chronicle.com/article/Prozac-Campus/18542
Zhang, A., Musu-Gillette, L., & Oudekerk, B. (2016). Indicators of school crime and safety:
2015. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016079

103
APPENDIX A
LIST OF COLLEGE MASS SHOOTINGS in the UNITED STATES

College campus mass shootings in the United States in recent years is listed below in
chronological order (Timeline, 2007; Mother Jones). Mass shootings are defined as
indiscriminate shootings in which four or more people are killed, not including the shooter
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2009).

August 1, 1966 University of Texas 16 killed, 31 wounded

July 12, 1976 California State University, Fullerton 7 killed, 2 wounded

November 1, 1991 University of Iowa 5 killed, 2 wounded

April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech 32 killed, 17 wounded

February 14, 2008 Northern Illinois University 5 killed, 17 wounded

April 2, 2012 Oikos University 7 killed, 3 wounded

June 7, 2013 Santa Monica Community College 5 killed, 4 wounded

October 1, 2015 Umpqua Community College 9 killed, 8 wounded

104
APPENDIX B
ONLINE SURVEY
Thank you for taking the time to take this survey. You are receiving this survey because you
have been identified as an academic advisor. This survey is an attempt to understand the
training, preparedness, and attitudes of academic advisors working with students in an era in
which there has been a proliferation of campus mass shootings nationally.
1. Female, Male, or Other
2. Race? Ethnicity?
3. What is your bachelor degree in?
4. If you have a master’s degree, what is your degree in
5. How many years have you been an academic advisor in total at this institution and other
institutions?
6. What is title of your current position?
7. How many years have you been in this current position?
8. What other positions have you held in other institutions?
9. At this institution, what is the major you advise?
10. What type of students do you advise? Please check all that apply.
a. Undergraduate students
b. Master’s students
c. Doctoral students

11. When you started this position, did you receive advisor training?
Yes, No
If “No”, did you receive training later on? Yes, No
If Yes, questions, 11, 12, 13, 14 would be given
12. Did your training address how to work with students dealing with psychological problems?
Yes, No
13. Did your training address how to work with disruptive students or students ?
Yes, No
14. How prepared do you feel in working with students who may be suffering from
psychological problems?
Excellent, Good, Average, Fair, Poor
15. How prepared do you feel in working with students who may be a concern to the
community?
Excellent, Good, Average, Fair, Poor
16. Has campus mass shootings affected your attitude towards students?
Yes, No
If yes, please elaborate how your attitude has changed.
17. Do you think academic advisors more readily report disruptive student behavior since the
proliferation of campus mass shootings?
Yes, No

Thank you for your participation! If you would like to be entered into a drawing for ten
available $10 Amazon gift cards, please leave your email address here:

105

A second part of this research endeavor involves interviews. The interview is an extension of
this survey and is an attempt to collect more qualitative data. The interview is approximately 45
minutes to 60 minutes. Interview participants will receive a $25 gift card as appreciation for
their participation.

If you would like to participate, please provide your name and contact information and you may
be contacted for an interview.

All participants of the online survey and interviews will remain anonymous in the research
report.

Thank you!

106
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Research Questions
1. Do academic advisors receive preparation and training to assist them in identifying students
who exhibit concerning behavior in the campus community? If yes, what kind of training
and preparation? If no, what kind of training do they desire?
2. How prepared are academic advisors in working with students who exhibit concerning
behavior in the campus community?
3. Have events like campus mass shootings created changes in the assumptions about oneself
and their dealings with students? If so, how?

Background
I’d like to begin our conversation by asking you to talk about your background. Please tell me
about your current advisor position and any other position you have held as an advisor.
How many years have you worked with students in student affairs?
What is the major you advise for?
What is the population you work with, undergraduates, master’s students, or doctoral students?

Interview Questions
1. Do you have any experience dealing with students who may have posed a concern to the
college community?
2. Did you receive training to help you work with these types of students?
3. What type of training did you receive and how much training did you receive?
4. Do you have any experience dealing with students who were suffering from
psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, or on a heavier note, may have been
suicidal?
5. How well do you feel prepared in working with students who may be suffering from
psychological problems or working with a student who are a concern to the college
community?
6. Have you had situations in which you had to help a student who was displaying signs of
psychological problems?
a. How did you deal with the situation?
b. Did you feel comfortable helping the student?
7. Do you feel you have been adequately prepared?
8. What kind of training might you want to have?
9. Has campus mass shootings affected your attitude towards students and the way you
work with students? If so, how?
10. Do you think that based on what is portrayed in the media about campus mass shootings,
is there a possibility of overreaction in reaction to the fear of mass shootings?
11. Have you had any student situation that you felt in hindsight you overreacted to?

107
APPENDIX D
Information Sheet for Research

CARING FOR STUDENTS IN CRISIS: THE TRAINING AND PREPARATION OF
ACADEMIC ADVISORS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Julie Kim at the Carter Valley
University. Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have before deciding
whether or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the role of academic advisors in threat assessment
management.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an online survey and
volunteer to be interviewed. The online survey can be taken on a personal computer and the
voluntary interview will take place in a conference room at the Carter Valley University.
The survey will take less than 10 minutes and the interview will take approximately 45 to 60
minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive an entry into a gift card drawing for ten available $10 Amazon gift cards if
you provide an email address at the end of the online survey. Interview participants will
receive a $25 gift card as appreciation for their participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. At the completion
of the study, the anonymous data may be used for future research studies. If you do not want your
data used in future studies, you should not participate.

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be
used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should
not participate.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Julie Kim at
juliethk@usc.edu.

108

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The training and preparation of advisors to work with students has changed due to the rise of student psychological problems and campus crises. The current training and preparation of advisors may not be adequate in preparing them to work with students requiring high levels of emotional and counseling support. Also, attitudes towards students can be shaped by events like campus mass shootings, which can result in changed views and treatment of students treated. This qualitative study included academic advisors at a research university to understand the preparation and training they received to work with students in crisis. Data was collected through an online survey, structured interviews, and university training documents and websites. Nancy Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) was the theoretical framework used in this study. The four themes that emerged from this study are significance of an advisor’s educational background and its impact on professional ability, student desire for more than academic advising, institutional referral culture, and changing feelings towards students—an increase in empathy towards students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Perceptions of academic advisors of the impact of over involved parents on the advisor-student relationship at a liberal arts unit of a 4-year research university

PDF

Lack of African-American undergraduate male student retention: an evaluation study on perspectives from academic advisors

PDF

Identifying resiliency factors viewed by second and third grade teachers that foster academic success in elementary minority Hispanic students in Orange County

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

PDF

The impact of academic support services on Division I student-athletes' college degree completion

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

PDF

Identifying resiliency factors viewed by fourth and fifth grade teachers that foster academic success in elementary minority Hispanic students in Orange County

PDF

An academic and professional preparatory curriculum design and supplemental academic advisement tool: self-regulation, ethics, and communication for engineering graduate students

PDF

Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study

PDF

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

PDF

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution

PDF

The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

PDF

Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study

PDF

Historically Latino/a-based fraternities/sororities: understanding Latino/a student experiences in a historically White-dominated system

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

Bystander intervention training & the culture of sexual assault on college campuses

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Julieth H. (author)

Core Title Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/21/2020

Defense Date 02/18/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic advisors,academic affairs,mass campus shooting,Mental Health,OAI-PMH Harvest,student affairs,Training

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Merriman, Lynette (committee member)

Creator Email juliekim787@gmail.com,juliethk@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-285651

Unique identifier UC11673848

Identifier etd-KimJulieth-8288.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-285651 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KimJulieth-8288.pdf

Dmrecord 285651

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kim, Julieth H.

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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