Quality Assurance in Education

Academic advising: does it really impact student success?

Adena D. Young-Jones Tracie D. Burt Stephanie Dixon Melissa J. Hawthorne
Article information:
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Adena D. Young-Jones Tracie D. Burt Stephanie Dixon Melissa J. Hawthorne, (2013),"Academic advising:
does it really impact student success?", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 7 - 19
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684881311293034
Downloaded on: 30 September 2015, At: 00:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5151 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Yvonne Hill, Laurie Lomas, Janet MacGregor, (2003),"Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education",
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp. 15-20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462047
Frances M. Hill, (1995),"Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the
student as primary consumer", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 10-21 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889510093497
Susan Aldridge, Jennifer Rowley, (1998),"Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 6 Iss 4 pp. 197-204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889810242182

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Academic
Academic advising: does it really advising
impact student success?
Adena D. Young-Jones, Tracie D. Burt, Stephanie Dixon and
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

Melissa J. Hawthorne 7
Department of Psychology, Missouri State University,
Springfield, Missouri, USA Received 30 September 2011
Revised 28 October 2012
Accepted 30 October 2012

Abstract
Purpose – This study was designed to evaluate academic advising in terms of student needs,
expectations, and success rather than through the traditional lens of student satisfaction with the
process.
Design/methodology/approach – Student participants (n ¼ 611) completed a survey exploring
their expectations of and experience with academic advising. Principal axis factor analysis, multiple
regression analyses, and analyses of variance were applied to student responses.
Findings – Six interpretable factors (i.e. advisor accountability, advisor empowerment, student
responsibility, student self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support) significantly related
academic advising to student success. Differences emerged with regard to advisement of
demographically diverse students.
Practical implications – The results suggest improvements in advising practices, particularly
interventions focused on specific demographic populations.
Originality/value – The present study contributes to existing literature by expanding advising
research beyond student satisfaction to explore how it influences student success. Additionally, results
suggest a need for future research that further develops the concept and practice of quality academic
advising.
Keywords Advising, Academic advising, Retention, Matriculation, Student success, Perceived support,
Self-efficacy, Student expectations, Higher education, Students
Paper type Research paper

What factors best promote student success in higher education? This question has long
been the impetus for assessment and research in colleges and universities, with
institutions seeking to understand contributing factors that are both within and
outside of their control. Tinto (1975) defined student matriculation as an ongoing
process of interactions between the student and the academic and social systems
present in a university. A total of 30 years later, student involvement with academic
programs and professionals can still either facilitate the journey toward a degree or
lead to disappointment and failure. Habley (2004) asserted that the quality of
interaction between a student and a concerned individual on campus, often through
academic advising, is a key contributor to college retention. However, the influence of
academic advising on student achievement has been largely overshadowed by
attempts to assess student satisfaction with the advising process (e.g. Campbell and
Nutt, 2008; Hemwall and Trachte, 2003; Light, 2001; Propp and Rhodes, 2006). Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 21 No. 1, 2013
Tinto’s (1975, 2007) model was one of the first to identify institutional features as pp. 7-19
contributors to student attrition. Whereas previous efforts to pinpoint factors affecting q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
student retention and success focused solely on student characteristics, Tinto DOI 10.1108/09684881311293034
 QAE considered the relationship between the higher educationinstitution and the student as
21,1 a defining element of student achievement. The model identified five conditions needed
to establish a supportive college environment: expectation, advice, support,
involvement, and learning. Research into these conditions has tended to support
Tinto’s assertions. For example, an extensive review of literature related to
campus-based retention initiatives conducted by Patton et al. (2006) found moderate
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

8 support for the assertion that student-faculty interaction can improve student
persistence. However, the authors highlighted a need for additional research related to
the positive impact of faculty contact on student success and retention. Hawthorne and
Young (2010) provided additional support for the importance of faculty-student
connections by demonstrating that satisfaction with instructors and satisfaction with
faculty support significantly influenced overall satisfaction with the college
environment; this, in turn, contributed to student intentions to complete a bachelor’s,
master’s, or doctoral degree.
While faculty-student interactions are related to students’ academic goals and
outcomes, student development is influenced by a variety of overlapping institutional
efforts outside of course-related connections with faculty (Kuh, 2001). Therefore,
researching additional educational elements that cohesively link the overall academic
experience may inform institutional actions that facilitate development of supportive
environments for students. One area in which an institution can formally implement
quality exchanges between students and the academic environment is through the
academic advising process (Habley, 2004). In its statement of core values in academic
advising, the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA, 2004) supported a
holistic approach to advising that includes both understanding the institution and the
needs of its students. Hunter and White (2004) added that academic advising can help
students to shape meaningful learning experiences, thus encouraging achievement of
educational, career, and life goals.
Results of a survey conducted by the American College Testing (ACT) program and
NACADA (Lotkowski et al., 2004) indicated that many postsecondary institutions do
not capitalize on the benefits of quality advising to improve student achievement. In
fact, the survey identified few colleges with structured programs to promote advising
as a way to help students stay in school. Although the literature indicates that
academic advising supports student success, Campbell and Nutt (2008) posited that the
case may not be made explicitly enough especially as it relates to goal achievement.
According to Kelley (2008), the assessment of academic advising is not as advanced
as that of classroom learning. Historically, measurement of advising outcomes focused
on student satisfaction with the advisor or advising system rather than on student
success. Although student satisfaction is important (Propp and Rhodes, 2006),
evaluating the effectiveness of advising efforts requires significantly more than
gauging student satisfaction. Hemwall and Trachte (2003) suggested that viewing
advising as a learning process allows assessment of specific outcomes that can be
linked to student achievement. Thus, investigating the relationship between advising
and student achievement can reveal how advising helps students develop the skills and
knowledge necessary for success.
Tinto (1975, 2007) contended that students are more likely to thrive, persist, and
complete degrees in environments that provide clear and consistent information about
institutional expectations and requirements. Academic advisors can interpret
 institutional expectations and convey them to students in practical terms that Academic
illuminate paths to degree completion, thereby meeting student and institutional goals. advising
Without quality advising, students may master course content, yet still be at risk of
dropping out if they “fail to develop adequate academic self-confidence, academic
goals, institutional commitment, achievement motivation, and social support and
involvement” (Lotkowski et al., 2004, p. 10). However, even though retention and
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

graduation rates are important, the Association for American Colleges and 9
Universities (2007) suggested in the College Learning for the New Global Century
report that the ultimate measure of success is the ability of students to thrive in
professional, personal, and civic arenas. How can higher education institutions engage
students in activities that facilitate success in these areas?
Academic advising is a point at which student behavior and institutionally
controlled conditions meet to potentially influence student achievement. Kuh et al.
(2005) referred to this intersection as student engagement. Quality academic advising
can promote student engagement by initially and continuously serving as this point of
connection. In addition to engaging with students, advisors can also encourage student
involvement with powerful learning opportunities both in and out of the classroom.
The advising process can help students to identify personal strengths and interests
related to their educational and career goals. This knowledge may inform students’
selection and pursuit of co-curricular activities that enhance their college experience.
Research concludes that student engagement is enhanced through involvement with
activities such as internships (Knouse et al., 1999), undergraduate research (Bauer and
Bennett, 2003; Ishiyama, 2002), and service learning (McKay and Estrella, 2008; Yorio
and Ye, 2012). Academic advising provides a ready opportunity for students to explore
participation in co-curricular activities that align active engagement with personal
aspirations and institutional retention goals.
Unfortunately, the important contribution of academic advising is commonly
underestimated in studies of student success and retention (Light, 2001). According to
Nutt (2003), any effort toward student retention must recognize that academic advising
is vital to student success. Consequently, further research is needed to identify the
facets of academic advising that relate to retention and promote student success. As a
result, these features can be more effectively measured, understood, and encouraged,
thus meeting expectations of institutions and their varied stakeholders. Therefore, the
goal of this study was to link multiple aspects of advising to student academic
performance. Specifically, the primary purpose was to investigate how advising
predicts student grade point average (GPA), a known measure of academic success.
Additionally, group differences were examined to highlight factors which contribute to
the prediction of GPA; population differences were evaluated to determine which
groups may need special consideration in the development and practice of advising
strategies.

Method
Participants
Participants included 611 undergraduate students recruited from courses ranging from
Introductory Psychology to Senior Seminar in Psychology. The sample primarily
consisted of psychology majors (18.7 percent); however, Introductory Psychology is a
class taken by students representing departments from all colleges within the
 QAE university, resulting in survey respondents from 114 different majors. Participants
21,1 were predominantly White/Caucasian (90.5 percent) ranging in age from 18-25 years
(94.7 percent), which is typical of a Midwestern university. The sample consisted
mainly of college freshmen (59.6 percent), but sophomore (21.1 percent), junior
(10.9 percent), and senior (10.7 percent) students also participated. A majority of the
sample was comprised of full-time college students (94.9 percent) with about one-third
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

10 representing their families as first-generation college students. Most of the students

reported that they were contacted once or twice a semester by their academic advisors
(54.8 percent), met with their advisors one time each semester (66 percent), and spent
10 to 20 minutes in typical advisement meetings (51.2 percent).
Participant responses may be better understood through discussion of the
institutional framework within which students are advised. Undecided majors are
advised in the Academic Advisement Center by professional advisors who also provide
nationally-recognized training for all advisors on campus (Voller et al., 2010). After
students declare a major, a decentralized model is used to formally advise all university
students. Students are referred to college or departmental advisors and advisement
centers depending on individual educational level and major. Some colleges in the
university employ professional advisors in college advisement centers, while other
students are advised within specific departments by faculty members whose work
assignments include academic advising duties. Regardless, advising is required prior
to registration each semester until students have completed at least 75 of the 125 credit
hours required to graduate.
The psychology department, where the current study was conducted, advises
approximately 700 majors through a combination of a departmental advisement center
(coordinated by a faculty member with the primary work assignment of advising new
psychology majors) and 24 of the department’s 29 full-time faculty members advising
students based (as often as possible) on areas of interest within the field of psychology.

Materials and procedure

Information was collected using assessment instruments created for this project. Items
in the inventories described below were evaluated on a seven-point scale based on the
strength of a respondent’s agreement:
.
Student self-assessment. This instrument asked students to evaluate their
behaviors and attitudes related to responsibility, future planning,
decision-making, and habits potentially affecting their studies. Additional
items addressed student engagement and perceptions of social support.
.
Student expectations of advising assessment. This survey gave students the
opportunity to clarify what they expect from themselves, their advisors, and the
general advising process.
.
Student demographic information form. This form was used to collect objective
and descriptive information about students who participate in the advising
process (e.g. frequency of meetings with advisor, classification, gender, and
grade point average).

Data were collected through an online experiment management tool. When the study
was launched, instructors communicated its availability to students who could
 voluntarily choose to participate as one among several course assignment options. Academic
Upon consent, students completed the online surveys. advising
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

Dimensionality of the 95 student assessment items was analyzed using principal axis
factor analysis. Two criteria were used to determine the number of factors to rotate: the 11
scree test and the interpretability of the factor solution. Based on the scree plot, six
factors were rotated using a Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution yielded
six interpretable factors, including advisor accountability, advisor empowerment,
student responsibility, student self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived
support. The advisor accountability factor applies to the level of professionalism,
preparation, and availability that advisees expect from advisors; it accounted for
10.8 percent of item variance. Advisor empowerment addresses the level to which
students expect advisors to help them learn, understand, and plan for the future by
providing feedback and helpful referrals; this factor accounted for 9.07 percent of item
variance. Student responsibility addresses the ways in which students expect
themselves to contribute to the advising process, for example through goal-setting and
planning, preparation for appointments, following up on referrals, communicating
with and treating advisors courteously; this factor accounted for 7.46 percent of item
variance. Student self-efficacy relates to student beliefs regarding their capability to
succeed in college, for example, capacity for dealing with stress, preparation for
college-level work, and ability to understand course content and take exams; this factor
accounted for 5.75 percent of item variance. The student study skills factor summarizes
a set of competencies related to academic success in college, including time and grade
management, study skills, preparation for exams, ability to concentrate, motivation,
getting adequate sleep, and contacting an advisor for assistance; this factor accounted
for 4.57 percent of item variance. Perceived Support addresses a student’s interpersonal
and intrapersonal adjustment as a college student in terms of relationships (i.e. with
friends and instructors) and dealing with stress (i.e. academic, personal,
employment-related, or associated with a learning disability); this factor accounted
for 3.57 percent of the item variance.

Multiple regression
Grade point average (GPA) is a commonly used measure of student success. Therefore,
the current analysis attempted to identify variables that predicted GPA in the
participants[1]. GPA data were available for 580 of the survey respondents, and a
multiple regression was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). The dependent variable was current GPA, and the predictor variables were
advisor accountability, advisor empowerment, student responsibility, student
self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support; high school GPA and
university classification were included as control variables. The predictors were all
moderately correlated with the dependent variable, but since there were no correlations
greater than 0.50, multicollinarity was not a problem. The model was significant at the
0.05 level, F(10, 452) ¼ 18.23, p , 0.001, and accounted for 28 percent of the variance in
GPA, R2 adjusted ¼ 0.278. Further analysis showed that the only variables that
contributed significantly to the model were student study skills ( p , 0.001) and
 QAE student self-efficacy ( p ¼ 0.003). Advisor Empowerment was marginally significant
21,1 ( p ¼ 0.061).
The study also examined how contact with an advisor predicted student
responsibility, student self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support. The
independent variables were meeting with advisor (i.e. frequency of student meetings
with the advisor), advisor contact (i.e. how often the advisor contacted the student), and
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

12 time spent with advisor (i.e. length of a typical advisement meeting). Meeting with
advisor predicted student responsibility ( p ¼ 0.001), student self-efficacy ( p ¼ 0.017),
student study skills ( p ¼ 0.031), and perceived support ( p ¼ 0.002). These results
indicate that meeting with an advisor at least once during a semester is an important
contributor to multiple factors impacting student success.
Finally, the study focused on student expectations of academic advisors (i.e. advisor
empowerment and advisor accountability) as predictors of student responsibility,
student self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support. Advisor
accountability predicted student self-efficacy ( p ¼ 0.017), student responsibility
( p , 0.001), student study skills ( p ¼ 0.018), and perceived support ( p ¼ 0.003).
Similarly, advisor empowerment predicted student responsibility ( p ¼ 0.001), student
study skills ( p ¼ 0.009), and perceived support ( p , 0.001). Taken together, these
results indicate that both student expectations of their advisors and how well advisors
meet those expectations contribute to two of the primary factors associated with
student success (i.e. student study skills and student self-efficacy).
Having examined the factors that predict student success across the undergraduate
experience, we turned our attention to college freshmen (n ¼ 301). The freshman year
often seems to be a make-or-break time for undergraduate students in terms of
continued progress toward degree completion. In fact, approximately one in seven
(16 percent) of 2010 high school graduates who entered higher education did not
progress beyond their first year of college (Hart Research Associates, 2011). Thus, we
also investigated factors that predict success for first-year students. A multiple
regression showed that meeting with advisor predicted student responsibility
( p , 0.001) and student study skills ( p , 0.001). Advisor accountability predicted
perceived support ( p , 0.001), student responsibility ( p , 0.001), and student
self-efficacy ( p ¼ 0.026). Finally, Advisor empowerment predicted student
responsibility ( p , 0.001).

Analyses of variance
After demonstrating the contribution of the identified variables to student GPA, we
explored demographic differences between these variables[2]. Group differences on
advisor accountability, advisor empowerment, student responsibility, student
self-efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support were examined using a
series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs). The independent variables were chosen
based on identified factors associated with college success including student
interactions with academic professionals (Habley, 2004), gender (National Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2011), generation status as a college student (Bradbury and Mather,
2009; Lohfink and Paulsen, 2005; Warburton et al., 2001), and classification (Hart
Research Associates, 2011).
Student interactions with educational professionals enhance perceived support,
which has been directly linked to student retention and success (Shelton, 2003).
 Support for students is a critical component of Tinto’s (1975, 2007) model; therefore, the Academic
first ANOVA included an examination of differences in Perceived Support for all advising
participants based on advisor contact, meeting with advisor, and time spent with
advisor. Of the three variables, significant differences were found only for meeting
with advisor (F(2, 30) ¼ 4.04, p ¼ 0.01, ?2p ¼ 0.12). Thus, students who met with their
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

advisors at least once per semester reported higher levels of Perceived Support than
those with less frequent meetings. 13
Although an equal number of men and women are enrolling in college, significantly
more women than men succeed in obtaining a bachelor’s degree by age 23 (National
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Therefore, the next factor considered was gender.
Significant differences were found for student responsibility based on gender
(F(1, 30) ¼ 6.77, p ¼ 0.007, ?2p ¼ 0.04). Pairwise comparisons showed that female
students had a higher sense of student responsibility than male students (see Table I).
Similarly, although the number of first-generation students (i.e. no parent or
grandparent completed a college degree) who enroll in college is increasing (Bradbury
and Mather, 2009), these students continue to experience lower matriculation rates
(Lohfink and Paulsen, 2005; Warburton et al., 2001). Therefore, the final independent
variable was first-generation status. significant differences were found for student
self-efficacy based on first-generation status (F(1, 30) ¼ 7.56, p ¼ 0.01, ?2p ¼ 0.03) with
first-generation students having lower levels of student self-efficacy than
second-generation students (see Table II).
Overall analyses of variance highlighted advising as a source which impacted
student success for all students, as well as revealing areas of particular interest related
to advising students with different demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, first- or
second-generation status). As with the regression analysis, we examined the same
factors in college freshmen. Significant differences emerged in student responsibility
(F(3, 266) ¼ 13.75, p , 0.001, ?2p ¼ 0.05), advisor empowerment, (F(3, 266) ¼ 17.75,
p , 0.001, ?2p ¼ 0.06), and advisor accountability, (F(3, 266) ¼ 30.23, p , 0.001,
?2p ¼ 0.10), based only on gender. Female freshmen reported having a greater sense of

Variable Gender Mean SE

Advisor accountability Female 6.54 0.074

Male 6.32 0.082
Advisor empowerment Female 6.78 0.073
Male 6.69 0.074
Student responsibility * Female 5.73 0.082
Male 5.40 0.091
Student self-efficacy Female 5.22 0.091
Male 5.30 0.101
Student study skills Female 4.80 0.093
Male 4.54 0.103
Perceived support Female 4.81 0.082
Male 4.92 0.091 Table I.
Means and standard
Note: *p ¼ 0.05 errors for gender
 QAE
Variable Generation Mean SE
21,1
Advisor accountability First 6.35 0.083
Second 6.52 0.073
Advisor empowerment First 5.89 0.065
Second 5.80 0.071
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

14 Student responsibility First 5.50 0.092

Second 5.62 0.080
Student self-efficacy * First 5.06 0.102
Second 5.49 0.089
Student study skills First 4.58 0.104
Table II. Second 4.76 0.091
Means and standard Perceived support First 4.73 0.092
errors based on first or Second 5.03 0.080
second generation college
student status Note: *p ¼ 0.05

Variable Gender Mean SE

Advisor accountability * Female 6.68 0.053

Male 6.18 0.074
Advisor empowerment * Female 5.88 0.073
Male 5.36 0.101
Student responsibility * Female 5.80 0.066
Male 5.38 0.092
Student self-efficacy Female 4.81 0.085
Male 5.06 0.118
Student study skills Female 4.55 0.078
Table III. Male 4.49 0.109
Means and standard Perceived support Female 4.99 0.067
errors for college Male 4.85 0.094
freshmen based on
gender Note: *p ¼ 0.05

responsibility and greater expectations of advisor empowerment and accountability

than male freshmen (see Table III).

Discussion
NACADA’s (2004) “Statement of core values in academic advising” suggested that the
advising process should be shaped by understanding the needs of an institution and its
students. The current study was guided by beliefs that effective assessment of
academic advising provides the understanding necessary for process improvement.
Previous attempts to assess the effectiveness of advising practices have often focused
on levels of student satisfaction with the process (Hemwall and Trachte, 2003; Propp
and Rhodes, 2006); however, empirical evidence that advising impacts specific
elements contributing to student persistence and success is lacking (Campbell and
Nutt, 2008; Light, 2001). The present research addresses this gap in the literature by
identifying aspects of academic advising that predict student academic success as
 measured by college GPA and other factors identified in the study. Furthermore, the Academic
project examines demographic populations that might have particular needs and advising
expectations related to academic advising.
The primary goal of this study was to demonstrate that advising does impact
student academic performance. Higher scores on student study skills and student
self-efficacy were related to higher student GPA. In turn, meeting with advisor and
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

advisor accountability contributed to student responsibility, student self-efficacy, 15

student study skills, and perceived support; advisor empowerment also contributed to
student responsibility, student study skills, and perceived support. The levels to which
advisors are available to students, actually meet with them, and provide them with
assistance and support are clearly linked to factors demonstrated to predict student
success. Consequently, academic advisors can engage students through effective
interactions; a discussion regarding academic life can enlighten advisors regarding
areas in which a particular student is struggling. With this knowledge, advisors can
incorporate appropriate strategies (or referrals) to provide additional support, grant
authentic encouragement to boost student confidence, and suggest study practices or
other tips for successfully navigating the broader college curriculum. Overall,
academic advising can vitally impact all facets of a student’s academic experience,
ranging from development of self-efficacy to practical applications of study skills.
The secondary goal of this study was to identify group differences on important
variables. Student study skills and student self-efficacy significantly contributed to the
prediction of GPA. Each factor was influenced by personal variables (i.e. meeting with
advisor, gender, first-generation status, and university classification). Significant
differences were found for the number of times students met with their advisor.
Students meeting at least once per semester, compared to those meeting less
frequently, reported significantly higher levels of perceived support. The level of
support one feels within the academic setting is directly linked to retention and success
(Shelton, 2003). Thus, results of the present study align with Shelton’s findings and
point to academic advising as a resource and relationship through which institutions
can potentially enhance retention through supporting students.
Another personal variable to consider when advising is gender. Significant results
were found for gender on student responsibility with women rating this factor higher
than men. Results suggest that females take more responsibility for their academic
success throughout an academic semester. Females’ greater sense of responsibility
may contribute to morebachelor’s degrees being completed by women than men
(National Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Therefore, advisors can more widely
promote student success by developing strategies to instill in all students the
importance of personal responsibility.
Additionally, differences were identified between first- and second-generation college
students; specifically, significant differences were found in levels of student self-efficacy.
First-generation college students face unique challenges related to beliefs about their
ability to succeed in college. Despite the increasing enrollment of first-generation students
(Bradbury and Mather, 2009), this group continues to have lower graduation rates
(Lohfink and Paulsen, 2005; Warburton et al., 2001). Thus, the needs of first-generation
college students may differ considerably from those of second-generation students.
Consequently, advisors can focus interventions toward familiarizing these students with
higher education requirements and resources available to help them succeed.
 QAE Similar to first-generation college students, first-year students need additional
21,1 support to succeed within the academic setting in comparison to peers who have spent
more time in college. This specialized treatment is important based on recent research
that found one in seven (16 percent) of the 2010 high school graduating class that
originally attended a higher education institution did not progress beyond the first
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

year of college (Hart Research Associates, 2011). Advisors can provide support
16 according to the unique strengths and needs of students who are transitioning into a
new academic setting. Meeting with an advisor predicts higher levels of responsibility
and study skills in college freshmen. Additionally, expectations of advising predict
responsibility, study skills, self-efficacy, and perceived support. Specifically, female
freshmen report higher levels of responsibility while holding higher expectations of
advisor availability and helpfulness than male freshmen. These results for college
freshmen support the claim that academic advising is a tool through which higher
education institutions can meet students at their individual levels of need to facilitate
successful navigation of the college experience.
Results of the present study highlight primary factors related to advising that
influence student development of basic requirements for academic success. For example,
students who have strong study skills, a greater sense of responsibility, and higher
self-efficacy are more likely to succeed. Therefore, advisors have an immediately
meaningful impact on students during the first year of college and the opportunity for
continuing influence as students work toward degree completion. Surprisingly, similar
links between advising and student achievement are scarce in empirical literature.
Expanding the assessment of academic advising beyond student satisfaction will
allow broader communication regarding the substantial contribution of academic
advising to student success. Patton et al. (2006) suggested that longitudinal
assessments of retention-based initiatives are lacking, and according to Kelley (2008),
assessment of academic advising needs to be advanced and practiced in ways similar
to classroom assessment. Thus, the potential contribution of academic advising to
student development, retention, and success should be investigated both in more depth
and over time. Additionally, future research should focus on providing better
understanding of the advising relationship, including levels of congruency between
what students and advisors expect to achieve through the process.
In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that academic advising impacts
multiple factors that contribute to student success and identified specific areas for
targeted interventions. These results highlight how higher education institutions can
benefit by supporting academic advising programs that implement specialized
interventions, as well as by supporting the research and assessment efforts upon which
those interventions are based. The growing emphasis on student retention and degree
completion from institutions and their constituents means that investigation and
effective application of knowledge about all aspects of the academic experience is
crucial. Academic advising is one element of a student’s academic journey that can be
further developed as a tool to help students achieve educational and career goals while
helping institutions to accomplish stated educational missions. Therefore, further
research is essential to expand understanding of academic advising and its measurable
impact on personal and institutional aspects of student success.
 Notes Academic
1. For each regression, the data were screened for normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and advising
outliers.
2. For between group comparisons, students were chosen at random from each category to
achieve a normal distribution.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

17
References
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007), College Learning for the New Global
Century, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC.
Bauer, K.W. and Bennett, J.S. (2003), “Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate
research”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 210-30.
Bradbury, B.L. and Mather, P.C. (2009), “The integration of first-year, first-generation college
students from Ohio Appalachia”, National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 258-81.
Campbell, S.M. and Nutt, C. (2008), “Academic advising in the new global century: supporting
student engagement and learning outcomes achievement”, Peer Review, pp. 4-7.
Habley, W.R. (Ed.) (2004), “The status of academic advising: findings from the ACT sixth
national survey”, Monograph No. 10, National Academic Advising Association,
Manhattan, KS.
Hart Research Associates (2011), One Year Out: Findings From a National Survey Among
Members of the High School Graduating Class of 2010, The College Board, Washington,
DC.
Hawthorne, M. and Young, A. (2010), “First-generation transfer students’ perceptions:
implications for retention and success”, Journal of College Orientation & Transition,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 29-39.
Hemwall, M.K. and Trachte, K.C. (2003), “Learning at the core: theory and practice of academic
advising in small colleges and universities”, in Hemwall, M.K. and Trachte, K.C. (Eds),
Advising and Learning: Academic Advising from the Perspective of Small Colleges and
Universities, Monograph No. 8, National Academic Advising Association, Manhattan, KS,
pp. 7-11.
Hunter, M.S. and White, E.R. (2004), “Could fixing academic advising fix higher education?”,
About Campus, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 20-5.
Ishiyama, J. (2002), “Does early participation in undergraduate research benefit social science and
humanities students?”, College Student Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 381-7.
Kelley, B. (2008), “Significant learning, significant advising”, NACADA Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 19-28.
Knouse, S.B., Tanner, J.R. and Harris, E.W. (1999), “The relation of college internships, college
performance, and subsequent job opportunity”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 36,
pp. 35-43.
Kuh, G. (2001), “Organizational culture and student persistence: prospects and puzzles”, Journal
of College Student Retention, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 23-9.
Kuh, G.J., Kinzie, J.H., Schuh, J.H. and Whitt, E.J. (2005), Student Success in College: Creating
Conditions that Matter, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Light, R. (2001), Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
 QAE Lohfink, M.M. and Paulsen, M.B. (2005), “Comparing the determinants of persistence for
first-generation and continuing generation-students”, Journal of College Student
21,1 Development, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 409-28.
Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S.B. and Noeth, R.J. (2004), “The role of academic and non-academic
factors in improving college retention”, ACT Policy Report, available at: www.act.org/
research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf (accessed 28 September 2008).
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

18 McKay, V.C. and Estrella, J. (2008), “First-generation student success: the role of faculty
interaction in service-learning courses”, Communication Education, Vol. 57 No. 3,
pp. 356-72.
National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) (2004), “NACADA statement of core
values of academic advising”, available at: www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/
AdvisingIssues/Core-Values.htm (accessed 28 September 2008).
National Bureau of Labor Statistics (NBLS) (2011), “Employment experiences of youths: results
from a longitudinal survey news release”, available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/nlsyth.
htm (accessed 24 February 2011).
Nutt, C.L. (2003), “Academic advising and student retention and persistence”, available at: www.
nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/retention.htm (accessed 20 January 2011).
Patton, L.D., Morelon, C., Whitehead, D.M. and Hossler, D. (2006), “Campus-based retention
initiatives: does the emperor have clothes?”, New Directions for Institutional Research,
Vol. 103, pp. 9-24.
Propp, K.M. and Rhodes, S.C. (2006), “Informing, apprising, guiding, and mentoring: Constructs
underlying upperclassmen expectations for advising”, NACADA Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 46-55.
Shelton, E.N. (2003), “Faculty support and student retention”, Journal of Nursing Education,
Vol. 42, pp. 68-76.
Tinto, V. (1975), “Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research”,
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 45, pp. 89-125.
Tinto, V. (2007), “Research and practice of student retention: what next?”, Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, Vol. 8, pp. 1-19.
Voller, J.G., Miller, M.A. and Neste, S.L. (Eds) (2010), Comprehensive Advisor Training and
Development: Practices that Deliver, NACADA Monograph Series, NACADA, Manhattan,
KS, p. 21.
Warburton, E.C., Bugarin, R. and Nunez, A. (2001), Bridging the Gap: Academic Preparation and
Postsecondary Success of First-generation Students, NCES Statistical Analysis Report
2001-153, US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Yorio, P.L. and Ye, F. (2012), “A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social,
personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning”, Academy of Management Learning
& Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-27.

Further reading
Abelman, R. and Molina, A.D. (2006), “Institutional vision and academic advising”, NACADA
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 5-12.
Braxton, J.M. and McClendon, S.A. (2002), “The fostering of student integration and retention
through institutional practice”, Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory
& Practice, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Education Commission of the States (2004), “Completion”, available at: www.ecs.org/html/issue.
asp?issueid¼182&subissueID¼0 (accessed 28 Retrieved September 2008).
 Landry, C.C. (2002), “Retention of women and people of color: unique challenges and institutional Academic
responses”, Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 1-13. advising
National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) (2008), “Research agenda”, available at:
www.nacada.ksu.edu/clearinghouse/research_related/researchagenda.htm (accepted
2 October 2008).
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

19
About the authors
Adena D. Young-Jones is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Missouri State University in
Springfield, Missouri. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and Political Science, a
Master of Science degree in Educational Psychology, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in
Educational Psychology. Her primary areas of academic interest include academic motivation,
achievement, and success of students. Adena D. Young-Jones is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: ayoung@missouristate.edu
Tracie D. Burt is an Instructor of Psychology at Missouri State University and a doctoral
candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of
Missouri-Columbia. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and Sociology and a
Master’s degree in Clinical Psychology. Her 13-year career in higher education has included
college instruction, academic advising, and research related to student development and success.
Stephanie Dixon holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology and a Master of Science
degree in Clinical Psychology. She currently teaches for Missouri State University. She also
works as a counselor for a state agency that assists people with disabilities in obtaining
employment. Her research interests include factors that impact juror decisions and forensic
issues in child sexual abuse.
Melissa J. Hawthorne is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology, Counseling,
and Special Education at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Hawthorne, who holds Master’s
degrees in both Applied Psychology and Counseling from Texas A&M University-Commerce,
and has research interests in student retention and success.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jeffrey Louis Pellegrino, Charity Snyder, Nikki Crutchfield, Cesquinn M. Curtis, Eboni Pringle. 2015.
Leveraging institutional knowledge for student success: promoting academic advisors. Perspectives: Policy
and Practice in Higher Education 1-7. [CrossRef]
2. Phoebe Wong, Peggy M. L. Ng, Connie K. Y. Mak, Jason K. Y. Chan. 2015. Students’ choice of sub-
degree programmes in self-financing higher education institutions in Hong Kong. Higher Education .
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:18 30 September 2015 (PT)

[CrossRef]
3. Abdallah Mohamed. 2015. A Decision Support Model for Long-Term Course Planning. Decision Support
Systems . [CrossRef]
4. Cathleen L. Smith, Janine M. Allen. 2014. Does Contact With Advisors Predict Judgments and Attitudes
Consistent With Student Success? A Multi-institutional Study. NACADA Journal 34, 50-63. [CrossRef]
5. Kevin W. Walker, Michael Pearce. 2014. Student Engagement in One-Shot Library Instruction. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship 40, 281-290. [CrossRef]
6. Sanjai K. Parahoo, Heather L. Harvey, Rana M. Tamim. 2013. Factors influencing student satisfaction in
universities in the Gulf region: does gender of students matter?. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
23, 135-154. [CrossRef]