Running head: INTRUSIVE ADVISING AND PROBATIONARY STUDENTS

Intrusive Advising and Probationary Students: A Review of the Literature Sophie J. Boyer Seattle University

INTRUSIVE ADVISING AND PROBATIONARY STUDENTS Introduction

The shift from prescriptive to intrusive advising for college students is not an easy task, but one that must be thoughtfully planned and holistically implemented. Many students do not seek out advising services on college campuses, or simply see their advisors to register for their next set of classes. Intrusive advising implements a more direct and intentional reach out to students. Students currently on probation or at risk of probation require even more support and attention from academic advisors. Intrusive advising provides an avenue for increasing student success. This paper will review both research and practitioner articles that evaluated the effects of intrusive advising on probationary students. Three key themes emerged from this literature: the inclusion of nonacademic factors in intrusive advising, the creation of an advisor-advisee relationship, and the positive impact of intrusive advising on academic success. Nonacademic Factors Intrusive advising emphasizes the need for advisors to delve into topics and conversations with students that encompass more than simple registration and scheduling concerns. The development of forum sessions at Michigan State University stressed the importance of incorporating both personal and professional goals and interests prior to discussing the fine details of scheduling (Austin, Cherney, Crowner, & Hill, 1997). During these forum sessions facilitated by advisors, students created both long and short-term goals for success. Similarly, Fowler and Boylan (2010) discussed goal setting as an essential factor in effective intrusive advising scenarios. In addition to integrating goals into intrusive advising, Wlazelek and Coulter (1999) conducted a study that utilized the counseling center on a college campus to provide academic counseling for struggling students. With the theoretical and practical knowledge of counseling

INTRUSIVE ADVISING AND PROBATIONARY STUDENTS

skills, the student academic counseling was approached more holistically by explor[ing] the possible causes for the students low grades, including issues such as adjustment to the university, study habits, career plans, motivation, financial status, personal problems, and family concerns (Wlazelek & Coulter, 1999, p. 36). Additionally, counselors were able to refer students to additional services or counseling as needed. An important caveat of incorporating nonacademic factors into intrusive advising is ensuring that the students are able to identify and manage those issues that may be affecting their academic work. In Molina and Abelmans study (2000), they discussed four types of factors that may contribute to a students probationary status: internal-uncontrollable factors, internalcontrollable factors, external-stable factors, and external-unstable factors. In the course of their research, it was discovered that those students who participated in the highest level of intrusive advising were better able to identify the controllable factors that were contributing to their academic struggles. Advisor-Advisee Relationship Integrating nonacademic factors into intrusive advising leads to the second theme: creating a positive advisor-advisee relationship. Much of the literature shows that a positive relationship and integration with the campus through faculty and staff involvement lead to positive academic success (Earl, 1988; Fowler & Boylan, 2010; McGrath & Burd, 2012). The first part of Earls (1988) theoretical model of intrusive advising is, academic and social integration are the keys to freshmen persistence in college (p. 29). His model continues with the utilization of intrusive advising to teach the necessary skills of integration on campus. McGrath and Burds (2012) and Fowler and Boylans (2010) success courses provide data and research to support these claims. Both the success course and Pathways to Success program

INTRUSIVE ADVISING AND PROBATIONARY STUDENTS

(PWAY) intentionally incorporated aspects that provided probationary students opportunities to interact with campus faculty, staff, and resources. In both courses, intrusive advising was an influential and ingrained component. In addition to creating a strong advisor-advisee relationship that extends beyond the scope of prescriptive advising, other literature also accentuates the importance of specific, intentional reaching out to students. In Kirk-Kuwaye and Nishidas (2001) study, the probationary students in the higher intervention groups showed more academic success than the lower intervention groups. Included in the higher intervention groups were both reminder phone calls from advisors and study strategy assignments (Kirk-Kuwaye & Nishida, 2001). Garing (1993) provides more detail on how to move the theory of intrusive advising into an effective practice, especially for a community college environment. In her model, advisors reach out to students at specific times during their academic career; this serves as a catalyst for building personalized student-advisor relationships (Garing, 1993, p. 97). The intrusive advising strategies begin at the admissions and assessment stages as they provide students with information about how their advisors can support student academic success. Garings (1993) model then moves into the more typical registration and orientation pieces, but includes the development of both professional and personal career goals. Once enrolled and attending classes, advisors continue to intentionally reach out to their advisees at three weeks, six weeks or midterm, preregistration, and between semesters (Garing, 1993). This practitioner-based approach, with its persistent and continued contact between advisor and advisee, creates a relationship and open door access for students to seek assistance and support throughout their educational careers.

INTRUSIVE ADVISING AND PROBATIONARY STUDENTS Positive Impact on Academic Success

Much of the literature reviewed also discussed the impact of intrusive advising with probationary students on their academic success, mainly retention and grade point average (Abelman & Molina, 2001; Kirk-Kuwaye & Nishida, 2001; McGrath & Burd, 2012; Molina & Abelman, 2000; Vander Schee, 2007; Wlazelek & Coulter, 1999). Molina and Abelman (2000) concluded that students in the higher intervention intrusive advising groups had a higher rate of retention. This conclusion was supported in the follow-up study conducted a year later (Abelman & Molina, 2001). McGrath and Burd (2012) also researched rates of persistence and retention in connection with the creation and implementation of a success course for freshmen on academic probation. The results looked at persistence to the second, third, and fourth years for students who participated in the intervention versus those who did not second year: 60% of students versus 22%, third year: 47% of students versus 9%, and fourth year: 40% of students versus 6% respectively (McGrath & Burd, 2012, p. 48). Grade point average (GPA) was also positively affected by the use of intrusive advising (Abelman & Molina, 2001; Kirk-Kuwaye & Nishida, 2001; Molina & Abelman, 2000; Vander Schee, 2007; Wlazelek & Coulter, 1999). Similar to their results on retention, Abelman and Molina (2001) showed an increased GPA over time for the students who had participated in the higher intervention group. In Vander Schees (2007) study, insight-oriented intrusive advising was employed in hopes of helping students learn and understand the connections between their actions and their academic success. Students who attended three or more advising sessions saw an increase in their GPA compared to those who did not attend any, leading to the conclusion that intrusive advising does in fact impact academic achievement in terms of GPA (Vander Schee, 2007). It was also noted, students need to attend at least three meetings before an

INTRUSIVE ADVISING AND PROBATIONARY STUDENTS

appreciable difference in GPA was noted (Vander Schee, 2007, p. 55) indicating the importance of continuous contact. Conclusion The research and literature in this review demonstrates the positive impact intrusive advising has on probationary students in the college setting. Including nonacademic factors, creating relationships between the advisor and advisee, and increasing both GPA and retention rates are highlights of this type of advising methodology over the standard prescriptive models. All students, but especially probationary students, greatly benefit from a more holistic approach to advising that incorporates goal setting and intentional connection building with the larger campus community. However, there are gaps in the literature and definite areas of further research. Most of the research and models developed are geared towards four-year institutions. With community colleges beginning to incorporate intrusive advising, it is paramount to begin collecting empirical data and student reactions and responses. Models of intrusive advising may need to be altered to fit effectively into a community college environment; this creates an extensive area of further research. Additionally, the majority of the studies did not comment on how different identities could contribute to the effectiveness and utilization of intrusive advising. Race, ethnicity, religion, sexual identity, physical and mental disabilities can all potentially play a role in struggling academically while in college. Advisors employing intrusive methods need to be cognizant of these identities in order to truly approach and work with a student effectively. Researchers, now with a foundation of data and knowledge on intrusive advising, can delve more deeply into specific areas within the larger topic.

INTRUSIVE ADVISING AND PROBATIONARY STUDENTS References

Abelman, R., & Molina, A. (2001). Style over substance revisited: A longitudinal analysis of intrusive intervention. NACADA Journal, 21(1/2), 32-39. Austin, M., Cherney, E., Crowner, J., & Hill, A. (1997). The forum: Intrusive group advising for the probationary student. NACADA Journal, 17(2), 45-47. Earl, W. R. (1988). Intrusive advising of freshmen in academic difficulty. NACADA Journal, 8(2), 27-33. Fowler, P. R., & Boylan, H. R. (2010). Increasing student success and retention: A multidimensional approach. Journal Of Developmental Education, 34(2), 2-10. Garing, M. T. (1993). Intrusive academic advising. New Directions for Community Colleges, 82, 97-104. Kirk-Kuwaye, M., & Nishida, D. (2001). Effect of low and high advisor involvement on the academic performances of probation students. NACADA Journal, 21(1/2), 40-45. McGrath, S. M., & Burd, G. D. (2012). A success course for freshmen on academic probation: Persistence and graduation outcomes. NACADA Journal, 32(1), 43-52. Molina, A., & Abelman, R. (2000). Style over substance in interventions for at-risk students: The impact of intrusiveness. NACADA Journal, 20(2), 5-15. Vander Schee, B. A. (2007). Adding insight to intrusive advising and its effectiveness with students on probation. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 50-59. Wlazelek, B. G., & Coulter, L. P. (1999). The role of counseling services for students in academic jeopardy: A preliminary study. Journal Of College Counseling, 2(1), 33.