A Faculty Guide to Advising and Supervising Graduate Students

Darla J. Twale

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317624967
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This practical guide provides college and university faculty with resources for supervising and advising graduate assistants, guiding doctoral students through the dissertation process, and preparing the next generation of scholars. Exploring common situations that faculty and their graduate students encounter, this book provides the theoretical foundation and best practices for faculty to improve their advising and supervising practices.

Coverage Includes:

• 
  
  

• Working with part-time, online, doctoral, and masters students

• 
  
  

• Supervising assistantships, fellowships, internships, practicums, and residencies

• 
  
  

• Chairing dissertations and theses

• 
  
  

• Preparing students for conferences and presentations

Chapter 1

---

Retaining Graduate Students

The Critical Role of Faculty Advising

Historically, graduate education began with little organization or clear guidelines causing 1920s graduate student drop-out rates to be high. Competitive universities established processes to ensure quality graduate student entrants as early as the 1940s and also addressed the need for quality faculty to mentor them (Geiger, 2007). However, Robert Hutchins argued that quality faculty presence does not guarantee that quality students emerge “educated or advised well in the process” (Hofstadter & Smith, 1961, p. 933). Hutchins explained that professors “are bringing up their successors in the way they were brought up, so that the next crop will have the habits they have had themselves” (Hofstadter & Smith, 1961, p. 939). Some of those habits will be exemplary. Unfortunately, other habits may contribute to persistently high graduate student attrition rates (Main, 2014).

The attrition rate among doctoral students continues to be high in the 21st century (Smith, Maroney, Nelson, Abel, & Abel, 2006). Retention rates for those studying for academic and professional doctoral degrees struggle to surpass 50% (Ampaw & Jaeger, 2012; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Nettles & Millett, 2006). Bowen and Rudenstine also noted the length of time to degree completion has lengthened. Proportionately, smaller PhD programs graduate more students than the larger programs, because often in larger programs, students may not benefit from individual faculty attention as is typical of the smaller programs.

Lovitts (2001) found that among the top academic reasons for student departure is student dissatisfaction with the academic programs, the faculty in general, and their advisor in particular (see also Adams, 1986, 1993). Not all students acquire the guidance they need from faculty supervisors (Perna & Hudgins, 1996). Ampaw and Jaeger (2012) noted that part-time students have less frequent access to faculty. Teaching assistantships often provided that interface with faculty that students needed, but ironically, it did not guarantee speedy graduations (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Nettles & Millett, 2006). To complicate matters further, persistence and retention statistics fluctuate when considering gender, race, discipline/field, and citizenship (Ampaw & Jaeger, 2012 ; Nettles & Millett, 2006).

Retention makes reference to institutional efforts to decrease disengagement and departure rates of enrolled students. Research on institutional retention efforts over the last several decades abounds but it offers multiple reasons and conflicting results as to why master’s and especially doctoral students fail to complete their degrees in a timely fashion. Institutional efforts to increase retention abound also, and vary from graduate program to graduate program. Some retention efforts work well while other efforts produce few positive results over time.

Persistence refers to students’ decisions to continue to enroll beyond their matriculating semester. Persistence and non-persistence varies as the diversity among the student population increases. Looking at either side of the retention/persistence coin raises myriad issues as to why students decide to stop or drop out of their programs and what universities in general and individual programs and their faculty in particular do or neglect to do to maintain or increase student enrollment.

RETENTION IN ONLINE PROGRAMS

Changes in traditional instructional delivery to include online learning in blended, synchronous, or asynchronous formats add more variables to the retention/ persistence puzzle. Increases in online enrollments resulted in equally high departure rates in these programs (Poellhuber, Roy, & Anderson, 2011). Additional issues may exist at competitive for-profit institutions versus traditional not-for-profit universities. Carroll, Ng, and Birch (2013) noted situational, organizational, and dispositional factors for non-persistence, particularly, the lack of campus-wide student support systems.

While student departure rates in online programs tend to exceed that of traditional programs, reasons fueling departure tend to be similar to traditional programs with the obvious addition of student isolation from regular human contact (Meyer, Bruwelheide, & Poulin, 2009). Meyer et al (2009) explained the unusually high student persistence rate in their online library media certificate program could be attributed to quick response time from faculty beginning at the recruitment phase and continuing throughout the program. Students attributed persistence to very timely response rates from faculty and their informal contact with their peers. The researchers concluded that “the nature of relationships with faculty, the quality of the educational experience, and [students’] own personal and individual reasons and motivations [kept] them enrolled” (Meyer et al, 2009, p. 136). Furthermore, students appreciated faculty authenticity in their communications. Students recognized the significance of the care and concern faculty had for their well-being (see also Lovitts, 1996, 2001; Lovitts & Nelson, 2000).

EFFECT OF THE FACULTY ADVISOR ON STUDENT PERSISTENCE

Myriad reasons explain student non-persistence. Ineffective institutional retention programs and student services fail to combat attrition. However, there may be one area that affects graduate student persistence more than any other and that is students’ relationship with the faculty in their program. One common denominator among master’s and doctoral students is their interaction with faculty in general, and their assigned or self-selected faculty advisor in particular. The faculty teaching in classrooms or online may serve as worthy role models to students, but the advising role extends beyond that. For instance, when students pursue application to a graduate program, they come into contact with faculty perhaps on the phone or via email prior to admission, and especially in person, if an interview is requested or required. Furthermore, a student’s plan of study can only be done in conjunction with a faculty advisor. Assistantships and other apprenticeships require faculty supervision and guidance. Comprehensive examinations, written or oral, necessitate faculty input. Thesis and dissertation chairs and committee members come from among the faculty and guide the student’s progress. Final defenses require these faculty members to sign off before the student can graduate.

Therefore, the importance of the faculty advisor in a student’s graduate career cannot be underestimated. Herzig (2004) found that supportive advisors contribute to student persistence. Varying levels of support for students particularly female and minority students hindered their progress, especially when there were few female faculty members in the program. As a result, Herzig found guidance and advising to be inadequate and/or inconsistent.

For the purposes of this book, I assume that the most significant ingredient in the student’s program is the faculty members who serve in these roles. Given that faculty advisors stand as gatekeepers to a student’s future career in their profession, faculty skills and abilities, dedication and commitment to quality, and interface with the student can affect the eventual outcome (Herzig, 2004; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). Because the graduate experience tends to be more individualistic than the undergraduate experience, graduate faculty advisors while maintaining a certain style or level of quality may interact with each of their students in slightly different ways and their style may evolve over time. Meeting student needs and supervising research interests will vary by student. Therefore, graduate advising/supervising has not been a one-size-fits-all, quantifiable proposition, thus rendering it difficult to study and understand. Furthermore, supervising graduate assistants requires a different approach than student advising or overseeing thesis/dissertation research. Multiple faculty advising and supervising skill sets will be needed.

Richardson, Becker, Frank, and Sokol (1997) attributed student departure to neglect, mistreatment, or unwillingness of faculty to assist students. Damrosch (1995) attributed departure to either poor students unable to thrive or good students dissatisfied with their program. Lovitts (1996) regarded attrition as a necessary gatekeeping function. While these studies explain in part why the attrition still hovers at 50% among doctoral programs, some students with less effective advisors finish in spite of poor advising and some students assigned to good advisors drop out nonetheless. Graduate education may suffer as a result of a structure that favors a close relationship with only one or two faculty scholars. In the absence of more definitive data on specific advisors, the effects of various retention efforts on student persistence cannot be fully explicated (Lovitts, 1996). This explains further why the role of faculty advisor remains clouded and complicated.

ADVISING AND ATTRITION

Golde (1994) noticed a negative, though common, albeit political graduate practice: “vigorously sorting out students once they have begun their doctoral studies” (p. 21). As such, this may result in the better students getting the seasoned, more accomplished faculty advisors and the other students assigned to newer faculty or less effective advisors placing some students at a decided disadvantage.

Attrition usually follows a student’s inability to connect socially and academically to their program. In Golde’s (2000) study of doctoral students, she examined each student’s integration into their program and their candid departure from it. Despite some degree of a collegial relationship, problems with the advisor at some point colored the relationships with the advisee. Inability to recover and find a better fit devastated these students. Disagreements with dissertation topic choices, lack of communication, direction, and support from an advisor, lack of intervention or support from department faculty or administrators signaled student need to reassess continuation in the program. Without a strong department connection, especially with the faculty advisor, the student seemed more likely to disconnect for what he/she would consider greener pastures.

Lovitts’ (2001) students recounted bad experiences with faculty. They chronicled instances of misinformation, counterproductive advice, and poor TA experiences. Students noted, however, that assigned advisors were more detrimental than the self-selection of advisors, particularly when students based it on similar faculty and student research interests. Continued contact with the advisors after self-identification led to a greater chance of program completion.

Furthermore, those advisors who expressed interest in and gave of their time, students regarded as better advisors. Providing students with intellectual support, offering genuine interest in their research topic, and directing an original piece of scholarly work aligned with each other’s mutual interests contributed to subsequent degree completion. In addition, to be involved with faculty outside the classroom in a professional, scholarly collaboration also portends student success in their program and enhances student professionalization (Lovitts, 2001; see also Cahn, 1994). Nyquist (2002) acknowledged that inconsistent and inappropriate supervision within the PhD program affected retention.

Smart (1987) concluded that “faculty encouragement and support to the personal and professional growth of graduate students” (p. 221) were necessary. Golde (2005) revealed that peer isolation and lack of faculty support hastened student departure. Pearson, Cowan, and Liston (2009) indicated that faculty advising remains out of touch with reality. While faculty strives to professionalize their advisees in the discipline/field, they may be overlooking the need to apprise students of the demands of the field into which they will soon enter. Faculty should encourage students to undertake cutting-edge research and make a scholarly contribution to their field/discipline not simply reinvent the wheel. Pearson et al (2009) found that faculty who allowed advisees to carry out a research project of minor significance left their programs unfulfilled.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL RETENTION STRATEGIES

Departing students often fail to air their concerns to their faculty advisor or the department chair before they leave. Even with better administrative criteria and screening, Lovitts (1996) hypothesized that departure could also result from institutional reasons even though university administrations tend to attribute departure to student maladaptation, financial issues, and academic concerns. Juniper, Walsh, Richardson, and Morley (2012) concluded that underlying conflicts with one’s advisor/supervisor masked other critical problems. Consequently, administrators failed to explore if issues related to faculty advising/supervising might actually be why students depart. It would not be out of the question for attrition victims to ascribe their departure decision to personal reasons. Unfortunately, those reasons might indirectly result from institutionally rooted issues that never seek remedy.

Self-blame typical of attribution theory often prevents students from considering other factors or from expressing concerns to their faculty advisors or supervisors before departing (Lovitts, 2001). Golde (1994) concluded that students avoid verbalizing their problems with faculty advisors and academic administrators and choose instead to depart silently. Golde’s (2000) study participants failed to truthfully disclose their reasons for leaving.

Failure to balance the academic and social aspects of doctoral study, integrate into the department’s academic community, and internalize the normative standards of the profession often hastens student dissatisfaction that could lead to departure (Golde, 2000; Lovitts, 2001). To ensure success at navigating the social and academic aspects of their program, graduate students need multiple navigation maps: one of the local departmental terrain, one of the larger professional landscape, and one outlining the role of the faculty advisor/supervisor.

ADVISING AS A RETENTION STRATEGY

Graduate schools prepare students formally for important roles they will face in their careers. Unfortunately, advising future graduate students is not one of them. Unfortunately graduate students preparing for the academic role in particular receive formal information on researching, somewhat less information on teaching, and little or no formal information on advising students (Austin, 2002). As a result, institutions can expect both good and ineffective information on advising to be transmitted.

Effective faculty advising/supervising...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1 Retaining Graduate Students: The Critical Role of Faculty Advising
• 2 Finding the Perfect Fit: Recruiting and Admitting Graduate Students
• 3 Laying the Foundation: Forming Strong Faculty/Student Relationships
• 4 Working Together: Faculty Advisor and Graduate Advisee
• 5 Accounting for Differences: Advising Diverse Groups
• 6 Supervising the Future: Assistantships, Clinicals, Internships, and Practicums
• 7 Conquering the Academic Wild West: Advising Virtually Using Social Media
• 8 Chaperoning the Dance: Chairing Thesis and Dissertation Research
• 9 Preparing to Launch: Advising the Professional Rites of Passage
• 10 Summarizing Best Practices
• Index