This document discusses the collaborative design of a tailored advising program at Collin College. It provides context about the college, outlines the advising pilot program which took a prescriptive and developmental approach, and describes the TIDE design model used. Preliminary observations from 340 students in the program are shared, noting trends in registration, attendance, placement scores, and personal characteristics. The document concludes by discussing future program development, including expanding evaluation, streamlining the program, identifying students in need of advising based on tests and profiles, and determining advising forms based on personal profiles and non-cognitive factors.

1. Collaborative Design of a Tailored
Advising Program
Cynthia Shields
Don Weasenforth
Collin College
May 16, 2012
4th Biennial UNT Advising Conference

2. Collin College Context
• 3 main campuses
• 50,000 students
• 16/17 FT professional advisors in district
• DE: centralized unit, 5 departments, 53 FT
faculty, 4 staff with district-wide
responsibilities

3. Advising Pilot
• Designs: prescriptive/developmental; faculty,
professional advisors, technologies (cf.,
Heisserer & Parette 2002)
• Faculty advisers (Frost 1991, Heisserer &
Parette 2002, King & Kerr 2005, McArthur
2005)
– Importance of role, training & rewards
• Student needs (Frost 1991, Smith 2007)
– Confidence, “belonging,” motivation &
commitment

4. TIDE Design
• Boylan (2009): Targeted Interventions for
Developmental Education Students
– Take inventory of campus/community resources
– Develop student profiles
– Assess individual students
– Advise using assessment
– Deliver targeted interventions
– Monitor students
– Revise interventions as needed

5. Current Plan: General Parameters

7. Preliminary Observations
• 340 placed in advising program
• 238 (70%) registered for advising sessions
• 33 (14%) no-shows
• 205 (60%, 86%) attended advising sessions
• Majority placed in lower levels
• Trend toward lower scores
• Problems: incomplete applications (meningitis,
residency; payment; reassessment; writing placement)
• Personal characteristics: # hours employed, financial
aid, family responsibilities, native language

8. Future Program Development
• Evaluation
• Expanding/streamlining program
– Individual advising for continuing students
– Identifying students in need of advising
• TSI completion
• Cognitive diagnostic tests
• Non-cognitive diagnostic tests
– Determining forms of advising based on personal
profiles (Boylan 2009)

9. Future Program Development
• Non-cognitive factors (Bloom 1976, Long
2008, McCabe 2003, Sedlacek 2004)
– 25% of performance (Bloom 1976)
– Compensatory relationship (Sedlacek 2004)
– Affective variables: attitude toward learning,
motivation, autonomy, willingness to spend time
on academic tasks
– Personal characteristics: # hours employed,
financial aid, family responsibilities, native
language