This summary outlines a study to improve advising services for a growing iSchool program. The study will interview advisors and students to understand their advising perspectives and needs. It will observe advising sessions to analyze the current workflow. Interpretation sessions and an affinity diagram will identify pain points and expectations. Experience models will be created to solidify understanding of advisors and students. The goal is to analyze the current workflow and propose solutions, like a revised workflow graphical or journey map, to better support both parties. Advisors and student subgroups will be interviewed to capture diverse needs and perspectives. Major milestones include creating interview guides in October, conducting interviews and interpretations, finalizing models in November, and proposing changes in December.

1. Advising Study Design Draft Team 7
Research Project Statement
What's the project about? What are the research questions?
With the number of iSchool students increasing each year, there is a challenge for
advisors to provide adequate attention and advising to all students. Currently, iSchool
advisors must provide advising to students in the InfoSci program, but there will be two
more programs added within the next year. This means advisors can easily be
overloaded, and that students do not receive advising that is as specialized as it could
be. In this project, our team will study the engagement levels of advising service from
the perspective of both advisors and students and see how it can be improved. In
particular, we will study:
From advisor’s perspective:
● What factors positively and negatively impact the advising process?
● How do these factors affect the ability of advisors to provide optimum service?
● What is the impact of the different work environments (office/virtual) and
practices on advising services?
● What advising methods, tools, expertise affect the advisor’s ability to provide an
effective service?
From student’s perspective:
● What are the advising needs of students in the InfoSci program? all three
iSchool majors?
● What are the multiple perspectives on advising services across all three iSchool
majors?
● What are the methods, tools and outside resources that the students use to meet
their advising needs?
● How do these needs and perspectives align and/or compete with the advisor’s
perspective on advising?
Background
What is the relevant context?
The InfoSci program began in the Fall of 2016 as the first undergraduate program in the
iSchool starting with a few hundred students. Since the first graduating cohort in 2018,
the number of students enrolled in the program has increased dramatically coming from
a few hundred to now about 1,400 students, making it the 4th largest major at the
University of Maryland. Starting Fall 2022, the iSchool will be adding two other

2. Advising Study Design Draft Team 7
undergraduate majors, potentially expanding the size of the program even further. Each
class of students is often made up of a few direct admissions students with the majority
transferring from other programs, namely Computer Science.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, the iSchool advising office has started using a hybrid
model to provide advising to students. The hybrid model consisted of in-person
advising, tele-advising, and modules to guide students through their majors or changing
majors. Majority of the students have opted for tele-advising, but there is a rift with
advisors who prefer in-person advising.
Clarification questions for Ron/Tammy:
● What is the role of the advisor?
● How is it different from the role of a recruiter?
● What’s the current workflow of how students get advising?
● Prospective students (including transfers) vs. declared students?
● Most frequently asked questions during advising?
● Does advising include recruitment into the major? Or are we most concerned
with advising students already in the program?
● In what ways are the advisors “unable to keep up”?
○ Understaffed, technology limitation, scheduling problems, etc.
● What advising methods are being used? Are these not able to keep up with the
demand and why are they feeling so?
Methods & Outcomes
How will you study this? What will that yield?
To study the above research questions, we will be using contextual inquiry. This
involves both interviews and observations. If possible and compliant with FERPA, we
hope to observe some advising sessions to better our understanding of the current
advising workflow. For interviews, we would like to work with both advisors and students
so that we can hear direct thoughts about advising. We will then hold interpretation
sessions and create an affinity diagram to find patterns in the data collected. Using all of
this data, we wish to build the necessary experience models: Identity, Relationship,
Day-in-Life. We believe these models are particularly relevant because we are dealing
with two distinct, yet intertwined, user groups. Thus, we need to solidify a good
understanding of both identities, and their relationships with each other.
In our contextual inquiry, our goal is to capture expectations that both parties have in
advising. Specifically, we want to identify moments of frustration or confusion. What are

3. Advising Study Design Draft Team 7
the moments or interactions that hinder these parties from reaching their own goals?
Once identified, we can start redesigning advising for a better experience. In our
observations, we want to study how students currently seek out assistance, and if this
aligns with how advisors expect students to use advising.
The outcome of this study is expected to be an analysis of the current workflow and
solutions for creating a better workflow in the advising department of iSchool. Our
revised workflow would support the perspective of both students and advisors. It would
likely be a graphical visualization of practices, services, and tools that can improve
advising for both students and advisors. We also aim to develop a journey map or an
experience map to understand the current workflow and potentially suggest
improvements as a deliverable. This deliverable can be used by the advising team to
implement the suggestions efficiently.
Target User
What are the relevant characteristics of your users?
We have two main demographics to investigate in our study design: advisors and
students. Within these two parties, we have outlined subgroups that will help us identify
which pain points are most prominent, and if these pain points are unique to particular
groups.
Within advisors, we would like to interview current and former advisors. In interviewing
current advisors, we will gain insight into what the typical advising workflow is from the
administrative side, as well as what issues need to be immediately addressed. We
would also like to talk to former advisors if possible, because this will provide
perspective from someone who is no longer directly involved in the process. This may
offer more varied perspectives, as they are not limited by their affiliation with the school.
They may also be able to offer specific reasons as to why they left.
Within students, we would like to interview student ambassadors, students who have
changed their majors, and direct admission students. With student ambassadors,
we hope to hear from someone who works closely alongside students seeking help.
They offer a unique perspective being both a fellow peer and a guide for students. The
other types of students we would like to interview all vary in how they entered the
iSchool. This may reveal certain needs that one type of student may need, or show that
certain needs are ubiquitous regardless of student background.

4. Advising Study Design Draft Team 7
Timeline
What are the major milestones? Low-level details between these?
● October:
○ Create an interview guide
■ Grand tour question
■ Know what specific pieces of information we will need
○ Interview(s) with advisors (2)
○ Interpretation session A1/A2
○ Interview(s) with students (1 SA, 1-2 CM, 0-1 DA, 1 NS)
○ Interpretation session for these interviews
● Early November:
○ Finalizing Affinity diagram
● Late November:
○ Building experience models
● December:
○ Final proposal with proposed changes?