an interdisciplinary approach to advising student veterans

Running head: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Advising Student Veterans

Coby W. Dillard

Norfolk State University

April 21, 2015

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Abstract

The history of veteran’s education benefits, as well as the history of the academic advising profession, were introduced to initiate the practice of advising as an interdisciplinary endeavor. Chickering’s vectors of development and Holland’s RIASEC model were discussed to establish a foundation for discussion of three approaches to advising; appreciative, developmental, and prescriptive. A new approach specific to advising practice for student veterans is built on that foundation, with implications for practice and research discussed.

Keywords: academic advising, student veterans, advising approaches


Part One:

Introduction

Since FY-2002, the number of student veterans using educational benefits from the

Department of Veterans Affairs has grown from approximately 400,000 to approximately

945,052 in FY 2012 (Kirkwood, 2014). This surge in student veteran enrollment has placed

many college administrators and student services personnel at a disadvantage; they are unable to

properly determine how these student veterans, many of whom carry the scars and traumas of the

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be integrated into their campus communities and what that

integration should look like. Due to the large numbers of federal dollars spent on educating

veterans, the Veterans Administration (VA) is making a concerted effort to research and

determine best practices for guiding students from their service through graduation.

For the last five years, I have worked in different roles with student veterans at Tidewater

Community College, while simultaneously pursuing my own education goals. My experiences as

a student veteran, combined with those in my professional role as I grow as an academic advisor,

give me insight into the challenges faced by student veterans in higher education, as well as a

perspective on the lack of coordinated scholarly research and resources for professionals in

academic settings to aid in assisting student veterans.

This thesis, written for my Interdisciplinary Studies program at Norfolk State University,

examines how academic advising can be used to improve the outcomes of student veterans at the

nation’s colleges and universities. By examining the foundations of academic advising and

analyzing different approaches in its practice for their applicability, I will establish a framework

that academic advisors can use not only to help guide their student veterans on the path to


academic success and graduation, but that will also aid the student veteran in their transition to

civilian life after the military.

Overview

The research problem guiding this study is the lack of interdisciplinary knowledge

regarding effective approaches to advising student veterans at a college or university. With

increasing numbers of student veterans entering the nation’s colleges and universities, it is

critical that professionals in higher education understand the unique perspectives and experiences

they bring to the campus, and that appropriate models to address their academic success are

developed. Today’s student veterans are entering colleges with the stresses of a decade-plus of

military conflict, in addition to the stresses that come with transition and readjustment to life as a

civilian. It is critical that researchers and professionals not only have a model with which to work

with these student veterans, but that the ensuing model be able to serve as a transition tool itself,

moving the veteran from a structured military lifestyle into a developed ability to make decisions

for the direction of their personal lives. This study will initiate the field of academic advising as

an interdisciplinary endeavor, and analyze three common approaches to advising; appreciative,

developmental and prescriptive. From these approaches, a new interdisciplinary theoretical

approach will be created, and implications of that new approach for practice and research will be

discussed.

Part Two:

Review of the Literature

In this section, previous writings and studies on the history of the GI Bill and measures of

student veteran academic performance are discussed, as well as literature discussing the history

and foundation of the academic advising profession. These analyses are then combined to


establish a foundation for the discussion of academic advising’s applicability to the student

veteran.

History of the GI Bill and Measures of Student Veteran Academic Performance

In 1944, Congress passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act. This legislation, known

informally as the GI Bill, provided veterans with opportunities to speed their reintegration into

the civilian community after World War II. Among the benefits the bill provided were low

interest loans to encourage entrepreneurship, low cost mortgages, and unemployment

compensation. One of the most popular aspects of the GI Bill provided veterans the opportunity

to attend college, and have their tuition and expenses paid for by the federal government. Olson

(1973) estimated that under the original legislation, some 2.2 million veterans attended college,

at a cost of $5.5 billion dollars to the federal government.

Studies of the academic performance of these veterans show that they were considered, at

a minimum, on par with their fellow students. Olson (1973) cites a 1949 Fortune article lauding

the class of 1949 as “the best class the country has ever produced;” 70% of college students

graduating that year were veterans. Joanning (1975) conducted a study of Vietnam-era veterans

at the University of Iowa, finding their GPAs to be somewhat higher than non-veterans. Other

studies paint a different picture; Card (1983) found that Vietnam-era veterans did not obtain

bachelors and graduate degrees at the same rates as non-veterans.

In 2009, the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (the Post 9/11 GI Bill)

became effective. This new legislation, an update to the original GI Bill, provides student

veterans 36 months of full-time educational benefits, a book and supply stipend of $1,000 per


academic year, and a monthly housing allowance for veterans serving after September 11, 2001.

Eligible service members can also transfer unused benefits to their spouses or dependents

Because the Post 9/11 GI Bill has only existed since 2009, there is a lack of peer-

reviewed studies on the academic performance of its recipients; the few studies that do exist are

theses and dissertations by other students. Often these studies are conducted by Post 9/11 GI Bill

recipients furthering their education. Ryan Moehle, an Army veteran who served in Operation

Iraqi Freedom, submitted a thesis for his master’s program at Oklahoma State University in 2013

that examined the academic performance of post 9/11 veterans, finding that they were able to

perform “at an equal standard” as their non-veteran peers.

The seminal study on the academic performance of post 9/11 veterans is the Million

Records Project, written by Chris Cate for Student Veterans of America in 2014. This study

showed that a majority (51%) of the one million veterans sampled were able to earn a post-

secondary degree or certificate; the study also showed that almost 90% of the sampled veterans

earned associate degrees or higher, with many going on to progressively higher levels of

education (Cate, 2014).

The limited research on the academic performance of student veterans necessitates an

examination of how they are prepared to enter the world of higher education. Student veterans

who receive support in their academic pursuits have more than double the odds of being engaged

in their work during both their academic and professional careers, with many citing “a mentor

who encouraged me to pursue my goals and dreams” as one of their primary support systems

(Goldrich, 2014). At any college, one of the first supports a student can receive comes from their

initial meeting with their academic advisor.


History of Academic Advising as a Profession

The profession of academic advising has its roots in the earliest colleges in England,

where university presidents and faculty (who were often clergy members) acted in loco parentis

to ensure the moral and intellectual development of their students; vocational education was

assumed to naturally occur, as most students in these early universities were entering the clergy

(Cook, 2001 and Gillespie, 2003). As early American colleges like Harvard and the College of

William and Mary opened, students and faculty lived together, all aspects of the students’ lives

including their studies, living environments, and even their worship practices at the institution

and at home were supervised by their faculty (Frost, 2000).

The expansion of college across the United States in the 19th century provided the

foundation for academic counseling to begin its emergence as a profession (Gillespie, 2003).

While early faculty focused on discipline and instruction, by 1870, colleges began to separate the

functions of discipline and instruction; in 1876, the first system of faculty advisors responsible

for guiding students in their chosen vocations was established at Johns Hopkins University

(Cook, 2001). In 1889, Harvard created a “Board of Freshman Advisors” to advise entering

freshman (Cook, 2001). As colleges for women opened, and early colleges moved to

coeducational institutions, increasing numbers of matrons, lady assistants, and lady principals

appeared and moved into leadership roles (Cook, 2001).

At the beginning of the 20th century, the breadth and complexity of curricula at American

institutions of higher education, combined with a growing gap between students, faculty and

administrators necessitated a defined role for advisors and counselors who focused specifically

of academic guidance in their institutions curricula (Cook, 2001 and Frost, 2000). A focus on

self-direction of students, which gave faculty an additional role as “mentors” emerged in the


1920s (Gillespie, 2003). With the shift of faculty to a mentoring role, counselors received

training to complement faculty advising. After World War I, the first efforts by counselors to

measure the psychological and vocational needs of veterans were measured by college

counselors (Cook, 2001). In 1923, the University of Minnesota recommended the hiring of

advisors who were “completely willing to inform themselves in all matters pertaining to

complicated problems of educational and vocational advisement….;” specifically, the requirment

for the average faculty member to perform the duties of a counselor or advisor, while still

carrying a full teaching load, was viewed as unsustainable in the long run (Cook, 2001). By the

1930s, the term “student personnel work” began to appear in higher education practice, and

included educational guidance as well a psychological and vocational counseling; in 1937, the

American Council on Education published the Student Personnel Point of View, which

spotlighted individual interests and differences, as well as the idea of holistic learning (Cook,

2001 and Gillespie, 2003).

After World War II, an expansion in college enrollments, largely from veterans who were

now using the G.I. Bill, combined with the ever-expanding menu of college courses made the

establishment of a professional advising function and office no longer optional, as faculty were

no longer able to handle the increasing course loads while also attempting to advise students. In

1947, a committed charged by the president of Alfred University to “give visible form and

progressive depth” to the advising of freshmen and sophmores, recommended:

that Alfred establish a personnel office to orient freshmen to the history and

tradition of the university, to studey methods, and to general conduct, and that it

subscribe to the ‘faith and philosophy underlying general faculty advising (Frost,

2000).


Record numbers of students attending college during the 1960s, and a subsequent decline in

enrollments, combined with a higher attrition rate and student demand for improved advising

services initiated a serious demand for advising programs and scholarship (Cook, 2001). In 1972,

the theory of developmental advising emerged from the writings of Crookston and O’Banion1. In

1979, the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) was established; in 1981, the

first issue of the NACADA Journal was published. By 2000, NACADA had over 6,000 members.

Part Three:

Interdisciplinary Theory Construction

This section begins with a discussion of academic advising as an interdisciplinary

endeavor, examining its roots in psychology (psychosocial theory) and sociology (typology

theory). Next, the approaches to advising-appreciative, developmental, and prescriptive-are

discussed and analyzed for components that aid in the construction of a new theoretical

framework. Lastly, that framework is formed and discussed.

Academic Advising: An Interdisciplinary Endeavor

Academic advising involves engaging students to think critically about their academic

choices and make effective plans for their education (Schulenberg & Lindhorst, 2008). Creamer

(2000) defines academic advising as “an educational activity that depends on valid explanations

of complex student behaviors and institutional conditions to assist college students in making

and executing educational and life plans;” these explanations are found in theories that advisors

must pull from in performing their duties. While there are no direct theories of academic

advising (Creamer, 2000), it is heavily influenced by psychological and sociological theories.

1 Crookston’s works are discussed in greater detail in Part Three.


Some of the theories that provide a foundation for effective advising practice are student

development, cognitive development, career development, learning, decision-making,

multiculturalism, retention, personality, moral development, and adult development (Creamer,

2000). Academic advisors also need to have an understanding of identity-development theories

associated with race, class, gender, sexuality, and special populations (King, 2005). Two theory

clusters that are important to the practice of academic advising are psychosocial theories and

typological theories (Creamer, 2000).

Disciplinary Theory One: Pyschosocial Theory and Academic Advising

Background. In his work Education and Identity, Arthur Chickering described the use of

psychosocial theories in education as “a series of developmental tasks or stages, including

qualitative changes in thinking, feeling, behaving, valuing, and relating to others and oneself”

(Chickering, 1993). These theories examine the human experience of education through the

lenses of psychology and sociology. Chickering’s vector model examines seven directions that

an individual moves to during their educational experiences:

Figure 1. The Seven Vectors: General Developmental Directions

Vector From To

Developing Competence Low levels of intellectual, physical, and

interpersonal competence; lack of

competence in one’s abilities

High levels of competence in each area,

strong sense of competence

Managing Emotions Little control over disruptive emotions,

little awareness of feelings, inability to

integrate feelings with actions

Flexible control and appropriate

expression, increasing awareness and

acceptance of emotions, ability to

integrate feelings with responsible


action

Moving through Autonomy toward

Interdependence

Emotional dependence, poor self-

direction, independence

Freedom from continual and pressing

needs for reassurance, instrumental

independence, recognition and

acceptance of the importance of

interdependence

Developing Mature Interpersonal

Relationships

Lack of awareness/intolerance of

differences; unhealthy intimate

relationships

Tolerance and appreciation of

differences; capacity for enduring and

nurturing intimacy

Establishing Identity Lack of clarity about others’ evaluation;

dissastification with self; unstable,

fragmented personality

Sense of self in response to feedback

from valued others; self-acceptance and

self-esteem; personal stability and

integration with others

Developing Purpose Unclear vocational goals; shallow,

scattered personal interests; few

meaningful interpersonal commitments

Clear vocational goals; enjoyment of

more sustained, focused, rewarding

activities; strong interpersonal/family

commitments

Developing Integrity Unclear or untested personal values and

beliefs; self-interest; discrepancies

between actions and values

Humanizing values; personalizing

values while respecting others’ beliefs;

congruence and authenticity

Figure 1. Representation of Chickering’s Seven Vectors model. Adapted from Education and Identity by A.

Chickering

Explanation.

Vector one: developing competence.

Chickering’s competence vector focuses on the development of intellectual, physical, and

interpersonal competence in students, as well as the overarching sense of competence that

reflects public evaluation of an individual’s capabilities (Chickering, 1993). Intellectual

comptence entails mastering content, acquiring cultural interests, developing reasoning skills and


engagement in active learning, which physical competence is a measure of how athletics and arts

affect developmental abilities. Finally, interpersonal competence is the measure of such skills as

listening, asking questions, and participating in dialogues, while the sense of competence comes

from the self- and public evaluation of the worth of the student’s accomplisments, their success

in solving or coping with problems, and their steadfastness in maintaing the equilibrium of their

college experience.

Most student veterans enter higher education with high levels of physical competence,

due to the physical requirments of the service branches. They also may have high levels of

intellectual competence, especially among those who serve in more technical career fields

(intelligence, aviation, computer and engineering fields). Levels of interpersonal competence,

however, may be dimished; as the student veteran begins their transition back to the civilian

world, a reluctance to share their experiences develops. This reluctance robs both the student

veteran of the thearuptic experience of “telling his story,” and robs classmates of the benefits of

their perspective. Advisors must seek to build on the interpersonal deficit, leveraging the

strengths of the student veteran’s intellectual and physical abilities as supports for their

interpersonal growth. Advisors must also transition the sense of competence resulting from the

student veteran’s membership in their“team” of fellow service members to an equally strong

sense of competence in their individual abilities in himself and their new “team” of classmates.

Vector two: managing emotions.

Chickering writes that


Students come to colleges loaded with emotional baggage. In varying degrees,

they come with repressed anger, unhealed wounds, distorted ideas about sex,

festering self-doubts, old resentments, unmet needs (1993).

Student veterans come to colleges with most of the same baggage: the repressed anger of

seeing their fellow service members killed or wounded in combat, unhealed physical and mental

wounds, inflated senses of invincibility from surviving attacks that can present as inappropriate

uses of alcohol and drugs, survivor’s guilt, the trauma of broken homes and familial relationships

during a career containing multiple deployments. An Army veteran in DiRamio’s study of the

experiences of student veterans recounts his transition from service member to student veteran:

When I came home I worked for about a year in a construction job, going to

school at night because I was married. Eventually my wife left me for another

person, so I didn’t really have anything else left for me down there. And my

cousins go (to this university)…so I decided to go to school and leave that place

behind (DiRamio, 2008).

Chickering states that, in order to control these emotions, educators must help their

students increase their awareness of them, providing opportunities for them to share their stories,

and teaching them to accept their feelings as normal reactions to life’s experiences. As the

student begins to recognize the normalcy of their feelings, they move from unhealthy and

inappropriate releases of them to the ability to exercise flexible control over them, controlling

them to add depth to their expressions of self.

Vector three: moving through autonomy toward interdependence.

Chickering states that


...moving through autonomy toward interdependence involves three components:

(1) emotional independence-freedom from continual and pressing needs for

reassurance, affection or approval from others; (2) instrumental independence-the

ability to carry on activities and solve problems in a self-directed manner, and the

freedom and confidence to be mobile in order to pursue opportunity or adventure;

(3) interdependence-an awareness of one’s place in and commitment to the

welfare of the larger community (1993).

Student veterans generally arrive at the campus with high levels of emotional

independence, generally resorting to the military mantra of “motivating themselves” to get them

through various situations they face. A sense of disengagement from society emerges as the

service member transitions into their new role as a student veteran, generally shutting out those

who are not like them and seeking out those who are (other veterans and, occasionally, spouses

and dependents). This disengagement, however, does not allow the student veteran to develop

the sense of interdependence they will need as members of the larger campus community,

especially in roles where their status as veterans delineates them as a minority. For those student

veterans with physical and mental disabilities, their lack of instrumental independence is an ever-

present reminder of the results of their service.

Advisors must find ways to bridge the gaps between the student veteran’s emotional and

instrumental independence, and channel them into a sense of responsibility to their fellow

students and the larger society. Interdependence cannot be experienced until a sense of

independence-the ability to function outside of the military structure, while learning to live with

the new realities of physical and mental limitations-is achieved, and a sense of the student

veteran’s place in the campus, community, and global society is recognized.


Vector four: developing mature interpersonal relationships.

Student veterans develop interpersonal relationships with their fellow veterans and other

service members; the fraternity of service unites those who have and are currently serving. As

they transition, however, they are severed from the relationships they once had, and thrown into

an environment that views them as an “other,” and facilitates the recriprocation of that view from

the student veteran. Critical to this vector is the development of tolerance and appreciation of

differences and the capacity for intimacy (Chickering, 1993). Chickering’s vector describes

tolerance as “a willingness to suspend judgement, to refrain from condemnation, and to attempt

to understand an unfamilar or unsettling way of thinking or acting rather than to ignore, attack or

belittle it, ” and the increased capacity for intimacy as “a shift away from too much dependence

or too much dominance toward an interdependence between equals.” (1993).

Advisors must help the student veteran redefine their sphere of influence as larger than

just those who they shared the uniform with; helping them to adapt to their new place among

those who their service benefited despite the views that they holds of them or are held by them.

As the student veteran moves through this vector, the advisor must be conginizant of tensions

that may arise in their peer and familiar relationships, and encourgage the veteran to work

through them with the goal of developing relationships based on equality and genuine caring.

Vector five: establishing identity.

To establish identity, Chickering (1993) describes seven comforts or clarifications that

an individual must resolve to establish their identity:

1. Comfort with body and appearance

2. Comfort with gender and sexual orientation


3. Comfort with self in a social, historical and cultural context

4. Clarification of self-concept through roles and lifestyles

5. Comfort with self in respone to feedback from valued others

6. Self-acceptance and self-esteem

7. Clarification about who the individual is, as well as what is important to them.

Student veterans, in response to the freedoms provided by their departure from the

stricture of military service, can develop questions about their identity. Regardless of the length

of time they served-four years or long enough to retire-one of the consequences of their service is

the subordination of their individuality to the needs of the “team” they served with. As they exit

the service, many of the unresolved identity questions can manifest themselves as unhealthy

behaviors. In addition, student veterans with low levels of self-acceptance or self-esteem can

struggle with validation outside of the military; separate from the “team,” they can struggle to

find the individuals who will support them or who can motivate them to perform at their best.

Advisors must be cognizant of the emerging identites of their student veterans; allowing

them to develop their indivduality while helping them to recognize any unhealthy actions that

could adversely affect their academic peformance. They must also help the student veteran to see

and accept the validation from their professors and classmates as healthy, as well as how to

channel that validation into the development of their self-acceptance as civilians.

Vector six: developing purpose.

Developing purpose entails the ability to be intentional about the direction of one’s life

and pursuits, assessing and clarifying goals, making plans, and persisting despite obstacles


(Chickering, 1993). Purpose development consists of formulating plans and priorities around

possible vocations, personal interests and interpersonal and familiar commitments.

Many student veterans face the decision between staying in the career field they worked

in during their service, or striking out in a new direction. Advisors must work to develop and

maintain the student veteran’s focus; recognizing what their interests and goals are, and helping

them to build their academic plan around those goals. While every student is required to has a

general education base, this requirement can frustrate the student veteran who feels that their

experience should count as credit toward certain classes. Advisors must be willing to aid the

student veteran in properly understanding and evaluating their military experience, while keeping

focus on their long-term goals rather than the short-term inconviences of the educational process.

For student veterans with varied interests, or who come with multiple college credits from their

military services, advisors should be able to appropriately discuss and recommend individualized

or interdisciplinary study plans that make the best use of the student veteran’s previous

experiences and educational benefits.

Vector seven: developing integrity.

Developing integrity is a process of reviewing personal values in a questioning

environment that emphasizes diversity, critical thinking, the use of evidence, and

experimentation (Chickering, 1993). It involves three stages that can overlap: (1) humanizing

values-moving from a reliance on dogmatic thought to a balance of self interests with those of

the larger community, (2) personalizing values-the ability to respect the beliefs of others through

the affirmation of a core belief system, and (3) developing congruence-the reflection of personal

values in socially acceptable behavior.


Disciplinary Theory Two: Career Development Theory and Academic Advising

Background. In 1985, sociologist John L. Holland created a theory on why individuals

choose the vocations they pursue in life, relating their chosen vocation to an expression of

personality (Evans, 2003). Holland believed that individuals who pursued specific careers had

similar personalities, and respond to professional and personal situations in a similar manner.

Holland’s vocational theory consists of six personality types, which correspond with six working

environments. The theory is best known as the RIASEC model, after the abbreviations

comprising the personality types and working environments. The RIASEC model is a true

interdisciplinary theory, linking the psychology of students’ personalities to the sociology of the

academic majors they choose in their academic careers.

Figure 2. Holland’s Model of Personality Types and Model Environments

Figure 2. Representation of Holland’s hexagonal model of personality types and model environments.

Adapted from Students’ Personality Types, Intended Majors, and College Expectations: Further Evidence

Concerning Psychological and Sociological Interpretations of Holland’s Theory by G. Pike

Realistic Investigative

Artistic

SocialEnterprising

Conventional


Explanation.

Type one: realistic.

Realistic types prefer more hands- on, technical activities that involve working with

things, particularly machines and tools, than with people and abstract ideas. (Evans, 2003 and

Pike, 2006). They generally dislike social activities and educational constraints. Realistic

individuals believe themselves to be practical and conservative, and value material rewards

rather than self-satisfaction. Related majors for this vocational type include engineering, drafting

and design, and military science (Pike, 2006).

Type two: investigative.

Investigative types prefer activities that involves exploration and prediction, with the goal

of understanding (Pike, 2006). Preferring thinking to acting, they enjoy the world of ideas,

avoiding activities that involve persuasion and sales (Evans, 2003 and Pike, 2006). Investigative

individuals can lack interpersonal skills, but view themselves as having high levels of

intelligence. Related majors for this vocational type include many of the natural and physical

sciences, mathematics, health sciences and pre-medical programs, economics, sociology, and

sociology (Pike, 2006).

Type three: artistic.

As the name suggests, artistic types prefer activities centered around artistic, literary and

musical endeavors, placing the highest value on aesthetics and creativity. Disliking the

constraints of established rules and structure, they prefer assignments that allow for innovation

approaches and solutions (Evans, 2003 and Pike, 2006). Related majors for this vocational type

include the arts (both fine and performing), languages and literature, and architecture (Pike,

2006).


Type four: social.

Social typers prefer helping and teaching tasks that involve personal interaction, avoiding

mechanical and technical work (Pike, 2006). Enjoying working with others, they are often

friendly, helpful, cooperative, and sensitive to the needs and problems of others (Evans, 2003).

Related majors for this vocational type include many of the social sciences-history, political

sciences, social work, psychology-and educational programs, as well as criminal justice

programs (Pike, 2006).

Type five: enterprising.

Enterprising types see themselves as natural leaders with high levels of self-confidence

and social skills. They prefer persuasion and direction as tools to reach organizational and

personal goals (Pike, 2006). While they enjoy working with people, they prefer to do so as

managers and leaders, rather than as assistants. Related majors for this vocational type include

journalism, business administration, marketing, management, and communications (Pike, 2006).

Type six: conventional.

Conventional types work on attaining their organizational and personal goals by creating

and maintaining structured routines, eschewing ambiguous, unstructured activities, and

innovation (Pike, 2006). Conscientious, efficient and practical, they enjoy working with numbers

and data (Evans, 2003). Many of the service industries have majors included in this vocational

type-accounting, secretarial or paralegal studies, as well as some data processing programs (Pike,

2006).

Holland’s theory and academic advising.

Holland’s theory offers responses to three assumptions about students and their academic

majors. First, it assumes that students self-select majors that are compatible with their


personalities. Second, these major choices simultaneously reinforce and reward the student’s

abilities and interests. Third, students at the end of their academic careers are more likely to

succeed in environments that match their personality types.

Advising Approach One: Appreciative Advising

Background.

In 2002, Jennifer Bloom and Nancy Martin began to explore parallels between the

process of appreciative inquiry (AI) and academic advising; specifically, they examined ways

that the four phases of AI (discovery, dream, design, and destiny) could be used to enhance the

interactions of advisors with their students (Bloom, 2008). Their created process-Appreciative

Advising-was put into practice at UNC-Greensboro’s Student Academic Services office,

beginning in 2006. As defined, appreciative advising is

a social-constructivist advising philosophy that provides an advising framework

for advisors to use in optimizing their interactions with students in both individual

and group settings (Bloom, 2008).

Appreciative advising is an interdisciplinary approach to advising that draws on positive

psychology, choice theory, social-constructivist theory, the AI process, and reality therapy to

accomplish its goals.

Explanation.

Appreciative advising is a philosophy that challenges advisors to

…use positive, active, and attentive listening and questioning strategies to build

trust and rapport with students; uncover students’ strengths and skills based on

their past successes; encourage and be inspired by student’ stories and dreams; co-


construct action plans with students to make their goals a reality; support students

as they carry out their plans; and challenge both themselves and their students to

do and become even better (Bloom, 2008).

The appreciative approach uses six phases: disarm, discover, dream, design, deliver, and “don’t

settle.”

Figure 3. Phases of Appreciative Advising

Appreciative Advising Phase Key Features

Disarm Warm welcome; safe/comfortable environment;

appropriate self-disclosure; appropriate nonverbal

behavior

Discover Effective open-ended questioning; attending behavior

and active listening; strength-based story

reconstruction

Dream Creating powerful images; prospective framework for

dreaming; making purposeful connections between

Dream/Discover phases

Design Teach students how to make decisions; provide

positive feedback; being aware of “curse of knowledge;

making effective referrals

Deliver Energizing students to be their best; academic hope;

ending the conversation well; following up

Don’t Settle Challenge and support; raising the bar; virtuous cycle

Figure 3. The six phases of Appreciative Advising. Adapted from The Appreciative Advising Revolution by J.

Bloom.


The relationship between advisor and student is established during the disarm phase of

appreciative advising. Instead of creating an environment that intimidates the student into

acceptance of the advisor’s “superiority,” advisors in the disarm stage set out to create a

welcoming, sage, and comfortable environment that is as free from distractions as possible. The

advisor seeks to “decorate their office such that visitors get acquainted with them and their

interests,” using memorabilia as a tool for self-disclosure (Bloom, 2008).

During the Discover phase, a mutual exchange of knowledge occurs. Advisors in this

stage make use of open-ended questioning that allows students to tell stories that not only aid in

identifying the student’s passions and skill set, but allow the advisor to rekindle the passion for

their craft. Making use of established counseling micro-skills (maintaining eye contact,

presenting authenticity through body language, staying on subject, and moderating the tone and

rate of speech (Bloom, 2008)) the student is able to communicate and begin to observe how their

life experiences shape and influence their educational path, while the advisor is able to link these

experiences to educational goals that might interest the student.

In the Dream phase, the student and advisor set out on the path of co-creation. The

student is encouraged to “think big, and not be restricted by the amount of education it takes, the

probability of it happening, or other people in [their] life telling [them] it is impossible” (Bloom,

2008), and identify the thing(s) they would like to accomplish in their lives absent those

restrictions. The Dream phase serves as a check on the work of the Disarm and Discover phases;

if a rapport is not present between advisor and student, answers given in the Dream phase may

reflect the advisor’s assumed expectations and not the student’s actual dreams. The advisor is

expected to make connections between the student’s abilities and skills (as outlined in the

Discover phase) and the student’s large-scale dream for their life.


The Design phase is where the actual work of co-creation takes place. In this phase,

students are taught and encouraged to make decisions on their academic goals, serving as a

facilitator and guide to the student’s concepts. The advisor helps the student research and analyze

the options for their education that best fit their dreams, while being careful to identify the pros,

cons, and potential effects-both positive and negative-of their choices. Advisors must also being

to the student’s attention different campus and community resources that the student can use to

inform their choices and decisions. “The bottom, nonnegotiable line” to the Design stage “is that

the student needs to make the ultimate decision. The advisor who decides for students does a

disservice” (Bloom, 2008).

In the Deliver phase, the student is expected and encouraged to execute the co-created

plan from the Design phase. The advisor’s responsibilities during this stage include

encouragement and energizing of the student to be and work towards their best, as well as

occasional follow-up to ensure that the student is still making positive progress. The final phase

of appreciative advising-Don’t Settle-allows the student and advisor to review and reflect on the

achievements and pitfalls of the Deliver phase; challenging and supporting each other to set and

achieve higher standards for themselves as individuals and academic professionals.

Approaches Two and Three: Developmental and Prescriptive Advising

Background.

In 1972, Burns Crookston authored A Developmental View of Academic Advising as

Teaching in the Journal of College Student Personnel. Considered a seminal work during the

establishment of academic advising as a profession, Crookston sought to show that academic

advising, in its quest to provide guidance to students, also functions as a teaching tool.


Crookston’s work builds on the then-emerging developmental approach in mental health, which

defined developmental tasks as any experience that contributed to the development of the

individual; developmental advising, then, helps the student become more aware of themselves

(Crookston, 1994).

Explanation.

The developmental approach to academic advising concerns itself with not only aiding in

vocational and educational decisions, but also with “facilitating the student’s rational processes

environmental and interpersonal interactions, behavioral awareness, and problem-solving,

decision-making, and evaluation skills” (Crookston, 1994). This approach is founded upon a

mutual relationship between advisor and student, in which both are able to learn from each other.

The prescriptive approach to advising resembles the in loco parentis relationship between

students and faculty at the earliest British and American universities, where the faculty member

was seen as the “teacher,” who “assisted” (through his control of both internal and external

experiences) the student in “learning,” similar to the way a doctor gives advice to a patient, who

is encouraged to follow it if he seeks healing. From the viewpoint of the advisor, prescriptive

advising is desirable because it allows for a degree of detachment; if the student chooses not to

follow the advice, he holds no responsibility. From the student perspective, if the advice received

turns out badly, the student can shift blame to the advisor rather than accept personal

responsibility for the results.

Both the developmental and prescriptive approaches analyze ten dimensions: ability,

motivation, response to systems of reward, maturity, initiative, control, responsibility, learning

output, evaluation, and the relationship between advisor and student.


Figure 4. Dimensions of Developmental and Prescriptive Advising

Dimension Developmental Prescriptive

Ability Focus on student potential Focus on limitations

Rewards Achievement, mastery, acceptance,

status, recognition, fulfillment

Grades, credit, income

Maturity Growing, maturing, responsible,

capable of self-direction

Immature, irresponsible, must be

closely supervised and carefully

checked

Initiative Taken by both advisor and student Advisor takes initiative on fulfilling

requirements; rest up to student

Control Negotiated By advisor

Responsibility Negotiated Advisor advises, student acts

Learning output Shared Primarily in student

Evaluation Collaborative By advisor to student

Relationship Based on nature of task/high trust Based on status and low trust

Figure 4. Contrasting Dimensions of Prescriptive and Developmental Approaches to Advising. Adapted from A

Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching, by Burns Crookston.

Component one: ability.

Prescriptive advising focuses on making judgements on past educational experiences as

well as standardized and placement test results, examining them for predictive information on the

student’s potential for performance. In contrast, developmental advising uses records and test

scores as a snapshot of a point in time, relying on them for general information while

recognizing undiscovered or untapped potential for growth in the student.


Component two: motivation.

Prescriptive advising takes a more generally negative view of the student’s motivation;

this lack of motivation necessitates the control, direction, or issuance of “orders” and “threats”

that will encourage the student to produce and minimize non-productivity. The developmental

advisor, however, seeks to motivate the student through their own successes in work

accomplishment.

Component three: rewards.

Prescriptive advising views the student’s desire for achievement as limited to getting

good grades or course credit, receiving their degree, or-in the case of younger students-avoidance

of parental disappointment or scorn. Developmental advising views the desire for achievement

through the lens of self-fulfillment, personal growth, and goal accomplishment, rather than

achievement solely for status or prestige.

Component four: maturity.

Developmental advisors view their students as growing, and capable of responsible self-

direction, which allows the advisor to shift more responsibility to the student for his academic

success. In contrast, prescriptive advisors see their students as immature and irresponsible,

placing on the advisor the burden of closely monitoring the student to ensure that they comply

with policies, procedures and academic requirements.


Component five: initiative.

Prescriptive advisors take the initiative to meet the requirements of their job; that is, they

make themselves available for advice if the student chooses to seek it from them. Developmental

advisors share responsibility for academic success with the student; their focus is more on

empowering and enabling the student to succeed on their own, with the advisor’s guidance

instead of their direction.

Component six: control.

The extent of control of a prescriptive advisor over their students can varies. Prescriptive

advisors who are secure in their professional roles and the abilities of their students can delegate

some control over the dynamics of their relationship to the student; those who are insecure and

untrusting will wield strict control over their students, requiring them to interact with the

advisors in ways that can leave the impression that the student has no independence or ability to

take control over their academic lives. Developmental advisors do not seek direct control over

their students; they work to develop a climate of mutual acceptance and trust, which serves to

lessen the degree of control wanted or expected by either advisor or student.

Component seven: responsibility.

Developmental advisors seek to share the responsibilities of academic success with the

student. The relationship built between the developmental advisor and his student makes clear

what responsibilities remain with the advisor, what tasks are expected of the student, and in what

areas the student and advisor can work together to accomplish shared goals. Both are held


mutually accountable, and where the relationship falters, it can be reexamined and redefined

along new mutual understandings.

Prescriptive advisors, in contrast, shift the entire responsibility for success on the student,

only assuming the goal of giving “good” advice to the student, but not accepting any blame for

what may happen when the student fails or chooses not to follow their advice. When that occurs,

the prescriptive advisor make take on the task of getting things done for the student, while

lecturing them at a later time on their failure to act “like a responsible adult.”

Component eight: learning output.

The prescriptive advisor sees himself as the teacher who must teach, and the student as

the one who must learn, with no profit to the advisor from the student. The developmental

advisor views the relationship between himself and the student as mutually beneficial and

profitable, where both parties must open themselves to learning from the other and collectively.

Component nine: evaluation

The developmental advisor works to evaluate the relationship between advisor/student

collaboratively, actively seeking input from the student as to what should be evaluated and how,

as well as which party-or both-should be responsible for the evaluation. Prescriptive advisors

view their relationships more traditionally; because the advisor is the teacher who “knows,” he is

the sole determinant as to whether, where and how learning has occurred by the student.


Component ten: relationship

The defining component-and biggest difference-between the view of the prescriptive and

developmental advisors shows in the view they take of the relationships between their students

and themselves.

The prescriptive relationship is based on respect for the perceived authority of the advisor

as the “teacher,” and requires deference to his position. Preoccupation with the advisor’s status in

the academic hierarchy leads the prescriptive advisor to be less open with himself and his

experiences, often withholding beneficial information about his educational path that could

provide some clarity and inspiration to the student in favor of a more guarded and formalized

relationship.

Descriptive advisors base their relationships on an acknowledgement of the different

skills and competences brought by the advisor and the student, seeking to leverage mutual

strengths and overcome mutual weaknesses. The advisor can choose to engage the student from a

more authoritative role, only after discussion with the student and mutual agreement.

Student Veterans and Developmental/Prescriptive Advising

Recently separating veterans entering higher education may benefit from an advising

approach that is more prescriptive, because this advising approach allows for creation of a more

rigid, standards-based relationship that closely mimics what the student veteran received from

his superiors in the military. It allows the advisor to function in a leadership/mentorship role that

resembles that fulfilled by senior enlisted service members, and to provide the student with a

familiar environment that will allow the space to begin his transition from service member to

student veteran.


Interdisciplinary Theory: Right/Left Seat Advising

Explanation. The US Army has identified a training concept known as the “right seat/left

seat ride,” where an incoming unit shadows the unit they are replacing in theater to observe and

learn standard operating policies and procedures. After this observation period, the outgoing

units shadows their replacements to ensure their competency and understanding. This approach

can be modified to provide a developmental, prescriptive, and appreciative advising framework

that, at its conclusion, not only works to ensure academic success for the student veteran, but

aids them in becoming more autonomous members of society as civilians. This approach, similar

to other academic advising approaches, can be used to predict which students have a better

probability of academic success, as well as those who may benefit from an approach that is

strictly prescriptive or intrusive.2 The uniqueness of this approach is found in its structure; rather

than using a single advising approach, the right/left seat framework combines best practices from

multiple approaches into a new whole that gives student veterans a familiar environment to begin

their transition from service member to student veteran.

Figure 5. Phases of Right Seat/Left Seat Advising

Advising Phase Tasks Originating Approach

1. Initial contact Build rapport with student, review

degree program choices, explain

admissions criteria

Appreciative, prescriptive

2. First semester advising Review placement test scores

and/or prior college courses,

Prescriptive, appreciative

2 Intrusive advising, a fourth general approach to academic advising, is not discussed in this writing.


provide courses for first semester

3. Mid semester review Meet with student for progress

discussion (thoughts about current

degree program and future classes),

co-create academic plan

Developmental, appreciative

4. End of semester

review/registration for following

semester

Review previous semester grades,

discuss future classes based around

strengths from prior semester

Developmental, appreciative

With this approach, a student veteran receives a more prescriptive approach at the outset of their

first semester. As the student progresses through their first semester, the approach evolves from

prescriptive to developmental and appreciative, with the student beginning to take more control

and responsibility for their academic future.

Despite the descriptions of the phases, accomplishing the tasks may span the course of

several visits between the student veteran and advisor. Advisors should caution themselves

against seeing a single meeting as the completion of a single phase, and work with the goal of

completing the tasks in a phase rather than moving in a straight line from phase to phase. Also, at

the end of each meeting, advisors should recount the tasks accomplished during that meeting,

giving the student veteran copies of any forms, agreements, or plans that were made during it.

Phase one: initial contact.

During the first phase, the student veteran and advisor work on building and developing

their relationship. Using concepts from the Disarm stage of appreciative advising, the advisor

seeks to make the student veteran comfortable, explaining their approach to advising and aiding

the student in mutually determining responsibilities. The student veteran and advisor will also


discuss admissions requirements to the college or university, including any pre-admission testing

that the student must take prior to beginning courses. Finally, the student veteran and advisor

will discuss possible degree choices that could align with the veteran’s interests and strengths.

At the conclusion of this phase, the advisor should ensure that the student veteran is

comfortable in their discussions with the advisor, has a clear understanding of all admissions

requirements and a plan to accomplish them before registering for classes, and is able to

generally articulate how their strengths translate into different educational programs offered by

the college.

Phase two: first semester advising.

The first semester is the only semester where the advisor acts in a strict prescriptive role,

setting the student veteran’s course schedule.

Once the student veteran returns to the advisor, having completed all their admissions

requirements, the advisor reviews any pre-admissions testing scores as well as previous college

experiences, and recommends classes for the student’s first semester. Incumbent on the advisor

is the responsibility of explaining the necessity of choosing the student’s classes in the first

semester, as well as the expectation that the student veteran will begin to assume more

responsibility for academic planning in future semesters. The advisor is also responsible for

explaining to the student veteran how he made the decision on the courses that were chosen, so

that the student veteran gains knowledge and understanding of the course selection process.

At the conclusion of this phase, the advisor should leave the student veteran with an

understanding of what they will be responsible for in future semesters relating to designing their


academic plan. The student veteran should be able to see how their interests and strengths align

with the selected courses, and be able to attempt that same alignment independently.

Phase three: mid-semester review.

Over the course of several meetings during the semester, the advisor and student veteran

will reaffirm their mutual relationship along the appreciative mindset. Frequently during the

semester, the student veteran and advisor will discuss the student veteran’s progression in classes

and adjustment to the campus community. They will mutually examine and criticize their

relationship with a goal of improving each other; the advisor looking to the student veteran for

areas in which his skills can improve, and the student veteran looking to the advisor for guidance

as he assumes more responsibility over his academic future. This phase is where the advisor

begins to show the student veteran not only how to select classes for future semesters, but how to

also begin planning for his career after graduation, whether they are moving directly to the

workforce or continuing his education at a higher institution. The advisor, in this phase, is

responsible for giving the student veteran as much information as possible, so that they able to

navigate the waters of the higher education environment. As the student veteran begins to take on

more responsibility, the advisor should begin to back away from the prescriptive advising of the

previous stage, allowing the student veteran room to grown while affirming support of their

efforts.

Phase four: end of semester review and registration for following semester.


At the conclusion of the semester, the student veteran and advisor will review their

individual and mutual progress. The advisor will review the student veteran’s success, using

information from their grades and their discussions over the course of the semester to determine

whether this approach benefits the student veteran, or whether their relationship would be better

served by an approach that is more prescriptive and intrusive in nature. Working with the advisor

as a resource, the student veteran will create their academic plan for future semesters, then select

and register for classes for their next semester, leveraging the advisor’s institutional knowledge

with the skills he has learned over the previous semester.

Future advisor/student veteran contacts.

During the last phase of the first semester, the advisor and student veteran should

determine the future form of their relationship, and whether the student veteran is in a good

academic position to receive more freedom in his academic choices. If there is mutual

agreement, the relationship can and should continue, with the student veteran taking on more

responsibility, and the advisor filling the gaps in their knowledge. Should the student begin to

perform poorly, the advisor can use the various phases to recalibrate the student, resuming their

relationship from where problems arise and addressing problems as equals.

Part Four:


Implications and Directions for Future Practice and Research

The right seat/left seat advising model carries with it implications for practice and future

research. Before its implementation on a large scale, it should be viewed through the lens of the

considerations that follow.

For Practice

Advisors using this approach should be prepared to spend extensive time getting to know

their students, which may present difficulty in institutions which serve large numbers of student

veterans or those constrained by smaller staffs. Advisors should also be able to recognize those

student veterans who struggle with developing their autonomy, and be able to transition these

students to a more prescriptive or intrusive advising approach, as necessary; specifically, those

student veterans with mental or physical disabilities may need to remain in the prescriptive phase

until there are able to manage both their care and academics independently, at which point they

may be slowly transitioned to begin developing their autonomy within the new realities of their

disability.

This approach establishes a standard method for institutions to use in working with

student veterans. It contributes to the practice of academic advising by pulling theories of

advising, along with common approaches, into a readily identifiable form that allows advisors to

become transition advocates for their student veterans, helping their to gain the skills they will

need to not only become better students, but that will help in their reintegration to society as

civilians.

For Research


Research for this approach should center on studies of its effectiveness with cohorts of

students at various institutions (community colleges, four-year institutions, graduate schools)

with different operating statuses (public, private non-profit, private for-profit). These studies

should examine how the student veteran’s autonomy grows during their first year, how the

method corresponds to their academic success in their first year and beyond, as well as how

immersion from the approach affects success beyond the veteran’s enrollment at their institution.

Case studies that follow student veterans from their initial contact through their first year,

graduation, and beyond would be the best method of researching this approach.

Conclusion

As service members continue to transition from a downsizing military, using the VA’s

educational benefits remains the most beneficial option for veterans looking for stability and

additional marketable skills after their military careers. Colleges and universities can expect their

student veteran populations to steadily increase as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Proactive

preparation dictates that institutions continue to inform themselves of best practices in the

advising and preparation of veterans for college.

Student veterans enter institutions of higher education as prepared for academic rigor as

many traditional and non-traditional students, due to strengths in discipline and self-motivation

that compensate for any academic deficits. These strengths can be best leveraged by advisors

who are willing to devote the time necessary to inform and educate their student veterans on the

processes of higher education, giving them the tools they need to develop a new sense of

independence in their role as civilians.


Academic advisors set the tone for a student’s educational experience. In the case of

advisors who work primarily with student veterans, it is often our words, plans, and actions that

have the greatest impact on whether our populations succeed academically and successfully

transition from the military. By creating, testing, and continually improving systems that allow

us to prepare our student veterans to navigate the world of academia as independent, autonomous

learners, we continue to honor the service and sacrifice of our nation’s warriors.


References

Bloom, J. (2008). The Appreciative Advising Revolution. Champain: Stipes.

Chickering, A. (1993). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cook, S. (2001). A Chronology of Academic Advising in America. The Mentor: An Academic

Advising Journal. Retrieved from http://dus.psu.edu/mentor

Creamer, D. (2000). Use of Theory in Academic Advising. In V. a. Gordon, Academic Advising:

A Comprehensive Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crookston, B. (1994). A Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching. NACADA

Journal, 14(2), 5-9.

DiRamio, D. (2008). From combat to campus: Voices of student veterans. NASPA Journal,

47(1), 73-102.

Evans, N. (2003). Psychosocial, Cognitive, and Typological Perspectives on Student

Development. In S. Komives, Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession (4th ed.,

pp. 179-202). San Francisco: Wiley.

Frost, S. H. (2000). Historical and Philosphical Foundations for Academic Advising. In V.

Gordon, Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook (pp. 3-17). Manhattan: John

Wiley and Sons.

Gillespie, B. (2003). History of Academic Advising. Retrieved from NACADA Clearinghouse of

Academic Advising Resources:

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/resources/clearinghouse/view-articles/history-of-academic-

advising.aspx

Goldrich, D. (2014). Veteran Experiences in Higher Education. Gallup.


King, M. (2005). Developmental Academic Advising. Retrieved from NACADA Clearinghouse

of Academic Advising Resources:

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Developmental-

Academic-Advising.aspx

Kirkwood, L. (2014, March 17). More veterans taking advantage of Post-9/11 GI Bill. Retrieved

from McClatchy DC: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/17/221479/more-veterans-

taking-advantage.html

Pike, G. (2006). Students' Personality Types, Intended Majors and College Expectations: Further

Evidence Concerning Psychologicial and Sociological Interpretations of Holland's

Theory. Research in Higher Education, 47(7), 801-822.

Schulenberg, J. K., & Lindhorst, M. J. (2008). Advising is Advising: Toward Defining the

Practice and Scholarship of Academic Advising. NACADA Journal, 28(1), 43-43.

an interdisciplinary approach to advising student veterans

Documents

student veterans coby

number of student veterans

outcomes of student

student veteran enrollment

academic advising profession

veterans administration

department of veterans

student services personnel