An Exploration of Professional Development Practices of Academic Advisors in the Ontario College System

The purpose of this research study was to explore the nature and scope of professional development (PD) activities that are available to, and practiced by, academic advisors in the Ontario college system. The goal of the exploration was to provide a comprehensive review that could facilitate future planning of PD activities that could influence the development of institutional academic advising models, and further define the role and responsibilities of the academic advisors. Therefore, my main research question asks: How do academic advisors’ approach, engage with, and make meaning of professional development practices across the Ontario College system? An exploratory mixed methods research design (ESMMR) was chosen because it provided the flexibility to collect and to analyze qualitative data with a small sample of academic advisors, and then legitimize the findings against a larger sample of academic advisors from across the college system in Ontario. The qualitative phase of the research study involved collecting documentary evidence from a voluntary sample of 4 colleges in Ontario and conducting semi-structured interviews at the same 4 colleges. From a purposeful voluntary sample, 8 academic advisors and 3 managers responsible for training academic advisors participated. The quantitative phase of the study included the dissemination of a questionnaire that was designed from the qualitative findings. The questionnaire was administered, using a purposeful voluntary sample, across 14 of the 22 English-speaking colleges in Ontario. Participants comprised 82 staff academic advisors and 38 faculty advisors, for a total of 120 participants. Using content analysis to analyze the qualitative findings, 5 major categories were recorded: (a) types of advising, (b) institutional advising model, (c) role and responsibilities of academic advisors, (d) PD practices and (e) assessment of advising practice. The 5 major categories were used to inform the development of the questionnaire. Using a combination of descriptive and inferential statistics, findings from the questionnaire were triangulated with the findings from the qualitative analysis. Findings from both the qualitative and quantitative phase of the study suggest that: (a) staff and faculty advisors spend more time on transactional advising than developmental advising; (b) institutional advising models tend to be shared, but not applied consistently across campuses; (c) the role of staff and faculty academic advisors lacks clarity; (d) a variety of PD activities are offered or sought out by academic advisors, but the expectations are not consistent; and, finally, (e) assessment of academic advisor practice is not well established. As a result of the findings, the following 4 recommendations are made for future planning. First, institutions should continue to provide multiple PD opportunities and practices for their staff and faculty advisors. Second, institutions should clearly define the roles of the staff and faculty advisors. Third, institutions should consistently apply the institutional advising model across academic and student services divisions. Finally, institutions should design and implement assessment practices that measure the effectiveness of the institutional advising model, the impact of PD on advisor practice, and the impact of advisor practice on student outcomes