IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK 1 Impact of the Appreciative Advising ...

21 Pages·2013·0.36 MB·English

by  Healey, Lauren

Running head: IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK 1

Impact of the Appreciative Advising Framework on Student Success
Lauren Albaum
EDH 7057
University of South Florida
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 2

Abstract
This paper explores academic success coaches’ perceived effectiveness of the Appreciative
Advising theoretical framework on student success. As a graduate student at the University of
South Carolina, I was introduced to their proactive, academic recovery initiative, through which
coaches meet with undergraduate students placed on academic probation or referred for excess
class absences. Beginning in 2008, the coaching program incorporated the Appreciative
Advising model into the yearly staff training process. Administrators believed that incorporation
of this framework into sessions would positively affect student’s academic achievement and self-
efficacy. Currently, very little research exists surrounding the perceptions of the practitioners
whom are directly implementing and engaging in Appreciative Advising conversations. Based
on this need, survey responses of a quota sample of five coaches from the University of South
Carolina where collected. Coaches indicated, on a Likert scale, their perceptions of effectiveness
in establishing rapport, affecting student attitude and helping student’s create and recognize
personal goals. Additionally, coaches designated and explained, through open-ended, qualitative
questions, which of the six phases of the Appreciative Advising model were most and least
effective, and their overall impressions of the model’s effectiveness as a tool for affecting
student success. Mixed data analysis revealed the overwhelmingly positive perceptions of
Appreciative Advising by the coaches, while highlighting a distinct need for future research on
the potential benefit of the Appreciative Advising framework. This analysis provides another
building block in the continuously evolving race to positively affect student success.
Keywords: appreciative advising, at-risk, retention, persistence, coaching
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 3

Impact of the Appreciative Advising Framework on Student Success
The Appreciative Advising framework has gained increasing popularity since the 2000s
as a tool to influence student success (Bloom et al., 2009). Although research has begun to
emerge supporting the benefits of Appreciative Advising in the statistically measurable areas of
student retention, the perceived effectiveness of the Appreciative Advising techniques, by those
individuals facilitating the framework, remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to
understand the perceptions of academic success coaches at the University of South Carolina
regarding the impact of Appreciative Advising techniques as a tool for student success. I
hypothesized that the coaches would perceive the positive, strength-based framework to be an
effective mechanism for establishing rapport, connecting students to resources and increasing
goal awareness. In order to assess the hypothesis, this retrospective, cross-sectional study focuses
on three research questions:
1. What are the Academic Success Coaches perceptions of the effectiveness of the
Appreciative Advising strategies and their ability to promote student success?
2. On which of the six phases did the success coaches place the most emphasis and why?
On which did they place the least and why?
3. What barriers did success coaches encounter during sessions infused with the
Appreciative Advising framework?
Literature Review
Genesis of Appreciative Advising Practices
David Cooperrider developed the precursor to the Appreciative Advising framework,
Appreciative Inquiry, in 1986 in the form of a doctoral dissertation (Bloom & Martin, 2002).
Appreciative Inquiry was staged as a four-phased organizational development resource focusing
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 4

on positive personal and organizational attributes, rather than the traditional problem focused
approach (Bloom & Martin, 2002). In 2002, through the ingenuity of Bloom, Hutson and He
(2008), the Appreciative Inquiry advising phases (Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny)
evolved into the six-phase Appreciative Advising model. The cyclical phases of the Appreciative
Advising model include: Disarm, Discover, Dream, Design, Deliver, and Don’t Settle (Bloom,
Hutson & He, 2008). Bloom, Hutson and He (2008) describe Appreciative Advising as “the
intentional collaborative practice of asking positive, open-ended questions that help students
optimize their education experiences and achieve their dreams, goals, and potentials.”
At the University of South Carolina, academic success coaches meet with students
indicated as “at risk” either through a low grade-point average or by referral for excessive class
absences (Hall, 2008). In fall 2008, the academic success coaches’ program adopted the
Appreciative Advising model and incorporated the framework into all aspects of the intensive,
yearly training process. The goal of success coaches is to strategically assist students in
establishing and accomplishing personal and academic goals (Robinson & Gahagan, 2010).
Coaches encourage self-efficacy through one-on-one interactions centered on reflection,
strengths building, academic planning and goal development (Robinson & Gahagan, 2010).
Ultimately, coaches aim to build relationships and serve as a resource for students. Initial
research indicates that students who meet with ACE coaches have increased connection and
mentor relationship, which has been directly attributed to the Appreciative Advising techniques
(Bloom et al., 2009). Even though academic success coaching sessions are only required of
students once per probationary period, data from the University of South Carolina suggests that
students will often voluntarily return to meet with their success coach throughout the academic
year (Bloom et al., 2009).
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 5

Research on millennials suggests that current students require increased individualized
support, such as that provided by an academic success coach (Robinson & Gahagan, 2010).
However, self-regulated learners indicate higher levels of satisfaction and connection to their
university, both strong indicators of retention, than their dependent peers (Schreiner, 2009). By
empowering students to become self-sufficient and goal oriented, through incorporation of one-
on-one support methods, institutions are able to meet student’s needs while positively affecting
student success.
Appreciative Advising with “At Risk” Populations
Proponents of the Appreciative Advising framework have touted success in the areas of
academic achievement and self-efficacy, specifically for traditionally “at risk” populations such
as first year students and academic probation students (Hutson, 2006; Kamphoff, Hutson,
Amundsen & Atwood, 2007; Olsen, 2009).
First year students. Many attributes of the Appreciative Advising structure have been
successful with first year students. Olsen (2009) found that welcoming body language and warm
vocal qualities encouraged in the Disarm phase help to put new students at ease. The Discover
phase’s emphasis on positive, open-ended questions allows first year students the opportunity to
express concerns and uncertainties they may be feeling during this period of acculturation.
Overall, Hutson’s (2010) findings indicate a positive correlation between the inclusion of the
entire Appreciative Advising framework and increases in student GPA, retention rates, and
indications of dedication, confidence and relationship building within first year students.
Probation students. Students on probation at the University of North Carolina Greensboro
were the first to witness the implementation of the Appreciative Advising framework within their
probation structure (Kamphoff, Hutson, Amundsen & Atwood, 2007). From spring 2000 to
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 6

spring 2002, Appreciative Advising permeated the newly developed Strategies for Academic
Success (SAS) program and, subsequently, the number of students suspended due to attendance
dropped from 15 to seven (Kamphoff, Hutson, Amundsen & Atwood, 2007). Additionally, since
implementation, retention rates of probation students increased from forty percent in 2000 to
fifty-eight percent in 2003 (Kamphoff, Hutson, Amundsen & Atwood, 2007). Hutson (2006)
provided further explanation for the success of Appreciative Advising techniques through his
dissertation research on the University of North Carolina Greensboro SAS students. According
to Hutson (2006), the students on academic probation demonstrated measurable increases in their
self-perception, academic preparedness, dedication, self-knowledge and confidence since the
implementation of SAS. These findings support his hypothesis that a student’s ability to portray
self-efficacy is directly linked to their ability to academically succeed (Hutson, 2006).
Method
Participants
Survey participants (five women, M = 24, age range: 23-25) were Academic Success
age
Coaches from the University of South Carolina’s Academic Centers for Excellence. Based upon
convenience and availability, coach selection was limited to those individuals who maintained
employment during both the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 academic years. The recent timeframe
also presents validity to the reference period, as events that are more recent tend to be easier to
recall (Johnson & Christensen, 2012). The population above is in congruence with Johnson and
Christensen’s (2012) description of a quota sample, where a researcher identifies select confines
and then works to fill the sample with participants. Information provided by the Academic
Centers for Excellence staffs indicate only seven individuals meeting the indicated criteria at the
University of South Carolina. Participants were recruited via University email address and
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 7

participated voluntarily without compensation. Of the seven individuals contacted, five
completed the survey. According to Johnson and Christensen (2012), response rates above 70%
are considered acceptable. In accordance, the current response rate of 71.4% constituted a
representative sample size. The quota sample included three Caucasian, one Asian and one
African American participant. These figures align with the current national race and ethnicity
norms for Public 4-Year Administrative staff (“Race and ethnicity,” 2013). All five participants
were completing their Master’s degree at the University of South Carolina during their
employment as success coaches.
Research Design
A descriptive, nonexperimental research approach was employed in order to describe the
opinions and attitudes of the surveyed success coaches regarding student advising sessions.
Academic success coaching sessions included university students, with a high proportion being
first year students, on probation due to low grade point average and excess class absences.
Coaches were asked to anonymously answer questions regarding their overall, general
perceptions from 2011 until 2013 regarding the incorporation of Appreciative Advising
techniques into student appointments. This timeframe specific population was surveyed via
mixed research methods, including five Likert scale questions and four open ended questions, to
control for extraneous variables.
Research rationale. A shift in ideology towards increasing bachelor degree attainment
rates has permeated all aspects of Higher Education (Lumina Foundation, 2013). Many state
legislatures have created policies to pressure administrators and faculty alike to increase
graduation rates (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2012). This performance based
funding initiative has compelled educators to create and discover best practices for retention,
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 8

persistence and student success. Previous research by Hutson (2010) argues that Appreciative
Advising centered approaches increase student’s self-efficacy. Hutson (2010) further argues that
self-regulated learners have a higher aptitude for academic success. As a relatively new model,
with potential implications to increase student success, a strong research need exists in
understanding the strengths and weaknesses as perceived by the administrators facilitating the
Appreciative Advising process.
Research instruments. The instruments used for the experiment include a retrospective,
cross-sectional survey, created through an online medium, regarding the perceptions of success
coaches during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. Question one was subdivided into
five distinct questions. These questions utilized a five point fully anchored rating scale (1-
strongly agree, 2-agree, 3- neither agree or disagree, 4-disagree, 5-strongly disagree). They
addressed the coaches’ overall observations of the student’s awareness or personal goals,
attitude, understanding of resources and rapport with their success coach. The second question
inquired as to the coaches’ perceptions of the framework as a tool for positively affecting student
success. Question three asked coaches to rank the six phases in the order they felt that they most
positively influenced student success. Following the advice of Perreault (1975), I elected to
randomize the six phases for each participant as to avoid the bias of “order effect.”
The next two questions allowed coaches to provide suggestions for improvement and any
additional information that they thought relevant. Finally, the survey asks for demographic
information (race, gender, age) from each participant.
Research data gathering procedures. In order to best assess the topic within a limited
timeframe, participants were emailed a link to the online questionnaire. This method allowed
respondents the convenience to answer at will, alleviated facilitator travel limitations, was low in
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 9

cost and allowed for anonymity. All participant responses were anonymously collected in
November 2013 via the SurveyMonkey interface. A survey was a suitable data collection method
to address the posed research questions due to the flexible, inexpensive nature and selective
sample (Schutt, 2011). The survey’s mixed data analysis approach included a quantitative rating
scale and qualitative open-ended questionnaire responses. As indicated by Onwuegbuzie and
Teddlie (2003), a multi-data approach offers a more comprehensive means of legitimation and
enhanced representation, than do qualitative or quantitate data analyses alone.
Findings
Impact of Appreciative Advising on Coaching Sessions
Participants indicated their general perceptions regarding the influence of the
Appreciative Advising training and infusion on their coaching appointments from 2011-2013.
Overall, their general perceptions were extremely positive. When asked what their overarching
opinions of the incorporation of the Appreciative Advising framework as a tool to impact student
success, 100% of participants “agreed” or “strongly agreed”(Graph 1).
Graph 1
Overall, incorporating
Strongly Agree
the appreciative
advising framework Agree
into coaching sessions
Neither Agree or Disagree
is an effective tool for
positively affecting Disagree
student success.
Strongly Disagree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%
IMPACT OF THE APPRECIATIVE ADVISING FRAMEWORK Albaum 10

Additionally, when further asked to rate the effects of the Appreciative Advising model
on individual aspects of student success, coaches either indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” in
every area (Graph 2).
Graph 2
e. more positive attitude
than when the session
began
d. willingness to utilize
campus resources
Strongly Agree
Agree
c. better understanding of
campus resources Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree
b. improved attitude Strongly Disagree
a. awareness of personal
goals
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Perceptions of Phase Effectiveness
As indicated by the overall rank, the most and least influential phases of the Appreciative
Advising model are clear (Table 1). Disarm, ranking first overall, was indicated as most
Table 1

Overall Average SD
Phases Rank Rank
Disarm 1 1.2 .44
Discover 2 2.8 1.30

Dream 4 3.2 1.09
Design 3 3 1

Deliver 5 4.8 .44
Don't Settle 6 6 0