From the Co-Editors
As we finalize this issue and send it to press, the editorial team is reflecting on the continued quality of the submissions received by the NACADA Journal. As we know, scholar-practitioners are encouraged to contribute to the literature in their field as reviewers, writers, researchers, and editors. During 2020, these scholar-practitioners and faculty members were called upon to contribute in new and different ways as institutions across the globe dealt with COVID-19. Our colleagues and friends met the challenge of student engagement and empowerment by utilizing different tools and technologies while continuing to identify research questions, write articles, and review manuscripts in an ongoing effort to contribute to the scholarship that fosters excellence in academic advising. Well done, NACADA Community! Each issue is a tribute to the continuous work that the advising community accomplishes for student success. This issue shares the award-winning nomination for the 2020 Leigh S. Shaffer Award, adds six new articles to the academic advising literature base, and encourages you to think about your contribution to the advising literature.
Marc Lowenstein's article titled, “If Advising is Teaching, What Do Advisors Teach?” which originally appeared in the NACADA Journal in 2005, kicks off this issue. The article is being reprinted for two reasons. First, Lowenstein historically challenges advisors to think deeply about what their approach to practice really means. In this article, he explains that when advising is delivered through a teaching approach, students experience rich outcomes. As advisors connect students to institutional curriculum, they also contemplate the curriculum needed for a robust advising process. His message continues to impact the field, which leads to the second reason the article was reprinted. This article is the 2020 Leigh S. Shaffer Award winner. The Shaffer Award, presented annually since 2018, is given to honor Leigh S. Shaffer, a past NACADA Journal Editor. The award identifies scholarship in NACADA publications that contributes to the advising literature base and the advising practice in a profound way. Lowenstein's article has certainly accomplished this goal by empowering advisors to examine their approach to practice.
The next set of articles offers a deeper understanding of advising and students. Zilvinskis, Barber, Brozinsky, and Hochberg challenge advisors to reflect on their interactions with students with disabilities. Using data on academic advising from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the authors seek to understand if advisors interact differently with students with disabilities compared with the general population. Their findings suggest that advisor interaction is different for students with disabilities, and the authors offer suggestions for change in practice.
Moving from students with disabilities to students who select a community college experience, Donaldson, McKinney, Lee, Horn, Burridge, and Pino describe the benefits of a specific advising structure called enhanced advising program (EAP). Using a qualitative design, the authors interviewed primary-role community college advisors in order to describe the benefits of the EAP. From the advisor perspective, community college students had a robust interaction with advisors and received a holistic experience that included development of an educational plan due to the EAP.
Next Ruiz Alvarado and Olson offer an examination of NACADA Journal articles over a specific period of time to examine the relationship between advising and student output. The results illustrate that few studies focus on outputs. Even more interesting, the findings show a lack of inclusion of underserved populations at a time when the overall student population is becoming more diverse. What does the future hold?
Articles exploring the student experience with advising conclude with a thoughtful contribution that utilized a qualitative design to understand the transition experience of dual-enrollment students with a high number of credits upon entering college. Witkowsky, Starkey, Clayton, Garnar, and Andersen interviewed advisors to ascertain the impact high credits had on the students in the study. The findings illuminate a number of issues that affect both time to graduation and financial issues. The authors suggest that these students would be better served through a stronger relationship between high school counselors and institutional academic advisors.
Transitioning from articles related to students, advisor behaviors are examined with a quantitative study that explores advisor norms. Wilson, Hirschy, Braxton, and Dumas developed and administered the Academic Advising Behaviors Inventory to a sample of NACADA members. The findings indicate that primary-role advisors identify four specific norms that require some form of penalty if violated by an advisor. Interestingly, there were different interpretations of enforcement based on each participant's identity. Check out this article to see if you agree with the findings on what norms are sacred to academic advisors.
The final article in this issue utilizes the institutional structure to explore how higher education leaders perceive the work of a primary-role advisor. Menke, Duslak, and McGill built an instrument from the NACADA core competencies that represents tasks from informational, relational, and conceptual areas. The findings focus on the perception of advising duties and capture differences across institution types.
As this issue emerges with scholarship that informs our practice, a new editor is also joining the team. The NACADA Journal Editorial Team welcomes Lisa M. Rubin as the new Coeditor with Susan Campbell. Welcome Lisa! Lisa is a distinguished faculty member at Kansas State University and has contributed to NACADA in many significant ways. As we welcome Lisa, we offer our appreciation to Sharon Aiken-Wisniewski for serving as the Coeditor with Susan for the last three years. Sharon valued this opportunity and looks forward to contributing to the advising literature as a reviewer, author, and award nominator.
This issue starts with an article that received the Shaffer Award. Congratulations to Marc Lowenstein for contributing to the advising literature in such a profound way. As the Editors, we read each manuscript submitted to the NACADA Journal and recognize the influence this scholarship has on student success, institutional mission attainment, and the ongoing development of practice in the advising field. After reading this issue, take a few minutes to reflect on each article to identify what influences you and your practice. Reach out to the authors to share comments and questions. And finally, reflect on articles that have impacted your advising practice. These articles are award-nomination worthy and need your support through the nomination process. Start 2021 with a resolution to nominate an article for the Leigh S. Shaffer Award as well as other NACADA Awards. Your nomination is an important contribution to our field and the scholarship that informs it!
Best Wishes for 2021!
