The organization of academic advising services in America's rural community colleges

This study evaluates the types of academic advising organizational models found in rural community colleges. It isolates the three most prevalent models and explores their goal attainment/effectiveness histories in relation to the existence or nonexistence of specified variables. It also categorizes the popular models based upon goal attainment/effectiveness scores into upper and lower performing groups for comparison purposes.;The population of the study consisted of 75 advising coordinators employed in public rural community colleges from twenty-seven states. Comparisons were made between and within specified models based upon the previously cited criteria.;The researcher found significant differences between respondents employing the Self Contained Model and those employing the Faculty Only, Supplementary, and Split Models. The Self Contained respondents perceived their performance of the following three activities to be at a significantly higher level: assisting students in developing an educational plan consistent with life goals and objectives; the process of screening willing advisors to insure basic advisor skills were present; a commitment insuring that adequate time to do an effective advising job was allowed.;Respondents employing the Supplementary and Split Advising Models with written policies on academic advising had significantly higher overall goal attainment/effectiveness mean scores. Faculty Only, Supplementary, and Split Model respondents who regularly evaluated the effectiveness of their advisement programs had significantly higher overall goal attainment/effectiveness mean scores. Finally, respondents employing the Supplementary and Split Models who had training workshops for advisors had significantly higher overall goal attainment/effectiveness mean scores.;The upper ranked respondents employing the Faculty Only Model had significantly smaller numbers of students assigned to each advisor. Upper ranked respondents employing the Split Model spent a significantly higher percentage of their time devoted to advising responsibilities.;When the secondary process variables were analyzed on a percentage basis, several sizable differences were found to exist between the upper and lower ranked respondents within the three most popular models. These differences generally followed a consistent pattern within all models. Upper ranked advisors had more contact with students than did lower ranked advisors. They also had more advising information provided to them than did lower ranked advisors. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.)...