An Engineering Faculty Advisor Development Program

Starting a New Conversation: An Engineering Faculty Advisor Development Program Emily Allen and Francisco Castillo

Eva Schiorring

Charles W. Davidson College of Engineering San José State University San Jose, CA [email protected]

The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges Berkeley, CA

Abstract— This work addresses a gap in the professional development of engineering faculty: student advising. The development and assessment of the Designated Faculty Advisor program is described, including training components, student and faculty responses, and future plans. Keywords- advisor; advising; mentoring; faculty development; four-player model

I.

THE MISSING CONVERSATION

It is widely agreed that challenges exist in the education of future engineers [1]. In California, Silicon Valley employers are concerned about the supply of “home-grown” engineering talent and urge K-12 and higher education sectors to promote STEM education to young people [2], and the nation’s demographics make it clear that tapping into the large pool of underrepresented minorities as well as women is a wise investment for increasing the number of future engineers. Review of many conference programs and journal issues in the engineering education domain shows how much effort the community has invested in bringing into, and retaining, nontraditional students in engineering programs through K-12 outreach, improvement in the effectiveness of classroom teaching, first year programs, awareness of diversities of learning styles, and summer research opportunities, to name a few. However, discussions of the quality of engineering faculty advising have not been widespread. This paper describes efforts to examine and improve this quality. In the context of undergraduate engineering education, the term “faculty advisor” can refer to the intellectual advisor to a senior project, research experience, or other curricular-related project or activity; to the organizational advisor for a student section of a professional society; or to the academic advisor, with the primary role of helping students select courses and complete the prerequisite chain, and the secondary role of performing career mentoring and resource referral. The focus of this discussion is on the latter role of academic advising, specifically as practiced by engineering faculty. Academic advising and mentoring share traits related to promoting student success but are not identical, as academic advising includes elements of curriculum and scheduling assistance that may be absent from mentoring situations. Mentoring also may involve a more intentional effort to role

978-1-4673-1352-0/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

model for students. There is a robust literature on mentoring in academic contexts, much of it aimed at faculty-student interactions related to research environments [3]. Some recent work has focused on the need to improve engineering faculty professional development in the mentoring arena [4]; one project, Engage [5], has identified faculty-student interactions as a key area on which to focus, developing workshop training materials for improving such interactions and exploring ways to efficiently embed best practices, based on research, into engineering colleges [6]. Muller has deeply examined both the need for, and the barrier to, more effective faculty-student mentoring interactions [7]. There is also a significant literature on academic advising for professional staff, with much recent focus on First-Generation students, under-represented student populations, and developmental student populations [8]. However very few published conversations about the significance of the faculty academic advisor role have occurred in the engineering education community [9]. Student advising involves a blend of direct teaching and indirect mentoring, and is frequently mistaken by both parties as a simple transaction. Consequently training for faculty advisers is often ad hoc, and the advising role may be seen as an unimportant part of a faculty member’s service component, not worthy of serious training or effort. However, for faculty to be effective advisors, they require explicit instruction in the policies and practices of the institution, in the mechanics of the institution’s processes and information systems, and to some extent in the theory of student development. They may also need practice in techniques for effective dialogue. II.

THE NEED FOR ADVISOR TRAINING

In the terminology of academic advising, there are two general styles: prescriptive and developmental advising [10]. Engineering faculty frequently engage in prescriptive advising, a model in which the student is the “patient”, the advisor is the “doctor,” and the “prescription” is a set of courses. The relationship is unilateral, transactional, unequivocal, and there is an implied contract stating that if the student takes the “medicine,” (i.e. enrolls in and passes the courses), the outcome will be positive (i.e. a degree will be earned). The prescriptive style is attractive because it does not require any training of the advisor beyond rules, policies and curricular roadmaps. The “doctor” needs to know his meds, but doesn’t

need any “bedside manner.” This style of advising may be effective for some students, particularly those who are highly self-motivated, come prepared to advising sessions, and do not have any personal, emotional, financial, academic or other barriers to a smooth academic path. However, even for the most well-prepared students, mentoring opportunities will be lost by using only the prescriptive style in all situations. Given the complexity of our actual student population, the developmental style of advising is likely to be more effective; but this style requires a deeper understanding of student development, and also requires training of the advisor in the art and science of dialogue. In addition to a comprehensive understanding of all of the policies, programs and resources available on campus, the advisor needs to understand our students and their challenges and contexts, which are often far outside of the advisor’s own experience. Professional advising and counseling staff are expected to gain pertinent skills and knowledge in their masters-level, pre-professional training or through professional development, but faculty may be assigned an advisor role without being offered opportunities to gain these skills. This is unfortunate, particularly at public institutions, because as academic budgets shrink, as the reliance on part-time adjuncts increases, as accrediting bodies look more closely at graduation rates, and as the student body becomes increasingly more diverse and less traditionally prepared, the lack of attention paid to faculty advising is emerging as a serious issue. The idea of offering faculty development related to advising skills is not unlike the issue of training faculty to teach more effectively. Over the last 25 years, awareness that engineering doctoral programs generally train faculty in research methods, but not in teaching methods, has given rise to thousands of articles and hundreds of faculty training seminars, workshops and conferences on effective teaching strategies [11]. The expectation that a new faculty member will come either prepared to teach effectively, or will attend professional development opportunities in order to become effective, has become the norm, particularly at undergraduate institutions. Engineering has a significant dependence on faculty advisors rather than professional staff advisors, due to the complex nature of the disciplinary training. In addition, part of our responsibility as educators is to turn students into novice professionals. This task is not easy – and it mostly happens outside the classroom. The notion of academic mentoring for undergraduate students, much of which needs to take place in a one-on-one setting, particularly for more vulnerable students, is not commonly on the syllabus of professional development for engineering faculty. This work describes a first step in building a syllabus for faculty advisor professional development. III.

THE DESIGNATED FACULTY ADVISOR PROGRAM

A. Context for the Development of the DFA program SJSU is part of the 23-campus California State University system and the 7th largest in terms of undergraduate population with nearly 25,000 students. The Charles W. Davidson College of Engineering serves approximately 2500 undergraduates and

1500 masters’ students, and awards almost 350 bachelors’ degrees and 600 engineering masters’ degrees annually (average of 2008-2012 data). Fall 2011 data show our engineering undergraduate population as about 14% women; 41% Asian-American/Pacific Islander, 18% Hispanic, 23% White, 3.3% Black , 0.2 % Native American, 6% international and 7% other or decline to state. About 40% of our undergraduates enter as junior transfers, primarily from the California Community College system. About 35% of incoming engineering freshmen place into calculus, while the remainder place into either pre-calculus, college algebra or developmental math. Helping students complete the degree in a timely manner is a high priority of the University, thus faculty advisors have responsibility for the challenging endeavor of helping students remain on the pathway to success. The College is a major supplier of engineers to Silicon Valley employers and most of our alumni stay in the area. We have eight ABET-accredited undergraduate degrees, as well as degrees in Industrial Technology and Aviation; the faculty comprises 62 tenured or tenure-track faculty along with about 150 part-time lecturers. The Engineering Student Success Center staff includes the executive director, five peer mentors, one student support staff, and two FTE academic advisors who focus on general education and probation advising. Engineering students are also required to see a faculty advisor in their major every semester (enforced by a registration hold until advising is complete). Improving the effectiveness of faculty-student interactions in the advising domain (and by extension in the classroom domain) is a priority for the University and for the College. For the past three years, the College of Engineering has been engaged in a significant effort to improve faculty advising [12]. Beginning in AY 2009-10, the College brought together faculty advisors from the eight departments to share best practices and to establish new academic policies on progress to degree. It soon became clear that to reach convergence on new college-wide advising practices, a program with faculty support and recognition was needed. Consequently in AY 2011-12, the College launched the Designated Faculty Advisors (DFA) program, for which the Dean and the Provost provided funding for one course release time for 16 faculty advisors. The components of the program are described below. In addition to this program within the College of Engineering, the University also launched various programs to bring together advisors all over campus, including the Faculty Advising Liaisons, the Advising Council, which includes administrators from both Student Affairs and Academic Affairs, and a campus Advising Coordinator who maintains the online Advising hub and communicates campus-wide about events and presentations of interest to advisors. In addition, over the last four years, Student Success Centers have been opened in four different colleges including Engineering. The campus-wide increased focus on student success has raised the bar on expectations for faculty contributions both inside and outside the classroom. The 2011-12 DFA cohort included 16 funded faculty advisors, chosen by department chairs. Some had been advisors for many years, while others were new to the activity.

All advisors were given one course release time for both semesters; some department chairs participated in all or some of the program, which consisted of an all-day retreat in August, and three meetings each semester in Fall 2011 and Spring 2012.

well before registration opens. A group of students and faculty are developing mobile advising apps and online FAQs for Engineering students.

B. Components of the DFA program A description of the Designated Faculty Advisor (DFA) Roles and Responsibilities are provided to the faculty before their selection for this program. DFA faculty are required to attend an Orientation Training in August (see Table I), as well as monthly DFA lunch meetings. The yearlong syllabus for faculty advisor professional development includes speakers, workshops and discussions on topics related to policies, practices, theory and mechanics of student advising. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.

The development of the DFA Program was based on the twin hypotheses that (1) more effective faculty advising would result in improved student outcomes, and (2) that engineering faculty could be trained to be more effective advisors.

1) Policies Academic policies on campus change frequently, especially during times of budget cuts and enrollment limits. Thus it is critical for faculty advisors to be kept up to date on policies, as well as to help develop specific policies for the College of Engineering. Working together towards college-wide practices prevents departments from diverging too widely in their academic policies, which in turn prevents confusion among students. For example, over the last two years a new College policy on Progress to Degree was formulated, adopted and implemented, after six months of consultation with advisors regarding curricular roadblocks, advising issues, and improvements to advising processes. 2) Practices Documentation of student advising sessions is important for many reasons, including accreditation. Sharing best practices and developing new uses of technology in advising is an important benefit of having college wide advising group. When the University instituted new restrictions on change of major, the College was able to respond quickly by developing effective practices to help students navigate the new requirements while still making progress towards degree. 3) Theory Engineering faculty have rarely had the opportunity to study the field of student development. The program includes a series of presentations by on-campus experts called “Knowing our Students Better,” which includes topics such as cultural expectations and differences between various ethnic groups, special issues facing veterans and students with hidden disabilities, and general topics regarding student development. 4) Mechanics DFAs are encouraged to use a variety of on-line tools to improve advising including the Student Administration database on Peoplesoft, as well as the Advisor Blog, an on-line discussion group site (built on BuddyPress) which provides a confidential location for faculty to ask difficult advising questions and serves to build the advising community. A google group is used primarily for communication about upcoming meetings, opportunities for professional development, and dissemination of policies and changes. Almost all departments now use an online appointment system, making it easier to get students to come in for advising

IV.

FIRST YEAR ASSESSMENT OF THE DFA PROGRAM

Student outcomes of interest include increased student satisfaction with their SJSU experience, higher retention rates, reduced time to graduation, and attainment of early professional success after graduation. First-year assessment of the program included measures only of student satisfaction. Assessment of the other outcomes is complex and compounded by many factors. Much of the first-year program assessment examined whether faculty did become more effective advisors. The assumption was that by providing faculty with knowledge and skills, and by building an advisor community, “better” advising would result. The effects were measured in terms of faculty perception of personal change and student perception of their advising experience. In order to assess the effectiveness of the first year of the DFA program, we used four instruments: a DFA orientation assessment survey, an online student survey administered during Fall 2011 and Spring 2012, a yearlong online faculty Reflections Log, and an online faculty survey at the end of the academic year. A. Faculty Perspectives on the DFA Program The DFA Orientation training components were assessed by an online survey immediately after the event. Formative assessment and perspective was gathered from the Major Advisors throughout the year by inviting them to submit reflections on their advising experience to an ongoing Reflection Log. A total of seventeen log entries were submitted. Since the entries were anonymous and since multiple submissions were encouraged, it is not possible to determine how many of the 16 or so different Major Advisors contributed to the log. A faculty survey was administered online at the end of the academic year, sent to all the DFAs as well as their department chairs. Fifteen individuals completed the survey, including 11 faculty advisors, 2 department chairs, and 2 chairs who also serve as DFAs. The DFA August orientation agenda is shown in Table I. The training session was very well received; one respondent commented: “Great meeting – well organized, easy to understand. I learned a lot – thank you.” The DFA Orientation was the first time many of the College advisors had met as a group, or met with the Engineering Student Success Center staff, and also the first time many of them had met professional staff from campus student support units such as counseling services, the disability resource center, and the University advising center. A large majority of participants (88%-94%) found nine of the ten training components to be “useful” or “extremely useful.” The toolkit training component was rated by the

largest number of participants as “extremely useful”. It was also noted that the use of advising tools is very uneven across the tools and across the group of advisors. There is thus an opportunity to increase both awareness and use of these tools. Participants also selected among six proposed themes for additional training, and identified very clearly as their top choice “informal discussions about effective Major Advising sessions,” which can be interpreted as an expression of the desire for community among advisors, reflected in later feedback about the program as well. In addition to expanding their advising repertoire, the presence of engineering faculty from every department lent legitimacy to the advising activity, positioned advising as an important contribution, and encouraged the untenured faculty that advising would be considered a significant aspect of their faculty portfolio. TABLE I.

DFA ORIENTATION AGENDA

Policies, Practices, Theory and Mechanics of Student Advising College of Engineering Faculty Advisor Program 9 am - 5 pm, August 17, 2011

9am 930am 1030am 1130am 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm

Moving Towards Excellence: A Look at the Data Who Are Our Students? Student Development/Student Involvement 101 Knowing When to Make Referrals to Counseling and Disability Resource Center Advisor Toolkits: Peoplesoft/Custom CoE Advisor Toolkits/Case Studies How Do We Know We’re Getting Better? Assessing our Work Policy and Process: Probation/DQ/Reinstatement/ Change of Major Processes Working Together for Student Success: Coordination of Campus Advising Resources Meeting Graduation Requirements: Requirements, Substitutions, Mechanics of Transfer

In their Reflection Log entries, several DFAs comment that they believe the quality of advising is increasing and point to the value of belonging to a community of advisors. “It is great for the faculty because we are building a community of excellence in advising, and you don’t feel you have to walk a hard path alone,” one Major Advisor notes. Another indicated, “I think the [DFA] meetings are very important for the following reasons: 1) We get to know each other. This makes interacting to solve student problems smoother. 2) Everyone is on the same page (at least in theory) and is informed of the rules and challenges. 3) It raises the profile of advising to a higher level.” The importance of quality advising is expressed in another log entry: “I am much more comfortable with the quality of academic advising that I know students are getting now than I was before the pilot started.” Several of their comments expressed satisfaction about having dispensed advice that made a difference. “There were many sessions where I felt my input was very helpful for charging an efficient and personalized education plan,” one advisor noted. Another expressed satisfaction at “….letting

them know the department cares that they succeed, and pointing them toward behaviors that will work for them and resources for help really feels like a good thing.” Table II shows some of the responses from the end of year faculty survey. Of note is that more than half the respondents indicate change in the content of their advising session conversations. One advisor noted, “Now the questions change depending on what stage the student is at. New questions: What do you want to do with your EE degree? What is your favorite class? How are things going?” TABLE II.

SELECTED FACULTY RESPONSES TO YEAR-END SURVEY

Since the start of the DFA program have you… Effectiveness of Accuracy of your your advising advising improved? increased? 40% 33% Yes No Not sure

27% 33% Expanded the referrals you propose?

47% 20% Changed the content of your advising sessions?

Yes

57%

56%

No

36%

25%

Not sure

7% Getting to know students better?

19% Feel part of an advising community?

Yes

43%

100%

No

43%

0%

Not sure

14%

0%

Advisors noted changes in students as well, “I feel students have accepted our intent to have a quality program built on fundamentals. I feel that it is much less likely that at-risk students will be overlooked,” while another observed “The students are better prepared, and less likely to get into problematic situations. The path to success is clearer, and the failure modes better identified.” Another notes that “more students are coming in to ask about program/career…Also, I'm observing students stopping by to just share information about how their job search or internship search is going.” B. Student Perspective on Advising Assessment of student perception of advising effectiveness was accomplished by means of an on-line survey conducted with students after they met with their major advisor. The survey was designed to generate information that would address the following evaluative questions: How satisfied are students with the major advising? What do they like and not like about the major advising? What suggestions do they have for improvements? A draft survey design was distributed for review and comment at the first professional development session for the

Major Advisors. Input received from the group was incorporated into a revised version which was tested with a group of students. After final revisions, the survey was introduced and first disseminated about 5 weeks into the Fall 2011 semester. Each week every department provided lists of the email addresses for students who had seen their Major Advisor that week, and the Dean’s Office staff emailed the survey link to students as soon as possible following their major advising session. The email that arrived in each student’s mailbox was introduced by a letter from the Associate Dean, encouraging students to participate and ensuring them that their responses were anonymous. Incentives in the form of $20 gift cards were used to increase the response rate. A similar protocol was followed for the Spring 2012 survey, after it was revised and some new questions designed and tested. Some departments were more diligent than others in providing lists of appointments, so not every student who saw an advisor received a survey. A total of 434 students responded to the Fall survey and a total of 590 in the Spring, giving a 27% response rate in Fall, and a 36% rate in Spring. The respondents represent 14% of the Fall undergraduate enrolled student population, and 21% of the Spring. The survey respondents matched other college data in terms of the gender distribution, the ratio of native versus transfer students, and the self-reported GPA distributions. TABLE III.

Advising session topics:

STUDENT RESPONSES: ADVISING TOPICS

% discussion was “very” or “somewhat useful”

% topic was NOT discussed

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Internships and career opportunities Graduate programs in engineering Strategies for academic improvement

21%

36%

71%

59%

18%

30%

75%

65%

26%

41%

67%

55%

Resources for academic success Scholarships

30%

40%

64%

55%

14%

25%

79%

72%

25%

34%

69%

62%

Balancing school and work

Table III shows the change in advising session topics between the Fall and Spring semesters. In every case, a wider diversity of topics was discussed in a useful way during Spring than in the previous Fall, many of them pertaining to improving success or long-range planning. The percentage of students reporting that they talked with advisors about strategies for improving academic success increased from 26% in the Fall to 41% in the Spring; this may be attributable to the various advising workshops attended by the DFAs where they learned

about campus resources as well as observed role models for listening to students more carefully. In addition, more advisors became familiar with the academic probation reports and thus were able to identify which students were at-risk and bring up these issues during advising. While some of the increased discussion of “career planning” topics, such as thinking about graduate school (increased from 18% to 30%), could be the result of increased Spring semester student focus on summer internships and graduation, the faculty responses provided earlier do indicate a sense of qualitative shift in the content of their conversations. Overall student satisfaction with their advising experience increased, and the percent that were dissatisfied dropped from 15% in Fall to 5% in Spring. In open-ended questions during the Fall survey asking students to indicate what they liked best about the advising, 37% of respondents pointed to the advice they received. “[I received advice on] how to balance the rest of my time at SJSU,” one student commented. “Good advice from professors who know the best route to graduate on time,” another student noted. For 32% of respondents, the best aspect of the advising was the person-to-person interaction and/or the advice. “My advisor actually advised me and cared about my class selection,” one student wrote. An open-ended question from the Fall survey about what students liked the least about their advising session identified opportunities for improvement. One student noted: “[I did not like] the rushed feeling I got due to the high volume of students trying to get in with the advisor.” Some students did not like their personal interaction with the advisor. “I wasn’t comfortable asking questions. I felt he was judging me because I’m behind and because of my grades,” one student noted. Many students pointed out that they would like more time with advisors and opportunities to talk about internships, scholarships and graduate school; advisors learned about this need and responded with improvements during the Spring advising sessions. V.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Four main themes were reflected in responses from both faculty and students. From Fall to Spring, there was higher satisfaction with, and efficacy of, advising sessions. Both students and faculty indicated that a broader and more useful range of topics were discussed, which moved the experience of advising from “registration hold removal” to “academic success and career planning.” There was an emergence of personal and community transformations as a result of advising sessions. More students indicated they were likely to make a change in either course selection, future career, or study and work habits after their advising session. Faculty indicated a growing sense of community and openness to bringing up topics outside of a narrow script, as well as that they became more likely to identify and pay attention to at-risk students, as a result of the DFA program. Survey questions about online advising highlighted the importance of face-to-face meetings. Fall and Spring student data shows that a significant majority favor meeting an advisor

in person. For example, students responded that “I was able to talk to a human and not a computer,” and “[I like] personal attention and ability to ask specific questions and receive specific answers immediately.” Although many suggestions were made for online improvements, they all pertained to processes and paperwork rather than communication. Students’ responses to “most liked” and “least liked” openended questions mirrored each other around the theme of caring, knowing and respect. Students liked advising the most when an advisor cared about them and knew them, for example as illustrated by having already reviewed their records. Students liked advising the least when they felt disrespected, for example for weak academic performance, or when the advisor was late, or when they had an appointment and had to wait for long times. Advisors showing caring and respect were highly valued, as indicated in these quotes, “My advisor actually advised me and cared about my class selection,” and “It gives me confidence that [the advisor says] I’m headed in the right direction.” The human interaction and sense that somebody is interested and cares about their progress is extremely important to a large group of students. This confirms what we already know about college students: faculty have a strong influence, and a relationship with a faculty member is very important to student success [16]. Thus, faculty development resources that would improve this aspect of advising would be most beneficial. Preliminary results from the Designated Faculty Advisor Program show that training faculty in the policies, practices, theory and mechanics of student advising is a significant task, and one that has been heretofore largely ignored. The development of a professional syllabus for engineering faculty advisors will continue over the next several years using lessons learned from the assessment of the first-year program. For example, in response to student suggestions and in concert with a broader technology push on campus, more online tools and mobile apps are being developed to make advising records easier to use and document, while freeing up time in advising sessions for more substantive interactions. The next phase of the program will focus on enhancing faculty-student interactions through the development of a FourPlayer Dialogic Conversation model [13]. This is a model for developing dialogue which emerged originally from the family therapy domain [14], but has been adapted to business settings [15]. Work is planned in which this model will be adapted to developing training methods for faculty-student interactions. One workshop was held in Fall 2011 to introduce these ideas to the DFA group, and it received very positive comments and had faculty participating actively [12]. In addition to its use as a training method in person, this model may be very adaptable to use as an interactive video training method. These ideas will be explored in the coming year.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors acknowledge funding support from the College of Engineering Dean’s Office as well as from the SJSU Office of the Provost. Kathleen Bruffett provided initial work on this program; Jared Tuberty, Cindy Kato and Katherine Casey also contributed to this work. The 2011-12 DFA Team is also gratefully acknowledged for their participation. REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3]

[4] [5] [6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14] [15]

[16]

Cicerone, R. J., Vest, C.M. Fineberg, H. V., et al., Rising above the Gathering Storm, Revisited. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (2010). Private communications, Dean’s Engineering Industry Advisory Council, San Jose State University (2012). See, for example: Johnson, W. Brad, On Being a Mentor, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (2007); and Allen, Tammy and Eby, Lillian, The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring -A Multiple Perspectives Approach, Wiley-Blackwell (2010). Wiseman, C. and Messitt, H. “Identifying Components of a Successful Faculty-Advisor Program,” NACADA Journal, 30(2), 35 (Fall 2010). See http://www.engageengineering.org Abrams, L., Gustafson, R. and Artis,S. “Extending Information On Time Effective Student Interactions To Engineering Faculty”, Procs. ASEE Annual Meeting, AC 2011-426 (2011). MentorNet (2008). “Students’ Perceptions of the Value and Need for Mentors As They Progress Through Academic Studies in Engineering and Science,” A Report to the National Science Foundation Concerning A Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER) EEC-06397621; retrieved August 6, 2009 from http://www.mentornet.net/documents/files/evaluation/studentperceptions .completereport.pdf. See several chapters in Gordon, V., Habley, W. and T.Grites and Associates, Academic Advising, A Comprehensive Handbook, 2nd edition, National Academic Advising Association (2008). Woolston, D.C. (2002). Improving undergraduate academic advising in engineering: It’s not rocket science. Procs. 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education, S2C-2-4 (2002). Gordon, V. N. (1988). Developmental advising. In W. R. Habley (Ed.). Status and future of academic advising: Problems and promise (pp. 107118). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program. Felder, R.M. “A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention: IV. Instructional Methods,” J. Engineering Education, 84(4), 361 (1995). Emily Allen and Francisco Castillo, “Teaching Engineering Faculty that Advising is Teaching,” presented at the Region 9 NACADA Conference, Las Vegas, March 2012. Isaacs, William 1999, “Dialogic Leadership,” The Systems Thinker, vol. 10, no. 1. Kantor, D. and Lehr, W. Inside the Family. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1975). Ancona, D. and Isaacs, W. “Structural Balance in Teams,” in Exploring Positive Relationships at Work, J.Dutton and B.R. Ragins, Eds. Psychology Press, New York (2007). Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson (1987) “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education,” American Association of Higher Education Bulletin vol.39 no.7 pp.3-7