IRMA-International.org: Creator of Knowledge
Information Resources Management Association
Advancing the Concepts & Practices of Information Resources Management in Modern Organizations

Virtual Compared to Traditional Academic Advising Satisfaction Rates of First-Year College Students: A Pair Study

Virtual Compared to Traditional Academic Advising Satisfaction Rates of First-Year College Students: A Pair Study
View Sample PDF
Author(s): Pamela M. Golubski (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Copyright: 2012
Pages: 15
Source title: Encyclopedia of E-Leadership, Counseling and Training
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Viktor Wang (Florida Atlantic University, USA)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-068-2.ch051

Purchase


Abstract

This study compared virtual/online to traditional/in person academic advising in terms of student satisfaction ratings. Students were exposed to two advising methods at different times during their first year in college. Upon experiencing an advising method, students completed an online survey that rated their satisfaction in the areas of scheduling/registration, communication, support services/majors, and overall satisfaction. The findings offered some insight into how effective virtual academic advising might be as an alternative to traditional, face-to-face methods. The results of this study indicated that students were slightly more satisfied with traditional advising across 16 questions encompassing four categories. When the survey responses were aggregated and mean responses compared in each category, t-tests results found that scheduling/registration, communication, and overall satisfaction resulted in significant differences between the mean satisfaction ratings between academic advising methods, with traditional being preferred. While the support services and majors category, resulted in no differences existing between virtual and traditional advising methods.

Related Content

Vierne Placide, Michelle M. Vance. © 2022. 23 pages.
Robert Earl McKinney, Anne D. Halli-Tierney, Allyson E. Gold, Rebecca S. Allen, Dana G. Carroll. © 2022. 19 pages.
Lindsey E. Moseley, Lauren C. McConnell, Sydney Meadows, Justin Carter, Bradley M. Wright. © 2022. 23 pages.
Tyan Thomas, Alice Lim Scaletta, Sharon K. Park. © 2022. 30 pages.
Teresa Seefeldt, Omathanu Perumal, Hemachand Tummala. © 2022. 22 pages.
Elizabeth A. Sheaffer, Katie Boyd, Cheryl D. Cropp. © 2022. 21 pages.
Erika L. Kleppinger, Kevin N. Astle, Amber M. Hutchison, Channing R. Ford. © 2022. 23 pages.
Body Bottom