How do you best receive advice?
by Jonathan Gehrz | February 16, 2011
Have you ever stopped and reflected on how you best receive advice? Over the past few weeks, I’ve been doing a fair amount of reading on various advising theories and approaches used in higher education and it got me thinking, are we employing the most effective means of academic advising. This reflection brought me back to the concept of academic advising and the fundamental components of curriculum (what we deal with), pedagogy (how we do what we do), and learning outcomes (the results).
Curriculum, while the mission and culture of doctoral programs and institutions may vary, there is relative consensus on the expectations and purpose of the degree. But how about from the learner perspective? How do you think and make decisions about your program and academic well-being?
Pedagogy, how do interact with your institution, faculty, advisor, or larger education community. In an online program, our distance often impacts our ability to meet in an office or share a passing greeting in the hallway or exchange of ideas in the lecture hall, but what techniques or strategies do you use to facilitate a learning interaction?
Learning Outcomes, certainly a key talk of the town these days, but how are learner outcomes crafted? Just as an organization or individual program has a mission and series of desired outcomes for you, so too do you, the individual learner. How do you cultivate a collaborate relationship to satisfy both needs?
All interesting questions, but from a practical standpoint, have you stopped to think about what method is most appropriate for you. While certainly not exhaustive, I’d like to share a few examples for your consideration. What I’ve come to appreciate, it’s not a question of selecting one approach, rather, its how and when we apply various approaches that we become more attuned to our needs, more purposeful or intentional in our interactions, and more likely to achieve greater outcomes.
Next time you talk with your advisor, consider talking about these approaches and perhaps try a different approach to your norm:
Developmental Advising: Position your academic work in relation to your life context and purpose. Focus on the whole you, not just the learner you. Set both short- and long-term goals, not only related to the academic experience, but which advance your life pursuits.
Appreciative Advising: Work at identifying and assessing your strengths. Taking those strengths and coupling them with your passion begin to formulate your purpose. Explore situations with intentional positive or affirmative questions. Set short- and long-term goals that leverage these strengths.
Intrusive Advising: Connect with your advisor before a solution or problem is presented. Build lasting relationships with your institution and community. Be attentive to how the organization cares to your needs. Engage with the institution, even when the institution isn’t engaging you.
Learning-centered Advising: Put your learning to the test. Engage dialogue that requires you to walk-the-talk. Apply your learning and practice techniques that test your knowledge and understanding. Be explicit and realistic in your self-assessment and ask for feedback, early and often.
Again, there is no one “right” advising approach here, but engaging a variety of techniques or strategies will only make you more attuned to what approach is most effective for you and your needs. We talk a great deal about the transformation of the doctorate. Part of that transformation can only come in embracing your discomfort and your academic advisor is one individual who is trained in helping your connect your goals with your actions, purpose, and outcomes.
One Response to "How do you best receive advice?"
mary hudgins says:
This is very meaningful and practical advice.
I understand the idea about different guidance approaches versus “the one”, “the best, right one.” The idea is the same in instructional design. Instructional designers (likewise many teachers) get caught up in a mind set of “one approach fits all” regarding how to go about the design and development of instruction. It’s not about the one way, the best way, the only way to go about the design and development of the instruction but rather which of the many approaches fit the current needs of the current client, context, and learner. In other words, just like your presentation here of different types or approaches that an advisor might use, the instructional designer is equally challenged, if not urged, to consider more than one approach even in one project. In the various approaches you presented about the different types of advising, it would seem to be that an advisor might have to apply more than one approach in a given session, or maybe during another session; what the advisee needs today may not be the same the next time around.
This is also another good reason why we should be educated about the theories of our discipline. Unless you know the theoretical underpinnings of your discipline, how can you successfully and knowledgably choose among approaches available to you as the practitioner? Furthermore, advising is different everyday, as is teaching, as is instructional design. No two situations are ever exactly the same. However, there may be similarities among the differences. The level of knowledge one has about his or her disciplinary practice directly bears on the success of the practitioner to meet the needs of the client. He or she can pick and choose among the theories, approaches or models eclectically but meaningfully.
The choice of approach is driven by the context, not just by one’s favored approach. An advisee may need to be approached by the advisor using the approaches associated with developmental or appreciative advising or maybe both in the same session. An instructional designer may have to focus more deeply on the proccedural aspects of designing and developing the instruction in one setting, but an entirely different focus may be needed in another setting.
Today, I think, disciplinary practice is more about meeting the practical needs of a given situation or context. Knowing the variety of theories means one is better able to practically meet the ongoing needs of one client on a given day better than if the practitioner only used or became slavish to his or her “favorite” approach. It’s about stretching ourselves as practioners as much as it is about stretching ourselves as clients. Practicality saves the day! Knowledge, too!!
.