top of page

Methodology: Digital Research and the Local Study

The purpose of the methodology is to help organize and explain how our team was able to get information together to create this report. We utilized online research with the use of some keywords to narrow down our search as well as created surveys to send to the undergraduate population and their advisors.

In order to get a better understanding of what our client wanted out of this project, we set up an 11 A.M. meeting with him on February 18th of this year. Our team determined whether undergraduate students were receiving adequate advising, pertinent information, and timely advising. We decided to research relevant academic articles about our general study search to facilitate this challenge.

 This process was broken down into parts, and each team member was assigned a sub-topic. Each subtopic is unique on its own.​​

  • Jada White researched the importance of a four year plan and how it can impact the on time graduation rates 

  • Andrea Ordóñez researched the importance of a personal connections between mentors and mentees

  • Madison Cail researched  the benefits of walk-in advising. 

  • Arianna McIntire researched the 

  • Joany Miller researched the use of eAdvising tools, or online advising, and what it can do for the advising process. 

​

Our task relied heavily on our academic research and responses from our local study. These methods proved valuable in determining where both advisors and students need help to ensure success.

Internet Research- Looking for Credible Sources and Studies

After our meeting with our client, we went straight to work planning on how to do our research. We discussed what possibilities we should look into to narrow down our research and make it more specific. The team utilized numerous routes in finding academic resources. Our team used Google, Google Scholar, IUPUI Library, and Proquest resources. We found that Google Scholar and Pro-Quest generated more reliable and up-to-date resources. With these resources, we were able to successfully do a total of 200 hours of research into the advising process.

To yield successful results in gathering information, our team made a note to use key terms. Key terms such as:​​

  • Advising AND college

  • “Advising improvement” AND “mentoring success”

  • “College advising” AND survey

  • “IUPUI Advising”

  • “College Advising” AND statistics AND guidelines 

  • “College Advising” pros AND cons

  • “College Advising” student AND advisor 

  • “Student Success” AND “Academic Advising”

  • “Student Challenges” AND “College Advising”

  • “Undergraduate mentorship improvement” AND advising

  • “IU School of Medicine”

  • "Graduation requirements" AND misconceptions AND advisors AND undergraduate

  • "Work misconceptions" AND "undergraduate advising"

  • “Advisors improving advising”

  • "Advisors role" AND "improve advising" AND undergraduate

Local Study- Feedback and Statistics Gathered From Students and Advisors 

 Internet research is extremely helpful when it comes to getting ideas about recommendations, but to better understand what the audience wants, we also decided to create surveys for the undergraduate students and undergraduate advisors here at IUPUI to gather how they have struggled with the advising process. 

​

To gather critical information about students’ and advisors’ experiences, we sought to create a survey through Google Survey due to this platform being used frequently for surveys at IUPUI . This platform also allowed for the most significant amount of interface and access to students and advisors due to all having access to a google account through IUPUI. Two surveys were created, one for the students and one for advisors. The student survey contains 14 questions, while the advisor survey contains 19 questions and both survey questions were set up in open-ended and multiple-choice format. 

 

We received a more significant response from the student survey than the advisor survey, with many advisors not responding to the emails we sent out or saying they don’t have the time right now to take it. The student survey showed how often students meet with advisors, if they are reaching out and how long it takes to meet an advisor. The advisor’s survey showcased whether or not advisors were getting the proper training and information, how many students they are expected to help/meet with, and understanding of the limitations that advisors have.

 

We set out to distribute the survey through Facebook IUPUI Group Class 2024, sent them to an IUPUI sorority and a fraternity, a college dance group here as well and reaching out to professors for them to mass send it out to students within their classes. We reached out to about 150 students and decided to close the student survey at 53 responses, while we reached out to a total of 36 advisors, and only 7 responded. To see further discussion of the survey results, see Appendix A. 

Sub Key points 

There were some topics that our team was interested in after our research, but were unable to find adequate information or research on the topic. We still found them important enough to list and want to make sure they are still presented. These recommendations include:

​​

  • Reworking the paper form for creating a class schedule.

  • Make sure to update what classes are actually available to take. 

  • Implement the use of the four-year-plan simple outlines that some of the schools use here at IUPUI for all schools.

  • Have a similar outline for minors as well.

Methodology
bottom of page