An Interdisciplinary Approach To Advising Student Veterans

Running head: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS
An Interdisciplinary Approach to Advising Student Veterans
Coby W. Dillard
Norfolk State University
April 21, 2015
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Abstract
The history of veterans education benefits, as well as the history of the academic advising
profession, were introduced to initiate the practice of advising as an interdisciplinary endeavor.
Chickerings vectors of development and Hollands RIASEC model were discussed to establish a
foundation for discussion of three approaches to advising; appreciative, developmental, and
prescriptive. A new approach specific to advising practice for student veterans is built on that
foundation, with implications for practice and research discussed.
Keywords: academic advising, student veterans, advising approaches

Part One:
Introduction
Since FY-2002, the number of student veterans using educational benefits from the
Department of Veterans Affairs has grown from approximately 400,000 to approximately
945,052 in FY 2012 (Kirkwood, 2014). This surge in student veteran enrollment has placed
many college administrators and student services personnel at a disadvantage; they are unable to
properly determine how these student veterans, many of whom carry the scars and traumas of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be integrated into their campus communities and what that
integration should look like. Due to the large numbers of federal dollars spent on educating
veterans, the Veterans Administration (VA) is making a concerted effort to research and
determine best practices for guiding students from their service through graduation.
For the last five years, I have worked in different roles with student veterans at Tidewater
Community College, while simultaneously pursuing my own education goals. My experiences as
a student veteran, combined with those in my professional role as I grow as an academic advisor,
give me insight into the challenges faced by student veterans in higher education, as well as a
perspective on the lack of coordinated scholarly research and resources for professionals in
academic settings to aid in assisting student veterans.
This thesis, written for my Interdisciplinary Studies program at Norfolk State University,
examines how academic advising can be used to improve the outcomes of student veterans at the
nations colleges and universities. By examining the foundations of academic advising and
analyzing different approaches in its practice for their applicability, I will establish a framework
that academic advisors can use not only to help guide their student veterans on the path to

academic success and graduation, but that will also aid the student veteran in their transition to
civilian life after the military.
Overview
The research problem guiding this study is the lack of interdisciplinary knowledge
regarding effective approaches to advising student veterans at a college or university. With
increasing numbers of student veterans entering the nations colleges and universities, it is
critical that professionals in higher education understand the unique perspectives and experiences
they bring to the campus, and that appropriate models to address their academic success are
developed. Todays student veterans are entering colleges with the stresses of a decade-plus of
military conflict, in addition to the stresses that come with transition and readjustment to life as a
civilian. It is critical that researchers and professionals not only have a model with which to work
with these student veterans, but that the ensuing model be able to serve as a transition tool itself,
moving the veteran from a structured military lifestyle into a developed ability to make decisions
for the direction of their personal lives. This study will initiate the field of academic advising as
an interdisciplinary endeavor, and analyze three common approaches to advising; appreciative,
developmental and prescriptive. From these approaches, a new interdisciplinary theoretical
approach will be created, and implications of that new approach for practice and research will be
discussed.
Part Two:
Review of the Literature
In this section, previous writings and studies on the history of the GI Bill and measures of
student veteran academic performance are discussed, as well as literature discussing the history
and foundation of the academic advising profession. These analyses are then combined to

establish a foundation for the discussion of academic advisings applicability to the student
veteran.
History of the GI Bill and Measures of Student Veteran Academic Performance

In 1944, Congress passed the Servicemens Readjustment Act. This legislation, known
informally as the GI Bill, provided veterans with opportunities to speed their reintegration into
the civilian community after World War II. Among the benefits the bill provided were low
interest loans to encourage entrepreneurship, low cost mortgages, and unemployment
compensation. One of the most popular aspects of the GI Bill provided veterans the opportunity
to attend college, and have their tuition and expenses paid for by the federal government. Olson
(1973) estimated that under the original legislation, some 2.2 million veterans attended college,
at a cost of $5.5 billion dollars to the federal government.
Studies of the academic performance of these veterans show that they were considered, at
a minimum, on par with their fellow students. Olson (1973) cites a 1949 Fortune article lauding
the class of 1949 as the best class the country has ever produced; 70% of college students
graduating that year were veterans. Joanning (1975) conducted a study of Vietnam-era veterans
at the University of Iowa, finding their GPAs to be somewhat higher than non-veterans. Other
studies paint a different picture; Card (1983) found that Vietnam-era veterans did not obtain
bachelors and graduate degrees at the same rates as non-veterans.
In 2009, the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (the Post 9/11 GI Bill)
became effective. This new legislation, an update to the original GI Bill, provides student
veterans 36 months of full-time educational benefits, a book and supply stipend of $1,000 per

academic year, and a monthly housing allowance for veterans serving after September 11, 2001.
Eligible service members can also transfer unused benefits to their spouses or dependents
Because the Post 9/11 GI Bill has only existed since 2009, there is a lack of peerreviewed studies on the academic performance of its recipients; the few studies that do exist are
theses and dissertations by other students. Often these studies are conducted by Post 9/11 GI Bill
recipients furthering their education. Ryan Moehle, an Army veteran who served in Operation
Iraqi Freedom, submitted a thesis for his masters program at Oklahoma State University in 2013
that examined the academic performance of post 9/11 veterans, finding that they were able to
perform at an equal standard as their non-veteran peers.
The seminal study on the academic performance of post 9/11 veterans is the Million
Records Project, written by Chris Cate for Student Veterans of America in 2014. This study
showed that a majority (51%) of the one million veterans sampled were able to earn a postsecondary degree or certificate; the study also showed that almost 90% of the sampled veterans
earned associate degrees or higher, with many going on to progressively higher levels of
education (Cate, 2014).
The limited research on the academic performance of student veterans necessitates an
examination of how they are prepared to enter the world of higher education. Student veterans
who receive support in their academic pursuits have more than double the odds of being engaged
in their work during both their academic and professional careers, with many citing a mentor
who encouraged me to pursue my goals and dreams as one of their primary support systems
(Goldrich, 2014). At any college, one of the first supports a student can receive comes from their
initial meeting with their academic advisor.

History of Academic Advising as a Profession
The profession of academic advising has its roots in the earliest colleges in England,
where university presidents and faculty (who were often clergy members) acted in loco parentis
to ensure the moral and intellectual development of their students; vocational education was
assumed to naturally occur, as most students in these early universities were entering the clergy
(Cook, 2001 and Gillespie, 2003). As early American colleges like Harvard and the College of
William and Mary opened, students and faculty lived together, all aspects of the students lives
including their studies, living environments, and even their worship practices at the institution
and at home were supervised by their faculty (Frost, 2000).
The expansion of college across the United States in the 19th century provided the
foundation for academic counseling to begin its emergence as a profession (Gillespie, 2003).
While early faculty focused on discipline and instruction, by 1870, colleges began to separate the
functions of discipline and instruction; in 1876, the first system of faculty advisors responsible
for guiding students in their chosen vocations was established at Johns Hopkins University
(Cook, 2001). In 1889, Harvard created a Board of Freshman Advisors to advise entering
freshman (Cook, 2001). As colleges for women opened, and early colleges moved to
coeducational institutions, increasing numbers of matrons, lady assistants, and lady principals
appeared and moved into leadership roles (Cook, 2001).
At the beginning of the 20th century, the breadth and complexity of curricula at American
institutions of higher education, combined with a growing gap between students, faculty and
administrators necessitated a defined role for advisors and counselors who focused specifically
of academic guidance in their institutions curricula (Cook, 2001 and Frost, 2000). A focus on
self-direction of students, which gave faculty an additional role as mentors emerged in the

1920s (Gillespie, 2003). With the shift of faculty to a mentoring role, counselors received
training to complement faculty advising. After World War I, the first efforts by counselors to
measure the psychological and vocational needs of veterans were measured by college
counselors (Cook, 2001). In 1923, the University of Minnesota recommended the hiring of
advisors who were completely willing to inform themselves in all matters pertaining to
complicated problems of educational and vocational advisement.; specifically, the requirment
for the average faculty member to perform the duties of a counselor or advisor, while still
carrying a full teaching load, was viewed as unsustainable in the long run (Cook, 2001). By the
1930s, the term student personnel work began to appear in higher education practice, and
included educational guidance as well a psychological and vocational counseling; in 1937, the
American Council on Education published the Student Personnel Point of View, which
spotlighted individual interests and differences, as well as the idea of holistic learning (Cook,
2001 and Gillespie, 2003).
After World War II, an expansion in college enrollments, largely from veterans who were
now using the G.I. Bill, combined with the ever-expanding menu of college courses made the
establishment of a professional advising function and office no longer optional, as faculty were
no longer able to handle the increasing course loads while also attempting to advise students. In
1947, a committed charged by the president of Alfred University to give visible form and
progressive depth to the advising of freshmen and sophmores, recommended:
that Alfred establish a personnel office to orient freshmen to the history and
tradition of the university, to studey methods, and to general conduct, and that it
subscribe to the faith and philosophy underlying general faculty advising (Frost,
2000).

Record numbers of students attending college during the 1960s, and a subsequent decline in
enrollments, combined with a higher attrition rate and student demand for improved advising
services initiated a serious demand for advising programs and scholarship (Cook, 2001). In 1972,
the theory of developmental advising emerged from the writings of Crookston and OBanion1. In
1979, the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) was established; in 1981, the
first issue of the NACADA Journal was published. By 2000, NACADA had over 6,000 members.
Part Three:
Interdisciplinary Theory Construction
This section begins with a discussion of academic advising as an interdisciplinary endeavor,
examining its roots in psychology (psychosocial theory) and sociology (typology theory). Next,
the approaches to advising-appreciative, developmental, and prescriptive-are discussed and
analyzed for components that aid in the construction of a new theoretical framework. Lastly, that
framework is formed and discussed.
Academic Advising: An Interdisciplinary Endeavor

Academic advising involves engaging students to think critically about their academic
choices and make effective plans for their education (Schulenberg & Lindhorst, 2008). Creamer
(2000) defines academic advising as an educational activity that depends on valid explanations
of complex student behaviors and institutional conditions to assist college students in making
and executing educational and life plans; these explanations are found in theories that advisors
must pull from in performing their duties. While there are no direct theories of academic
advising (Creamer, 2000), it is heavily influenced by psychological and sociological theories.
1 Crookstons works are discussed in greater detail in Part Three.

Some of the theories that provide a foundation for effective advising practice are student
development, cognitive development, career development, learning, decision-making,
multiculturalism, retention, personality, moral development, and adult development (Creamer,
2000). Academic advisors also need to have an understanding of identity-development theories
associated with race, class, gender, sexuality, and special populations (King, 2005). Two theory
clusters that are important to the practice of academic advising are psychosocial theories and
typological theories (Creamer, 2000).
Disciplinary Theory One: Pyschosocial Theory and Academic Advising

Background. In his work Education and Identity, Arthur Chickering described the use of
psychosocial theories in education as a series of developmental tasks or stages, including
qualitative changes in thinking, feeling, behaving, valuing, and relating to others and oneself
(Chickering, 1993). These theories examine the human experience of education through the
lenses of psychology and sociology. Chickerings vector model examines seven directions that an
individual moves to during their educational experiences:
Figure 1. The Seven Vectors: General Developmental Directions

Vector
Developing Competence
From
Low levels of intellectual, physical, and
To
High levels of competence in each area,
interpersonal competence; lack of
strong sense of competence
competence in ones abilities

Little control over disruptive emotions,
Flexible control and appropriate
little awareness of feelings, inability to
expression, increasing awareness and
integrate feelings with actions
acceptance of emotions, ability to
Moving through Autonomy toward
Emotional dependence, poor self-
integrate feelings with responsible action

Freedom from continual and pressing
Interdependence
direction, independence
needs for reassurance, instrumental
Managing Emotions

independence, recognition and
acceptance of the importance of
Developing Mature Interpersonal
Lack of awareness/intolerance of
interdependence
Tolerance and appreciation of
Relationships
differences; unhealthy intimate
differences; capacity for enduring and
Establishing Identity
relationships
Lack of clarity about others evaluation;
nurturing intimacy
Sense of self in response to feedback
dissastification with self; unstable,
from valued others; self-acceptance and
fragmented personality
self-esteem; personal stability and
Unclear vocational goals; shallow,
integration with others

Clear vocational goals; enjoyment of
scattered personal interests; few
more sustained, focused, rewarding
meaningful interpersonal commitments
activities; strong interpersonal/family
Unclear or untested personal values and
commitments
Humanizing values; personalizing values
beliefs; self-interest; discrepancies
while respecting others beliefs;
between actions and values
congruence and authenticity
Developing Purpose
Developing Integrity
Figure 1. Representation of Chickerings Seven Vectors model. Adapted from Education and Identity by A.
Chickering
Explanation.
Vector one: developing competence.
Chickerings competence vector focuses on the development of intellectual, physical, and
interpersonal competence in students, as well as the overarching sense of competence that
reflects public evaluation of an individuals capabilities (Chickering, 1993). Intellectual
comptence entails mastering content, acquiring cultural interests, developing reasoning skills and
engagement in active learning, which physical competence is a measure of how athletics and arts
affect developmental abilities. Finally, interpersonal competence is the measure of such skills as
listening, asking questions, and participating in dialogues, while the sense of competence comes
from the self- and public evaluation of the worth of the students accomplisments, their success

in solving or coping with problems, and their steadfastness in maintaing the equilibrium of their
college experience.
Most student veterans enter higher education with high levels of physical competence,
due to the physical requirments of the service branches. They also may have high levels of
intellectual competence, especially among those who serve in more technical career fields
(intelligence, aviation, computer and engineering fields). Levels of interpersonal competence,
however, may be dimished; as the student veteran begins their transition back to the civilian
world, a reluctance to share their experiences develops. This reluctance robs both the student
veteran of the thearuptic experience of telling his story, and robs classmates of the benefits of
their perspective. Advisors must seek to build on the interpersonal deficit, leveraging the
strengths of the student veterans intellectual and physical abilities as supports for their
interpersonal growth. Advisors must also transition the sense of competence resulting from the
student veterans membership in theirteam of fellow service members to an equally strong
sense of competence in their individual abilities in himself and their new team of classmates.
Vector two: managing emotions.

Chickering writes that
Students come to colleges loaded with emotional baggage. In varying degrees,
they come with repressed anger, unhealed wounds, distorted ideas about sex,
festering self-doubts, old resentments, unmet needs (1993).
Student veterans come to colleges with most of the same baggage: the repressed anger of
seeing their fellow service members killed or wounded in combat, unhealed physical and mental
wounds, inflated senses of invincibility from surviving attacks that can present as inappropriate

uses of alcohol and drugs, survivors guilt, the trauma of broken homes and familial relationships
during a career containing multiple deployments. An Army veteran in DiRamios study of the
experiences of student veterans recounts his transition from service member to student veteran:
When I came home I worked for about a year in a construction job, going to
school at night because I was married. Eventually my wife left me for another
person, so I didnt really have anything else left for me down there. And my
cousins go (to this university)so I decided to go to school and leave that place
behind (DiRamio, 2008).
Chickering states that, in order to control these emotions, educators must help their
students increase their awareness of them, providing opportunities for them to share their stories,
and teaching them to accept their feelings as normal reactions to lifes experiences. As the
student begins to recognize the normalcy of their feelings, they move from unhealthy and
inappropriate releases of them to the ability to exercise flexible control over them, controlling
them to add depth to their expressions of self.
Vector three: moving through autonomy toward interdependence.

Chickering states that
...moving through autonomy toward interdependence involves three components:
(1) emotional independence-freedom from continual and pressing needs for
reassurance, affection or approval from others; (2) instrumental independence-the
ability to carry on activities and solve problems in a self-directed manner, and the
freedom and confidence to be mobile in order to pursue opportunity or adventure;

(3) interdependence-an awareness of ones place in and commitment to the
welfare of the larger community (1993).
Student veterans generally arrive at the campus with high levels of emotional
independence, generally resorting to the military mantra of motivating themselves to get them
through various situations they face. A sense of disengagement from society emerges as the
service member transitions into their new role as a student veteran, generally shutting out those
who are not like them and seeking out those who are (other veterans and, occasionally, spouses
and dependents). This disengagement, however, does not allow the student veteran to develop the
sense of interdependence they will need as members of the larger campus community, especially
in roles where their status as veterans delineates them as a minority. For those student veterans
with physical and mental disabilities, their lack of instrumental independence is an ever-present
reminder of the results of their service.
Advisors must find ways to bridge the gaps between the student veterans emotional and
instrumental independence, and channel them into a sense of responsibility to their fellow
students and the larger society. Interdependence cannot be experienced until a sense of
independence-the ability to function outside of the military structure, while learning to live with
the new realities of physical and mental limitations-is achieved, and a sense of the student
veterans place in the campus, community, and global society is recognized.
Vector four: developing mature interpersonal relationships.
Student veterans develop interpersonal relationships with their fellow veterans and other
service members; the fraternity of service unites those who have and are currently serving. As
they transition, however, they are severed from the relationships they once had, and thrown into
an environment that views them as an other, and facilitates the recriprocation of that view from

the student veteran. Critical to this vector is the development of tolerance and appreciation of
differences and the capacity for intimacy (Chickering, 1993). Chickerings vector describes
tolerance as a willingness to suspend judgement, to refrain from condemnation, and to attempt
to understand an unfamilar or unsettling way of thinking or acting rather than to ignore, attack or
belittle it, and the increased capacity for intimacy as a shift away from too much dependence
or too much dominance toward an interdependence between equals. (1993).
Advisors must help the student veteran redefine their sphere of influence as larger than
just those who they shared the uniform with; helping them to adapt to their new place among
those who their service benefited despite the views that they holds of them or are held by them.
As the student veteran moves through this vector, the advisor must be conginizant of tensions
that may arise in their peer and familiar relationships, and encourgage the veteran to work
through them with the goal of developing relationships based on equality and genuine caring.
Vector five: establishing identity.

To establish identity, Chickering (1993) describes seven comforts or clarifications that an
individual must resolve to establish their identity:
1. Comfort with body and appearance
2. Comfort with gender and sexual orientation
3. Comfort with self in a social, historical and cultural context
4. Clarification of self-concept through roles and lifestyles
5. Comfort with self in respone to feedback from valued others
6. Self-acceptance and self-esteem
7. Clarification about who the individual is, as well as what is important to them.

Student veterans, in response to the freedoms provided by their departure from the
stricture of military service, can develop questions about their identity. Regardless of the length
of time they served-four years or long enough to retire-one of the consequences of their service is
the subordination of their individuality to the needs of the team they served with. As they exit
the service, many of the unresolved identity questions can manifest themselves as unhealthy
behaviors. In addition, student veterans with low levels of self-acceptance or self-esteem can
struggle with validation outside of the military; separate from the team, they can struggle to
find the individuals who will support them or who can motivate them to perform at their best.
Advisors must be cognizant of the emerging identites of their student veterans; allowing
them to develop their indivduality while helping them to recognize any unhealthy actions that
could adversely affect their academic peformance. They must also help the student veteran to see
and accept the validation from their professors and classmates as healthy, as well as how to
channel that validation into the development of their self-acceptance as civilians.
Vector six: developing purpose.

Developing purpose entails the ability to be intentional about the direction of ones life
and pursuits, assessing and clarifying goals, making plans, and persisting despite obstacles
(Chickering, 1993). Purpose development consists of formulating plans and priorities around
possible vocations, personal interests and interpersonal and familiar commitments.
Many student veterans face the decision between staying in the career field they worked
in during their service, or striking out in a new direction. Advisors must work to develop and
maintain the student veterans focus; recognizing what their interests and goals are, and helping
them to build their academic plan around those goals. While every student is required to has a

general education base, this requirement can frustrate the student veteran who feels that their
experience should count as credit toward certain classes. Advisors must be willing to aid the
student veteran in properly understanding and evaluating their military experience, while keeping
focus on their long-term goals rather than the short-term inconviences of the educational process.
For student veterans with varied interests, or who come with multiple college credits from their
military services, advisors should be able to appropriately discuss and recommend individualized
or interdisciplinary study plans that make the best use of the student veterans previous
experiences and educational benefits.
Vector seven: developing integrity.

Developing integrity is a process of reviewing personal values in a questioning
environment that emphasizes diversity, critical thinking, the use of evidence, and
experimentation (Chickering, 1993). It involves three stages that can overlap: (1) humanizing
values-moving from a reliance on dogmatic thought to a balance of self interests with those of
the larger community, (2) personalizing values-the ability to respect the beliefs of others through
the affirmation of a core belief system, and (3) developing congruence-the reflection of personal
values in socially acceptable behavior.
Disciplinary Theory Two: Career Development Theory and Academic Advising
Background. In 1985, sociologist John L. Holland created a theory on why individuals
choose the vocations they pursue in life, relating their chosen vocation to an expression of
personality (Evans, 2003). Holland believed that individuals who pursued specific careers had
similar personalities, and respond to professional and personal situations in a similar manner.
Hollands vocational theory consists of six personality types, which correspond with six working

environments. The theory is best known as the RIASEC model, after the abbreviations
comprising the personality types and working environments. The RIASEC model is a true
interdisciplinary theory, linking the psychology of students personalities to the sociology of the
academic majors they choose in their academic careers.
Figure 2. Hollands Model of Personality Types and Model Environments
Realistic
Investigativ
Artistic
Conventiona
l
Enterprising
Social
Figure 2. Representation of Hollands hexagonal model of personality types and model environments.
Adapted from Students Personality Types, Intended Majors, and College Expectations: Further Evidence
Concerning Psychological and Sociological Interpretations of Hollands Theory by G. Pike
Explanation.
Type one: realistic.
Realistic types prefer more hands- on, technical activities that involve working with
things, particularly machines and tools, than with people and abstract ideas. (Evans, 2003 and
Pike, 2006). They generally dislike social activities and educational constraints. Realistic
individuals believe themselves to be practical and conservative, and value material rewards

rather than self-satisfaction. Related majors for this vocational type include engineering, drafting
and design, and military science (Pike, 2006).
Type two: investigative.
Investigative types prefer activities that involves exploration and prediction, with the goal
of understanding (Pike, 2006). Preferring thinking to acting, they enjoy the world of ideas,
avoiding activities that involve persuasion and sales (Evans, 2003 and Pike, 2006). Investigative
individuals can lack interpersonal skills, but view themselves as having high levels of
intelligence. Related majors for this vocational type include many of the natural and physical
sciences, mathematics, health sciences and pre-medical programs, economics, sociology, and
sociology (Pike, 2006).
Type three: artistic.
As the name suggests, artistic types prefer activities centered around artistic, literary and
musical endeavors, placing the highest value on aesthetics and creativity. Disliking the
constraints of established rules and structure, they prefer assignments that allow for innovation
approaches and solutions (Evans, 2003 and Pike, 2006). Related majors for this vocational type
include the arts (both fine and performing), languages and literature, and architecture (Pike,
2006).
Type four: social.
Social typers prefer helping and teaching tasks that involve personal interaction, avoiding
mechanical and technical work (Pike, 2006). Enjoying working with others, they are often
friendly, helpful, cooperative, and sensitive to the needs and problems of others (Evans, 2003).
Related majors for this vocational type include many of the social sciences-history, political

sciences, social work, psychology-and educational programs, as well as criminal justice
programs (Pike, 2006).
Type five: enterprising.
Enterprising types see themselves as natural leaders with high levels of self-confidence
and social skills. They prefer persuasion and direction as tools to reach organizational and
personal goals (Pike, 2006). While they enjoy working with people, they prefer to do so as
managers and leaders, rather than as assistants. Related majors for this vocational type include
journalism, business administration, marketing, management, and communications (Pike, 2006).
Type six: conventional.
Conventional types work on attaining their organizational and personal goals by creating
and maintaining structured routines, eschewing ambiguous, unstructured activities, and
innovation (Pike, 2006). Conscientious, efficient and practical, they enjoy working with numbers
and data (Evans, 2003). Many of the service industries have majors included in this vocational
type-accounting, secretarial or paralegal studies, as well as some data processing programs (Pike,
2006).
Hollands theory and academic advising.
Hollands theory offers responses to three assumptions about students and their academic
majors. First, it assumes that students self-select majors that are compatible with their
personalities. Second, these major choices simultaneously reinforce and reward the students
abilities and interests. Third, students at the end of their academic careers are more likely to
succeed in environments that match their personality types.
Advising Approach One: Appreciative Advising

Background.
In 2002, Jennifer Bloom and Nancy Martin began to explore parallels between the
process of appreciative inquiry (AI) and academic advising; specifically, they examined ways
that the four phases of AI (discovery, dream, design, and destiny) could be used to enhance the
interactions of advisors with their students (Bloom, 2008). Their created process-Appreciative
Advising-was put into practice at UNC-Greensboros Student Academic Services office,
beginning in 2006. As defined, appreciative advising is
a social-constructivist advising philosophy that provides an advising framework
for advisors to use in optimizing their interactions with students in both individual
and group settings (Bloom, 2008).
Appreciative advising is an interdisciplinary approach to advising that draws on positive
psychology, choice theory, social-constructivist theory, the AI process, and reality therapy to
accomplish its goals.
Explanation.
Appreciative advising is a philosophy that challenges advisors to
use positive, active, and attentive listening and questioning strategies to build
trust and rapport with students; uncover students strengths and skills based on
their past successes; encourage and be inspired by student stories and dreams; coconstruct action plans with students to make their goals a reality; support students
as they carry out their plans; and challenge both themselves and their students to
do and become even better (Bloom, 2008).
The appreciative approach uses six phases: disarm, discover, dream, design, deliver, and dont
settle.
Figure 3. Phases of Appreciative Advising

Appreciative Advising Phase
Disarm
Key Features
Warm welcome; safe/comfortable environment;
appropriate self-disclosure; appropriate nonverbal
Discover
behavior
Effective open-ended questioning; attending behavior
Dream
and active listening; strength-based story reconstruction

Creating powerful images; prospective framework for
dreaming; making purposeful connections between
Design
Dream/Discover phases
Teach students how to make decisions; provide positive
feedback; being aware of curse of knowledge; making
Deliver
effective referrals
Energizing students to be their best; academic hope;
ending the conversation well; following up

Dont Settle
Challenge and support; raising the bar; virtuous cycle
Figure 3. The six phases of Appreciative Advising. Adapted from The Appreciative Advising Revolution by J.
Bloom.
The relationship between advisor and student is established during the disarm phase of
appreciative advising. Instead of creating an environment that intimidates the student into
acceptance of the advisors superiority, advisors in the disarm stage set out to create a
welcoming, sage, and comfortable environment that is as free from distractions as possible. The
advisor seeks to decorate their office such that visitors get acquainted with them and their
interests, using memorabilia as a tool for self-disclosure (Bloom, 2008).
During the Discover phase, a mutual exchange of knowledge occurs. Advisors in this
stage make use of open-ended questioning that allows students to tell stories that not only aid in
identifying the students passions and skill set, but allow the advisor to rekindle the passion for
their craft. Making use of established counseling micro-skills (maintaining eye contact,

presenting authenticity through body language, staying on subject, and moderating the tone and
rate of speech (Bloom, 2008)) the student is able to communicate and begin to observe how their
life experiences shape and influence their educational path, while the advisor is able to link these
experiences to educational goals that might interest the student.
In the Dream phase, the student and advisor set out on the path of co-creation. The
student is encouraged to think big, and not be restricted by the amount of education it takes, the
probability of it happening, or other people in [their] life telling [them] it is impossible (Bloom,
2008), and identify the thing(s) they would like to accomplish in their lives absent those
restrictions. The Dream phase serves as a check on the work of the Disarm and Discover phases;
if a rapport is not present between advisor and student, answers given in the Dream phase may
reflect the advisors assumed expectations and not the students actual dreams. The advisor is
expected to make connections between the students abilities and skills (as outlined in the
Discover phase) and the students large-scale dream for their life.
The Design phase is where the actual work of co-creation takes place. In this phase,
students are taught and encouraged to make decisions on their academic goals, serving as a
facilitator and guide to the students concepts. The advisor helps the student research and analyze
the options for their education that best fit their dreams, while being careful to identify the pros,
cons, and potential effects-both positive and negative-of their choices. Advisors must also being
to the students attention different campus and community resources that the student can use to
inform their choices and decisions. The bottom, nonnegotiable line to the Design stage is that
the student needs to make the ultimate decision. The advisor who decides for students does a
disservice (Bloom, 2008).

In the Deliver phase, the student is expected and encouraged to execute the co-created
plan from the Design phase. The advisors responsibilities during this stage include
encouragement and energizing of the student to be and work towards their best, as well as
occasional follow-up to ensure that the student is still making positive progress. The final phase
of appreciative advising-Dont Settle-allows the student and advisor to review and reflect on the
achievements and pitfalls of the Deliver phase; challenging and supporting each other to set and
achieve higher standards for themselves as individuals and academic professionals.
Approaches Two and Three: Developmental and Prescriptive Advising

Background.
In 1972, Burns Crookston authored A Developmental View of Academic Advising as
Teaching in the Journal of College Student Personnel. Considered a seminal work during the
establishment of academic advising as a profession, Crookston sought to show that academic
advising, in its quest to provide guidance to students, also functions as a teaching tool.
Crookstons work builds on the then-emerging developmental approach in mental health, which
defined developmental tasks as any experience that contributed to the development of the
individual; developmental advising, then, helps the student become more aware of themselves
(Crookston, 1994).
Explanation.
The developmental approach to academic advising concerns itself with not only aiding in
vocational and educational decisions, but also with facilitating the students rational processes
environmental and interpersonal interactions, behavioral awareness, and problem-solving,

decision-making, and evaluation skills (Crookston, 1994). This approach is founded upon a
mutual relationship between advisor and student, in which both are able to learn from each other.
The prescriptive approach to advising resembles the in loco parentis relationship between
students and faculty at the earliest British and American universities, where the faculty member
was seen as the teacher, who assisted (through his control of both internal and external
experiences) the student in learning, similar to the way a doctor gives advice to a patient, who
is encouraged to follow it if he seeks healing. From the viewpoint of the advisor, prescriptive
advising is desirable because it allows for a degree of detachment; if the student chooses not to
follow the advice, he holds no responsibility. From the student perspective, if the advice received
turns out badly, the student can shift blame to the advisor rather than accept personal
responsibility for the results.
Both the developmental and prescriptive approaches analyze ten dimensions: ability,
motivation, response to systems of reward, maturity, initiative, control, responsibility, learning
output, evaluation, and the relationship between advisor and student.
Figure 4. Dimensions of Developmental and Prescriptive Advising

Dimension
Ability
Rewards
Developmental
Focus on student potential
Achievement, mastery, acceptance,
Prescriptive
Focus on limitations
Grades, credit, income
Maturity
status, recognition, fulfillment

Growing, maturing, responsible,
Immature, irresponsible, must be
capable of self-direction
closely supervised and carefully
Initiative
Taken by both advisor and student
checked
Advisor takes initiative on fulfilling
Control
Responsibility
Learning output
Evaluation
Negotiated
Negotiated
Shared
Collaborative
requirements; rest up to student

By advisor
Advisor advises, student acts
Primarily in student
By advisor to student

Relationship
Based on nature of task/high trust
Based on status and low trust
Figure 4. Contrasting Dimensions of Prescriptive and Developmental Approaches to Advising. Adapted from A
Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching, by Burns Crookston.
Component one: ability.

Prescriptive advising focuses on making judgements on past educational experiences as
well as standardized and placement test results, examining them for predictive information on the
students potential for performance. In contrast, developmental advising uses records and test
scores as a snapshot of a point in time, relying on them for general information while
recognizing undiscovered or untapped potential for growth in the student.
Component two: motivation.

Prescriptive advising takes a more generally negative view of the students motivation;
this lack of motivation necessitates the control, direction, or issuance of orders and threats
that will encourage the student to produce and minimize non-productivity. The developmental
advisor, however, seeks to motivate the student through their own successes in work
accomplishment.
Component three: rewards.

Prescriptive advising views the students desire for achievement as limited to getting
good grades or course credit, receiving their degree, or-in the case of younger students-avoidance
of parental disappointment or scorn. Developmental advising views the desire for achievement

through the lens of self-fulfillment, personal growth, and goal accomplishment, rather than
achievement solely for status or prestige.
Component four: maturity.

Developmental advisors view their students as growing, and capable of responsible selfdirection, which allows the advisor to shift more responsibility to the student for his academic
success. In contrast, prescriptive advisors see their students as immature and irresponsible,
placing on the advisor the burden of closely monitoring the student to ensure that they comply
with policies, procedures and academic requirements.
Component five: initiative.

Prescriptive advisors take the initiative to meet the requirements of their job; that is, they
make themselves available for advice if the student chooses to seek it from them. Developmental
advisors share responsibility for academic success with the student; their focus is more on
empowering and enabling the student to succeed on their own, with the advisors guidance
instead of their direction.
Component six: control.

The extent of control of a prescriptive advisor over their students can varies. Prescriptive
advisors who are secure in their professional roles and the abilities of their students can delegate
some control over the dynamics of their relationship to the student; those who are insecure and

untrusting will wield strict control over their students, requiring them to interact with the
advisors in ways that can leave the impression that the student has no independence or ability to
take control over their academic lives. Developmental advisors do not seek direct control over
their students; they work to develop a climate of mutual acceptance and trust, which serves to
lessen the degree of control wanted or expected by either advisor or student.
Component seven: responsibility.

Developmental advisors seek to share the responsibilities of academic success with the
student. The relationship built between the developmental advisor and his student makes clear
what responsibilities remain with the advisor, what tasks are expected of the student, and in what
areas the student and advisor can work together to accomplish shared goals. Both are held
mutually accountable, and where the relationship falters, it can be reexamined and redefined
along new mutual understandings.
Prescriptive advisors, in contrast, shift the entire responsibility for success on the student,
only assuming the goal of giving good advice to the student, but not accepting any blame for
what may happen when the student fails or chooses not to follow their advice. When that occurs,
the prescriptive advisor make take on the task of getting things done for the student, while
lecturing them at a later time on their failure to act like a responsible adult.
Component eight: learning output.

The prescriptive advisor sees himself as the teacher who must teach, and the student as
the one who must learn, with no profit to the advisor from the student. The developmental

advisor views the relationship between himself and the student as mutually beneficial and
profitable, where both parties must open themselves to learning from the other and collectively.
Component nine: evaluation

The developmental advisor works to evaluate the relationship between advisor/student
collaboratively, actively seeking input from the student as to what should be evaluated and how,
as well as which party-or both-should be responsible for the evaluation. Prescriptive advisors
view their relationships more traditionally; because the advisor is the teacher who knows, he is
the sole determinant as to whether, where and how learning has occurred by the student.
Component ten: relationship

The defining component-and biggest difference-between the view of the prescriptive and
developmental advisors shows in the view they take of the relationships between their students
and themselves.
The prescriptive relationship is based on respect for the perceived authority of the advisor
as the teacher, and requires deference to his position. Preoccupation with the advisors status in
the academic hierarchy leads the prescriptive advisor to be less open with himself and his
experiences, often withholding beneficial information about his educational path that could
provide some clarity and inspiration to the student in favor of a more guarded and formalized
relationship.

Descriptive advisors base their relationships on an acknowledgement of the different
skills and competences brought by the advisor and the student, seeking to leverage mutual
strengths and overcome mutual weaknesses. The advisor can choose to engage the student from a
more authoritative role, only after discussion with the student and mutual agreement.
Student Veterans and Developmental/Prescriptive Advising

Recently separating veterans entering higher education may benefit from an advising
approach that is more prescriptive, because this advising approach allows for creation of a more
rigid, standards-based relationship that closely mimics what the student veteran received from
his superiors in the military. It allows the advisor to function in a leadership/mentorship role that
resembles that fulfilled by senior enlisted service members, and to provide the student with a
familiar environment that will allow the space to begin his transition from service member to
student veteran.
Interdisciplinary Theory: Right/Left Seat Advising

Explanation. The US Army has identified a training concept known as the right seat/left
seat ride, where an incoming unit shadows the unit they are replacing in theater to observe and
learn standard operating policies and procedures. After this observation period, the outgoing
units shadows their replacements to ensure their competency and understanding. This approach
can be modified to provide a developmental, prescriptive, and appreciative advising framework
that, at its conclusion, not only works to ensure academic success for the student veteran, but
aids them in becoming more autonomous members of society as civilians. This approach, similar
to other academic advising approaches, can be used to predict which students have a better

probability of academic success, as well as those who may benefit from an approach that is
strictly prescriptive or intrusive.2 The uniqueness of this approach is found in its structure; rather
than using a single advising approach, the right/left seat framework combines best practices from
multiple approaches into a new whole that gives student veterans a familiar environment to begin
their transition from service member to student veteran.
Figure 5. Phases of Right Seat/Left Seat Advising

Advising Phase
1. Initial contact
Tasks
Build rapport with student, review
Originating Approach
Appreciative, prescriptive
degree program choices, explain

2. First semester advising
admissions criteria
Review placement test scores and/or
Prescriptive, appreciative
prior college courses, provide

3. Mid semester review
courses for first semester

Meet with student for progress
Developmental, appreciative
discussion (thoughts about current

degree program and future classes),
4. End of semester
co-create academic plan

Review previous semester grades,
review/registration for following
discuss future classes based around
semester
strengths from prior semester
Developmental, appreciative
With this approach, a student veteran receives a more prescriptive approach at the outset of their
first semester. As the student progresses through their first semester, the approach evolves from
prescriptive to developmental and appreciative, with the student beginning to take more control
and responsibility for their academic future.
2 Intrusive advising, a fourth general approach to academic advising, is not

discussed in this writing.

Despite the descriptions of the phases, accomplishing the tasks may span the course of several
visits between the student veteran and advisor. Advisors should caution themselves against
seeing a single meeting as the completion of a single phase, and work with the goal of
completing the tasks in a phase rather than moving in a straight line from phase to phase. Also, at
the end of each meeting, advisors should recount the tasks accomplished during that meeting,
giving the student veteran copies of any forms, agreements, or plans that were made during it.
Phase one: initial contact.

During the first phase, the student veteran and advisor work on building and developing
their relationship. Using concepts from the Disarm stage of appreciative advising, the advisor
seeks to make the student veteran comfortable, explaining their approach to advising and aiding
the student in mutually determining responsibilities. The student veteran and advisor will also
discuss admissions requirements to the college or university, including any pre-admission testing
that the student must take prior to beginning courses. Finally, the student veteran and advisor will
discuss possible degree choices that could align with the veterans interests and strengths.
At the conclusion of this phase, the advisor should ensure that the student veteran is
comfortable in their discussions with the advisor, has a clear understanding of all admissions
requirements and a plan to accomplish them before registering for classes, and is able to
generally articulate how their strengths translate into different educational programs offered by
the college.
Phase two: first semester advising.

The first semester is the only semester where the advisor acts in a strict prescriptive role,
setting the student veterans course schedule.
Once the student veteran returns to the advisor, having completed all their admissions
requirements, the advisor reviews any pre-admissions testing scores as well as previous college
experiences, and recommends classes for the students first semester. Incumbent on the advisor is
the responsibility of explaining the necessity of choosing the students classes in the first
semester, as well as the expectation that the student veteran will begin to assume more
responsibility for academic planning in future semesters. The advisor is also responsible for
explaining to the student veteran how he made the decision on the courses that were chosen, so
that the student veteran gains knowledge and understanding of the course selection process.
At the conclusion of this phase, the advisor should leave the student veteran with an
understanding of what they will be responsible for in future semesters relating to designing their
academic plan. The student veteran should be able to see how their interests and strengths align
with the selected courses, and be able to attempt that same alignment independently.
Phase three: mid-semester review.

Over the course of several meetings during the semester, the advisor and student veteran
will reaffirm their mutual relationship along the appreciative mindset. Frequently during the
semester, the student veteran and advisor will discuss the student veterans progression in classes
and adjustment to the campus community. They will mutually examine and criticize their
relationship with a goal of improving each other; the advisor looking to the student veteran for
areas in which his skills can improve, and the student veteran looking to the advisor for guidance
as he assumes more responsibility over his academic future. This phase is where the advisor

begins to show the student veteran not only how to select classes for future semesters, but how to
also begin planning for his career after graduation, whether they are moving directly to the
workforce or continuing his education at a higher institution. The advisor, in this phase, is
responsible for giving the student veteran as much information as possible, so that they able to
navigate the waters of the higher education environment. As the student veteran begins to take on
more responsibility, the advisor should begin to back away from the prescriptive advising of the
previous stage, allowing the student veteran room to grown while affirming support of their
efforts.
Phase four: end of semester review and registration for following semester.
At the conclusion of the semester, the student veteran and advisor will review their
individual and mutual progress. The advisor will review the student veterans success, using
information from their grades and their discussions over the course of the semester to determine
whether this approach benefits the student veteran, or whether their relationship would be better
served by an approach that is more prescriptive and intrusive in nature. Working with the advisor
as a resource, the student veteran will create their academic plan for future semesters, then select
and register for classes for their next semester, leveraging the advisors institutional knowledge
with the skills he has learned over the previous semester.
Future advisor/student veteran contacts.

During the last phase of the first semester, the advisor and student veteran should
determine the future form of their relationship, and whether the student veteran is in a good

academic position to receive more freedom in his academic choices. If there is mutual
agreement, the relationship can and should continue, with the student veteran taking on more
responsibility, and the advisor filling the gaps in their knowledge. Should the student begin to
perform poorly, the advisor can use the various phases to recalibrate the student, resuming their
relationship from where problems arise and addressing problems as equals.
Part Four:
Implications and Directions for Future Practice and Research
The right seat/left seat advising model carries with it implications for practice and future
research. Before its implementation on a large scale, it should be viewed through the lens of the
considerations that follow.
For Practice
Advisors using this approach should be prepared to spend extensive time getting to know
their students, which may present difficulty in institutions which serve large numbers of student
veterans or those constrained by smaller staffs. Advisors should also be able to recognize those
student veterans who struggle with developing their autonomy, and be able to transition these
students to a more prescriptive or intrusive advising approach, as necessary; specifically, those
student veterans with mental or physical disabilities may need to remain in the prescriptive phase

until there are able to manage both their care and academics independently, at which point they
may be slowly transitioned to begin developing their autonomy within the new realities of their
disability.
This approach establishes a standard method for institutions to use in working with
student veterans. It contributes to the practice of academic advising by pulling theories of
advising, along with common approaches, into a readily identifiable form that allows advisors to
become transition advocates for their student veterans, helping their to gain the skills they will
need to not only become better students, but that will help in their reintegration to society as
civilians.
For Research
Research for this approach should center on studies of its effectiveness with cohorts of
students at various institutions (community colleges, four-year institutions, graduate schools)
with different operating statuses (public, private non-profit, private for-profit). These studies
should examine how the student veterans autonomy grows during their first year, how the
method corresponds to their academic success in their first year and beyond, as well as how
immersion from the approach affects success beyond the veterans enrollment at their institution.
Case studies that follow student veterans from their initial contact through their first year,
graduation, and beyond would be the best method of researching this approach.
Conclusion
As service members continue to transition from a downsizing military, using the VAs
educational benefits remains the most beneficial option for veterans looking for stability and

additional marketable skills after their military careers. Colleges and universities can expect their
student veteran populations to steadily increase as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Proactive
preparation dictates that institutions continue to inform themselves of best practices in the
advising and preparation of veterans for college.
Student veterans enter institutions of higher education as prepared for academic rigor as
many traditional and non-traditional students, due to strengths in discipline and self-motivation
that compensate for any academic deficits. These strengths can be best leveraged by advisors
who are willing to devote the time necessary to inform and educate their student veterans on the
processes of higher education, giving them the tools they need to develop a new sense of
independence in their role as civilians.
Academic advisors set the tone for a students educational experience. In the case of
advisors who work primarily with student veterans, it is often our words, plans, and actions that
have the greatest impact on whether our populations succeed academically and successfully
transition from the military. By creating, testing, and continually improving systems that allow us
to prepare our student veterans to navigate the world of academia as independent, autonomous
learners, we continue to honor the service and sacrifice of our nations warriors.
References
Bloom, J. (2008). The Appreciative Advising Revolution. Champain: Stipes.
Chickering, A. (1993). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, S. (2001). A Chronology of Academic Advising in America. The Mentor: An Academic
Advising Journal. Retrieved from http://dus.psu.edu/mentor
Creamer, D. (2000). Use of Theory in Academic Advising. In V. a. Gordon, Academic Advising:
A Comprehensive Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crookston, B. (1994). A Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching. NACADA
Journal, 14(2), 5-9.
DiRamio, D. (2008). From combat to campus: Voices of student veterans. NASPA Journal, 47(1),
73-102.
Evans, N. (2003). Psychosocial, Cognitive, and Typological Perspectives on Student
Development. In S. Komives, Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession (4th ed.,
pp. 179-202). San Francisco: Wiley.
Frost, S. H. (2000). Historical and Philosphical Foundations for Academic Advising. In V.
Gordon, Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook (pp. 3-17). Manhattan: John
Wiley and Sons.
Gillespie, B. (2003). History of Academic Advising. Retrieved from NACADA Clearinghouse of
Academic Advising Resources:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/resources/clearinghouse/view-articles/history-of-academicadvising.aspx
Goldrich, D. (2014). Veteran Experiences in Higher Education. Gallup.

King, M. (2005). Developmental Academic Advising. Retrieved from NACADA Clearinghouse
of Academic Advising Resources:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/DevelopmentalAcademic-Advising.aspx
Kirkwood, L. (2014, March 17). More veterans taking advantage of Post-9/11 GI Bill. Retrieved
from McClatchy DC: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/17/221479/more-veteranstaking-advantage.html
Pike, G. (2006). Students' Personality Types, Intended Majors and College Expectations: Further
Evidence Concerning Psychologicial and Sociological Interpretations of Holland's
Theory. Research in Higher Education, 47(7), 801-822.
Schulenberg, J. K., & Lindhorst, M. J. (2008). Advising is Advising: Toward Defining the
Practice and Scholarship of Academic Advising. NACADA Journal, 28(1), 43-43.

An Interdisciplinary Approach To Advising Student Veterans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Interdisciplinary Approach To Advising Student Veterans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Advising Student Veterans

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

History of the GI Bill and Measures of Student Veteran Academic Performance

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Academic Advising: An Interdisciplinary Endeavor

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Disciplinary Theory One: Pyschosocial Theory and Academic Advising

Figure 1. The Seven Vectors: General Developmental Directions

interpersonal competence; lack of

strong sense of competence

competence in ones abilities

Flexible control and appropriate

little awareness of feelings, inability to

expression, increasing awareness and

integrate feelings with actions

acceptance of emotions, ability to

Moving through Autonomy toward

Emotional dependence, poor self-

integrate feelings with responsible action

needs for reassurance, instrumental

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

differences; unhealthy intimate

differences; capacity for enduring and

dissastification with self; unstable,

from valued others; self-acceptance and

self-esteem; personal stability and

Unclear vocational goals; shallow,

integration with others

scattered personal interests; few

more sustained, focused, rewarding

meaningful interpersonal commitments

activities; strong interpersonal/family

Unclear or untested personal values and

beliefs; self-interest; discrepancies

while respecting others beliefs;

between actions and values

congruence and authenticity

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Vector two: managing emotions.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Vector three: moving through autonomy toward interdependence.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Vector five: establishing identity.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Vector six: developing purpose.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Vector seven: developing integrity.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Figure 2. Hollands Model of Personality Types and Model Environments

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Advising Approach One: Appreciative Advising

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADVISING STUDENT VETERANS

Figure 3. Phases of Appreciative Advising