1. INFO for NACADA  Beth Yarbrough, Auburn University  Are We Singing the Same Song? Rethinking the Prescriptive/Developmental Continuum  Code 105  2012 NACADA Annual Conference  yarbrel@auburn.edu  334.844.5744

2. ARE WE SINGING THE SAME SONG? RETHINKING THE PRESCRIPTIVE/DEVELOPMENTAL CONTINUUM Beth Yarbrough

3. Introduction  Two major styles of advising have been proposed: prescriptive and developmental.  Prescriptive advising is a behavioral approach, based on “telling” the student what to do. The student is told what to do and expected to follow the advice  Developmental advising is based on a more holistic view of the student and uses student developmental theories as a foundation. Advisors and students work together to develop goals, plans, and actions.

4. Existing Measures of Preference  Academic Advising Inventory (Winston & Sandor, 1984) measures preference for prescriptive/developmental advising along a single continuum. Students cannot prefer both styles simultaneously.  Answers toward the left reflect increasing preference for prescriptive advising, while answers toward the right reflect increasing preference for developmental advising. 2. My advisor tells me what would be the best schedule for me. OROR My advisor suggests important considerations in planning a schedule and then gives me responsibility for the final decision.   Very Important Slightly Important Slightly Important Very Important

5. Preference for Prescriptive Advising?  Although developmental advising is widely preferred over prescriptive styles, research indicates that students do not necessarily feel the same way. Smith (2002) found that younger students expressed a preference for prescriptive advising.  WHY?  Are they “on-demand” type people? Just give me what I want and let me go?  Have their parents made all the decisions and they don’t know how?  Do some students simply need more direction?

6. Situational Leadership  Hersey and Blanchard’s (1988) Situational Leadership Theory argues for two types of leadership, task and relational. These are not considered a continuum, but two separate dimensions.  The amount of these dimensions of leadership needed by an employee depends on the employee readiness to perform a task.  Readiness is defined as:  Ability (knowledge, experience, skills)  Willingness (confidence, commitment, motivation)

7. SLT Applied to Advising  Parallels can be drawn to students as “employees” and advisors as “leaders”.  We are attempting to help students adjust to a new set of tasks, responsibilities, and expectations. We are here to guide students into a successful working relationship with the university.  Student’s readiness to address the tasks before them may define the types of help they need from their advisors. Students with low readiness will likely struggle with new responsibilities and students with high readiness may not need an advisor’s help at all.

8. Readiness as Related to Leadership Needs  The less ready (ability and willingness) someone is the greater their need for task-direction. Think about your first 6 weeks as an advisor. Just the facts, ma’am.  As people become more ready, they still need task-direction, but begin to need relational-direction as well. Now you know more answers, but need help with relationships – who are the go-to contacts, who can get help get things done  People who are even more ready begin needing less task-direction, but relational needs increase. You know the answers unless it’s really unusual or complex. How do you take on more responsibility, develop your leadership skills, understand and navigate office/university politics  People who are very ready need little direction of any kind. They can work independently almost indefinitely. I got this.

9. THE CHART! (Proposed) Freshmen (Low Readiness) High Task, Low Relational Sophomores (Mid-Low Readiness) High Task, High Relational Seniors (High Readiness) Low Task, Low Relational Juniors (Mid-High Readiness) Low Task, High Relational Task Relational

10. The Purpose  The current measurement of advising preference is a continuum, but there may actually be 2 dimensions to advising style preference– task and relational.  The current measurement (AAI) does not allow a student to express preference for both prescriptive and developmental styles simultaneously.  This study attempted to investigate whether the AAI is an appropriate measure of advising style preference.

11. Method  Research question:  Is the currently accepted measurement of prescriptive/developmental advising as a continuum appropriate?  Cross-sectional survey methodology  Sample of 119 undergraduates enrolled in Public Speaking  Instruments  Academic Advising Inventory, existing instrument  Prescriptive/Developmental scale, developed by the researcher  Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were conducted for the prescriptive/developmental scale, as well as reliability measures on all scales.

12. Development of Prescriptive/Developmental Scale  Scale items were developed by the researcher and given to experts in the field for feedback, confirmation of developmental or prescriptive nature, and suggestions for additional items.  Changes were made based on expert feedback and the resulting items were given to advisors to rate as prescriptive or developmental in nature. Items which were not unanimously categorized were eliminated.  The final scale is 16 items, 8 testing prescriptive preference and 8 testing developmental preference.

13. Example Questions from P/D Scale Strongly Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Disagree 1. My ideal advisor would tell me what to do. ○○○○○ 2. My ideal advisor would tell me which classes I should take. ○○○○○ 3. My ideal advisor would talk to me about career opportunities. ○○○○○ 4. My ideal advisor would be interested in my life outside of school. ○○○○○

14. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Model 1 Chi Square: 278.6 CFI:.569 RMSEA:.120

15. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Model 2 Chi Square: 110.83 CFI:.810 RMSEA:.097

16. Mysteries…  Why did 4 prescriptive items not load?  1, 2, 7, 11 all loaded poorly on prescriptive scale. My ideal advisor would tell me what to do. My ideal advisor would tell me which classes I should take. My ideal advisor would plan my schedules for me. My ideal advisor and I would only talk about academics.  Mysterious Number 9: My ideal advisor would talk to me about my interests and abilities to help me plan classes.  9 is developmental in nature, but data analysis indicated a correlation with the prescriptive scale.  Inclusion in both scales makes the model fit better than including it in either single scale or eliminating it.

17. Mysterious Number 9: Model 3 Chi Square: 98.76 CFI:.846 RMSEA:.088

18. Exploratory Factor Analysis  Results from CFA indicate that my interpretation of the scale is not a great fit with the way students answered.  An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to see what factors are a better fit for the way students answered.  A five-factor solution resulted from the EFA.  These factors are more focused on the advising situation or need of the student, rather than the style of the advisor.

19. Five Factors  Practical Advising: Rules and Requirements My ideal advisor would tell me about policies that may affect me. …would talk to me about my interests and abilities to help me plan classes …would tell me about important deadlines  Directive Advising …would tell me what to do …would tell me which classes I should take  Skill Development …would help me with study skills and time management …would teach me how to make decisions for myself

20. Five Factors, Cont.  Holisitic Advising …would be interested in my life outside of school …would talk only about academics  Long Range Planning …would talk to me about career opportunities …would talk with me about my goals  Students seem to focus on the advising situation or their advising need, rather than any style or approach that their advisor takes. This indicates that a more complex approach to examining advising preferences is warranted.

21. Where Do We Go Next?  Students do score highly on both prescriptive and developmental scales which the AAI does not allow. If we plan to continue to talk about prescriptive or developmental styles, the AAI may not be the most appropriate measure.  Do we want (as a field) to continue to talk about these styles?  Additional study of advising style preferences – particularly as related to advising situation or function. Does preference change with a change in advising situation?

22. References  Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.  Smith, J. S. (2002). First-year student perceptions of academic advisement: A qualitative study and reality check. NACADA Journal, 22(2), 39-49.  Winston, R. B., & Sandor, J. A. (1984). The Academic Advising Inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.