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
ARE WE SINGING THE SAME SONG?
RETHINKING THE PRESCRIPTIVE/DEVELOPMENTAL
CONTINUUM
Beth Yarbrough
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.
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.
2. My advisor tells me what would be
the best schedule for me.
Very
Important

Slightly
Important
O
R
My advisor suggests important
considerations in planning a schedule and
then gives me responsibility for the final
decision.
Slightly
Important
Very
Important
Answers toward the left reflect increasing preference for
prescriptive advising, while answers toward the right reflect
increasing preference for developmental advising.
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?
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)

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.
Readiness as Related to Leadership
Needs

The less ready (ability and willingness) someone is the greater their need for
task-direction.


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.


Think about your first 6 weeks as an advisor. Just the facts, ma’am.
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.
THE CHART! (Proposed)
Freshmen
(Low Readiness)
High Task, Low Relational
Seniors
(High Readiness)
Low Task, Low Relational
Task
Relational
Sophomores
(Mid-Low Readiness)
High Task, High Relational
Juniors
(Mid-High Readiness)
Low Task, High Relational
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.
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.
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.
Example Questions from P/D Scale
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
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.
○
○
○
○
○
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Model 1
e1
e2
e3
e4
e5
e6
e7
e8
pd3
pd4
pd5
pd8
pd9
pd12
pd15
pd16
.46
.31
.63 .70
.32
.62
.44
.51
Developmental
Chi Square: 278.6
CFI: .569
RMSEA: .120
.64
Prescriptive
.03
.04
.41
.14
.37
-.12
.76
.83
pd1
pd2
pd6
pd7
pd10
pd11
pd13
pd14
e16
e15
e14
e13
e12
e11
e10
e9
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Model 2
e1
e2
e3
e4
e5
e6
e7
e12
pd3
pd4
pd5
pd8
pd9
pd12
pd15
pd16
.31
.63 .70
.32
.45
.62
.44
.51
Developmental
.62
Prescriptive
.42
.36
.75
.86
pd6
pd10
pd13
pd14
e11
e10
e9
e8
Chi Square: 110.83
CFI: .810
RMSEA: .097
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.
Mysterious Number 9: Model 3
e1
e2
e3
e4
e5
e6
e7
e12
pd3
pd4
pd5
pd8
pd9
pd12
pd15
pd16
.29
.49
.36
.64 .43
.62
.48
.55
.38
Chi Square: 98.76
CFI: .846
RMSEA: .088
Developmental
.50
Prescriptive
.42
.35
.76
.84
pd6
pd10
pd13
pd14
e11
e10
e9
e8
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.
Five Factors

Practical Advising: Rules and Requirements




Directive Advising



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
…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
Five Factors, Cont.

Holisitic Advising



Long Range Planning



…would be interested in my life outside of school
…would talk only about academics
…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.
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?
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.