MCCCD Advising

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.
O
R
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

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
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.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○

14. Confirmatory Factor Analysis:
Model 1
Developmental
pd3
e1
.31
pd4
e2
.46
pd5
e3
.32
pd8
e4
.63
pd9
e5
.70
pd12
e6
.62
pd15
e7
.44
pd16
e8
.51
Prescriptive
pd14
e9
.83
pd13
e10
.76
pd11
e11
-.12
pd10
e12
.37
pd7
e13
.14
pd6
e14
.41
pd2
e15
.04
pd1
e16
.03
.64
Chi Square: 278.6
CFI: .569
RMSEA: .120

15. Confirmatory Factor Analysis:
Model 2
Developmental
pd3
e1
.31
pd4
e2
.45
pd5
e3
.32
pd8
e4
.63
pd9
e5
.70
pd12
e6
.62
pd15
e7
.44
Prescriptive
pd14
e8
.86
pd13
e9
.75
pd10
e10
.36
pd6
e11
.42
.62
pd16
e12
.51
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
Developmental
pd3
e1
.29
pd4
e2
.49
pd5
e3
.36
pd8
e4
.64
pd9
e5
.43
pd12
e6
.62
pd15
e7
.48
Prescriptive
pd14
e8
.84
pd13
e9
.76
pd10
e10
.35
pd6
e11
.42
pd16
e12
.55
.50
.38
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.