An Examination of Academic Advising Style Preference in Undergraduate Students by Elizabeth Kendrick Yarbrough A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 9, 2010 Keywords: Academic advising, college readiness, college students, developmental advising, prescriptive advising, advising style Copyright 2010 by Elizabeth Kendrick Yarbrough Approved by Jill Salisbury-Glennon, Chair, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership, & Technology Margaret Ross, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership, & Technology David Shannon, Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership, & Technology Abstract As universities put increasing pressure on student retention and success, academic advising has become an increasingly visible and important part of the university. One of the first examinations of advising contrasted two major styles: prescriptive and developmental (Crookston, 1972). Prescriptive styles are based on the expertise of the advisor. Advisors tell students what to do, and the student follows through. Developmental styles are shared processes in which the advisor and student have equal authority. Advisors talk about options, explore alternatives, and concentrate on the development of the student as a whole. The predominant measurement tool for prescriptive and developmental advising styles, the Academic Advising Inventory, examines the two as opposing ends of a dichotomy (Winston & Sandor, 1984a). However, additional research suggests that advising style may be better measured as two separate dimensions, rather than as a continuum. Other theories conceive of task and relational behaviors that may correspond to prescriptive and developmental advising styles if they are two separate dimensions, rather than two ends of a continuum. In particular, Hersey and Blanchard's (1988) Situational Leadership Theory argues that leadership has two major components: task direction and relationship behaviors. Hersey and Blanchard's (1988) model provides a model of the potential change in student advising preferences over time. Task direction, or prescriptive approaches, may be more useful for students of low readiness, for example new freshmen. As they progress in college, and become ii more ready for academic tasks, they need progressively less task direction, or prescriptive approaches, and more relationship behaviors, or developmental approaches. This study was designed to investigate the nature and pattern of students’ preferences for academic advising styles and the way these preferences change over time, as well as to explore the possibility of two separate constructs within advising style, rather than a single continuum. This study posed three hypotheses in order to examine the academic advising style preferences of undergraduate students. The first hypothesis tested whether the Prescriptive/Developmental Preference scale assesses different constructs than the Academic Advising Inventory. The second hypothesis stated that college students’ advising preferences differ as a function of their academic development. Finally, hypothesis three claimed that readiness for college will be a significant predictor of preference for academic advising style. Investigator-developed questionnaires, as well as the Academic Advising Inventory, were used to survey undergraduate students. Support was found for hypothesis one, but not for hypotheses two and three. No differences in advising style can be attributed to classification. Reported college readiness is predictive only of high prescriptive/high developmental advising preference cluster membership. Differences were observed in advising style preference between men and women. The findings of this study suggest that students’ concentrate more on the advising situation, than the advising style. Advising style may play a secondary role, but the emphasis for students is the advising function, rather than advisor behaviors. Implications for future advising research and practice are included. iii Acknowledgments Although this degree is in my name, it has been a group project of the highest order. First, I thank Drs. Salisbury-Glennon, Ross, and Shannon for their hard work and support of my success. They have each known when to challenge me and when to encourage me. You all have made this as painless as it could possibly be. Dr. Salisbury-Glennon, you are an outstanding chair with a keen mind and a huge heart. You are a graduate student’s dream. I also thank everyone in COSAM who supported me in this degree. I appreciate Dean Schneller’s enthusiasm and permission to be away from the office to pursue this degree. I greatly appreciate Krysta Diehl, Emily Williams, and Ruth Ann Fite for seeing students and covering for me every time I was in class. They, along with Beverley Childress, Glenelle Lindsay, and Regina McGinty were some of my best cheerleaders. Dr. Wit, thank you for wanting this for me almost as much as I did. You gave me the job that has led to all of this, and I am eternally grateful. I can’t express how thankful I am to be a part of this office. I thank Mary Helen Brown for saying “Why not?” You helped me believe it was possible and worth it. You handled my stress with grace and understanding. I thank my parents, Ruth and Les Yarbrough, for instilling in me the loves of reading, learning, art, and travel. Those things have defined my life and enriched it immensely. I also thank my great-aunt, Ruth Hare, for her unwavering commitment to our “edification and amazement”. I wish she were here to see this. Finally, I thank everyone who thought I could do it. You all have convinced me. iv Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 4 Significance of Problem .................................................................................................... 4 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 4 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 5 Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 5 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 5 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 5 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 6 Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 7 Organization of Study ..................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 8 Advising Style ................................................................................................................... 8 Purpose of the Present Study .......................................................................................... 11 Developmental Advising ............................................................................................... 11 Shane’s Advising Typology ........................................................................................... 12 v Theoretical Background ................................................................................................. 14 Chickering’s Theory of Identity Development .................................................. 15 Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development .................................. 16 Baxter Magolda’s Epistemological Reflection Model ....................................... 17 Situational Leadership Theory ....................................................................................... 20 Adaptive Counseling and Therapy ..................................................................... 23 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 27 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 3: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 29 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 29 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 29 Research Design .............................................................................................................. 30 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 30 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 31 Demographic survey ........................................................................................... 31 Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 31 Establishing Validity Evidence ........................................................................... 31 Academic Advising Inventory ............................................................................ 32 Prescriptive/Developmental Preference Scale .................................................... 35 Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 36 Independent and Dependent Variables ........................................................................... 36 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 4: Results ...................................................................................................................... 39 vi Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 39 Results ............................................................................................................................. 41 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 54 Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................ 55 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 55 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 56 Research Question One ....................................................................................... 56 Research Question Two ...................................................................................... 60 Research Question Three .................................................................................... 61 Demographics ..................................................................................................... 64 Limitations .......................................................................................................... 65 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 67 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 67 Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 69 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 70 References ................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendix A: IRB Approval Letter ........................................................................................... 77 Appendix B: Information Letter ............................................................................................... 79 Appendix C: Minor Assent Letter.............................................................................................. 82 Appendix D: Demographic Survey ........................................................................................... 85 Appendix E: Readiness for College Scale ................................................................................. 87 Appendix F: Academic Advising Inventory, Part V .................................................................. 91 Appendix G: Prescriptive/Developmental Preference Scale ..................................................... 96 vii List of Tables Table 1: Model Comparisons .................................................................................................... 45 Table 2: Principal Components Analysis of 16-Item Prescriptive/Developmental Scale Five Factor Solution ................................................................................................................... 48 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Scales ................................................................................... 50 Table 4: Results by Scale and Classification ............................................................................. 51 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics on Reported College Readiness by Classification .................... 51 Table 6: Correlations of Reported College Readiness with Advising Preference Variables ..... 52 Table 7: Reported College Readiness Means by Advising Style Cluster .................................. 53 viii List of Figures Figure 1: 8 Variable Prescriptive and Developmental Scales .................................................... 42 Figure 2: 4 Variable Prescriptive Scale and 8 Variable Developmental Scale .......................... 43 Figure 3: Model with Addition of Item 9 to Prescriptive Scale ................................................ 44 Figure 4: Measurement Model of Prescriptive Scale ................................................................. 46 Figure 5: Measurement Model of Developmental Scale .......................................................... 47 ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Academic advising is an essential part of the teaching mission of the university. “Academic advising is the only structured activity on the campus in which all students have the opportunity for on-going, one-to-one interaction with a concerned representative of the institution” (Habley, 2003). In addition, the ultimate goal of academic advising is the education and development of students (Creamer, 2000). As a result, academic advising has become an increasingly visible and important part of the university. Crookston (1972) published one of the first conceptions of advising style. He contrasted two major styles: prescriptive and developmental. Prescriptive styles are based on the expertise of the advisor. Advisors tell students what to do, and the student follows through. Developmental styles are shared processes in which the advisor and student have equal authority. Advisors talk about options, explore alternatives, and concentrate on the development of the student as a whole. Although Crookston (1972) conceived of developmental and prescriptive styles as mutually exclusive, some theorists argue that the two approaches should be considered a continuum, not a dichotomy (Grites & Gordon, 2000; Shane, 1981; Winston & Sandor, 2002; 1984a). In fact, the predominant measurement tool for prescriptive or developmental advising styles, the Academic Advising Inventory, examines the two as opposing ends of a continuum (Winston & Sandor, 1984a). Developmental advising has garnered overwhelming support from practitioners as the most appropriate advising style (Crockett, 1985; Grites & Gordon, 2000; Gordon, 1994, 1988; Raushi, 1993). 1