xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001919520
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071218s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002073
Coll, Jose E.
A study of academic advising satisfaction and its relationship to student self-confidence and worldviews
h [electronic resource] /
by Jose E. Coll.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the relationship between worldview, student academic confidence, and satisfaction with advising. More specifically, this study examines the relationship among level of advising satisfaction, worldviews of students, and the student's perceived style of advising received. The findings of this study indicate that a positive relationship exists between developmental advising and advising satisfaction. The results suggest that overall student characteristics such as gender and self-confidence are not as relevant to advising satisfaction as the style of advising used by the faculty or advisor. Furthermore, this study supports findings by Coll and Zalaquett (in press) and Coll and Draves (in press) who suggest that overall student worldviews are not a function of gender or age but may be more closely related to individual experiences.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 118 pages.
Advisor: Herbert Exum, Ph.D.
x Counselor Education
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
A Study of Academic Advising Satisfaction and Its Relationship to Student Sel fConfidence and Worldviews by Jose E. Coll A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychological and Social Foundations College of Education University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Herbert Exum, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Carlos Zalaquett, Ph.D. Barbara Shircliffe, Ph.D. Wilma Henry, Ed. D. Date of Approval: June 14, 2007 Keywords: retention, psychosocial development, academic success, freshmen advising Copyright 2007, Jose E. Coll
Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Cary, Marcus, Dominik, Nicholas, and Sophia. Their understanding, patience, and love provided me the opportunity to take on and complete this monumental life changing task. To my parents who with love provided me a fundamental appreciation for hard work and sacrifice.
Acknowledgement Though only one name appears in the cover of this dissertation, a great many people have contributed to its production. I owe my gratitude to all those people who have made this possible. Dr. Herbert Exum an amazing person who provided me the freedom to explore my own research interest. His patience and support helped me overcome and finish this dissertation. I hope that one day I would become as good an advisor to my students as Dr. Exum has been to me. Dr. Carlos Zalaquett, a true leader and instrumental figure in my professi onal and identity development. To Dr. Barbara Schircliffe, who provided insightful comments and constructive feedback during the various stages of this study and who supported earlier concepts. Dr. Wilma Henry, her dedication to student success and willingness to become part of this great effort in such short notice. Dr. Cranston-Gingras, for her encouragement, practical advice, and guidance as an outside cha ir has truly made this a positive experience. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Henry Beltran who has been a true mentor and figure in my life. Semper Fidelis
i Table of Contents List of Tables i List of Figures iii Chapter One Introduction 1 Background 1 Redefining the Role of Academic Advising 3 Importance of Worldview 3 Importance of Understanding Student Development 4 Statement of the Problem 5 Purpose of Study 6 Theoretical Framework 7 Research Question 9 Definition of Terms 9 Delimitations of the Study 10 Educational Significance 11 Organization of this Study 11 Chapter Two Literature Review 12 Academic Advising 12 Defining Academic Advising 13 Seven Factors to Academic Advising Models 14 3-I Process 14 ChickeringÂ’s (1969) Psychosocial Theory of Student Development 16 EriksonÂ’s Conceptual Development 18 Seven Vectors on Student Development 19 Revising Student Development: Chickering & Reisser (1993) 21
ii Worldview 31 History and Conceptual Definition 31 Approaches and Models to Worldviews 34 Self-Confidence 42 Source of Self-efficacy 42 Conclusion 49 Chapter Three 54 Methodology 54 Introduction 54 Purpose of Study 54 Research Questions 54 Hypothesis 55 Design of the Study 56 Description of Sample 56 Sample 56 Variables 57 Instrumentation 57 World Assumption Scale (WAS) 57 Erwin Identity Scale (EIS) 58 Academic Advising Inventory (AAI) 59 Data Collection 61 Data Analysis 62 Chapter Four 64 Results 64 Survey 64 Participants Descriptive Statistics 64 Descriptive Statistics for Female Students 65 Descriptive Statistics for Male Students 66 Descriptive Statistics for Total Sample 67 Chapter Five 76 Discussion 76
iii Summary of Findings 77 Practical Implications 80 Worldview 82 Self-confidence 83 Limitations 84 Suggestions for Future Research 86 Conclusion 88 References 89 Appendices Appendix A: Advising Delivery System Matrix 102 Appendix B: Journal Critiques 103 Appendix C: World Assumption Scale 105 Appendix D: Erwin Identity Scale 107 Appendix E: Academic Advising Inventory 110 Appendix F: Institutional Support Letter 114
iv List of Tables Table 1 Value-Orientation Model 35 Table 2 Frequencies and Percentages of Participants 58 Table 3 CronbachÂ’s Alpha Instrument Overall Reliability 61 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Female Sample 65 Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Male Sample 66 Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for Total Sample 67 Table 7 Scale Intercorrelations 68 Table 8 Satisfaction Regressed on AAI, EIS, and WAS 70 Table 9 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction and Self-confidence 72 Table 10 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction and Developmental Advising 73 Table 11 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction and Worldview 74 Table 12 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction, Self-confidence, and Gender 75
v List of Figures Figure 1 Conceptual Model 8 Figure 2 3-I Process 16 Figure 3 ChickeringÂ’s Seven Vectors of Student Development 25
vi A Study of Academic Advising Satisfaction and Its Relationship to Student Self-Confidence and Worldviews Jose E. Coll ABSTRACT The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the relationship between worldview, student academic confidence, and satisfaction with advising. More specifically, this study examines the relationship among level of advising s atisfaction, worldviews of students, and the studentÂ’s perceived style of advising received. The findings of this study indicate that a positive relationship exists between devel opmental advising and advising satisfaction. The results suggest that overall student chara cteristics such as gender and self-confidence are not as relevant to advising satisfacti on as the style of advising used by the faculty or advisor. Furthermore, this study supports findings by Coll and Zalaquett (in press) and Coll and Draves (in press) who suggest that overall student worldviews are not a function of gender or age but may be more closely relat ed to individual experiences.
1 Chapter One Introduction This chapter will briefly address the importance of academic advising in the academic success of college students as well as how the changing demographic s of college students influence the quality of academic advising. The chapter will al so briefly explain the relationship between certain noncognitive student factors and advis or factors that influence advising outcomes, and how these factors might be manipulated to impr ove student advising outcomes. Finally, this chapter will provide an overview of the organization of the remainder of the dissertation. Background The college student population in different institutions across the United States is increasing in diversity in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, social cla ss, and age. Since the 1980Â’s, colleges and universities have become a much more diverse environment as ethnic minority and other groups continue to increase in numbers (Priest & McPhee, 2000). Given the many changes in the characteristics of their student bodies, such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender, many institutions have begun to reexami ne their retention strategies. This reexamination often has focused on the role of the academic advisor in the institution as well as certain noncognitive student charac teristics or variables. An academic advisor traditionally has been defined as a staff member wh o ensures studentsÂ’ individual academic plans are consistent with their academic interests
2 and abilities (Midgen, 1989). In addition, Midgen stated that the advisor provides current and accurate information regarding the curriculum and academic policies, w hile serving as a referral agent. Educational institutions historically have used advising a s a primary means to increase retention, and many researchers (Carstensen & Silberhorn, 1979; Glennen, 1976; Noel, 1976; Tinto, 2006) have supported the link between academic advising and student retention. The main thrust of these studies is that the ongoing contact of advisors and students is an essential element in retaining students. Researchers also have found that student retention is linked to student satisfact ion, which plays an important role in studentsÂ’ commitment to their academic institut ions (Bailey, Bauman, & Lata, 1998; Brown & Rivas, 1995). Academic advising often is the only academic service that guarantees prolonged interaction with students, and i t is precisely this guaranteed interaction that makes the advisor key to the devel opment of positive relationships and positive experience for students (King, 1993). Noel-Levitz Â’s (2007) National Student Satisfaction Report, based on responses from 796 higher education institutions, indicated that academic advising is a key variable in st udent satisfaction. Similarly, students ranked the importance of academic advising second only to instructional effectiveness in four-year private colleges/universitie s. Noel-LevitzÂ’s study confirmed the importance of academic advising and its relationship to student satisfaction within colleges and universities. Nutt (2000) described academic advising as an integral part of how the student will perceive his or her relationship with the institution. Gordon, et al. (2000) indicate d that the relationship between student and academic advisor is a major factor in not onl y retention but also in college admission recruitment. These studies support Edwards a nd
3 PersonÂ’s (1997) contention that academic advisors have become a critical element in the recruitment, retention, and Â“survival of most institutions of higher educationÂ” (p. 20). Redefining the Role of Academic Advising Although Midgen (1989) defined the academic advisor essentially as a source of information about the curriculum and the university, other definitions regarding acade mic advising also are found in the literature. Grites (1979) defined academic advising as a Â“decision making process during which students realize their maximum educati onal potential through communication and information exchanges with an advisorÂ” (p. 1). Creamer (2000) described academic advising as an educational activity that a ssists college students in making decisions in their personal and academic lives. Frost (1990) stated that advising has moved from just providing students with information to a student-centered service that includes the needs of the institution as well. Wins ton, Miller, Erder, and Grites (1994) stated that a shift in the advisor/advisee rel ationship began in the 1970Â’s when advising went from being purely informational to being more holistic. The holistic academic advisor needs to be familiar not only with the curric ulum and the institution but also with theories of student development, learning styles, cognitive abilities, and cultural diversity (Grites & Gordon, 2000). The role of the advisor has become increasingly complex due to changes in the composition of the student body. Importance of Worldview Another main foci of examinations related to retention has been studentsÂ’ perceptions of and their relationships with their academic institutions (Reina rz, 2000). This is a process often determined by the studentsÂ’ worldviews (Sue, 1978). The term
4 worldview comes from the German word Weltanschauung and was originally introduced by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment (1790). Sue (1978) defined worldview and its importance to the identity of the person by stating that it relates to the indi vidualÂ’s perception of and relationship with the world. Ibrahim (1991) and Ibrahim and Kahn (1987) referred to a worldview as a philosophy of life or the individualÂ’s experiences within social, cultural, environmental, and psychological dimensions. The importance of an individualÂ’s worldview to his or her life is emphasized by Koltko-Rivera (2004), who stated that individuals are actively engaged with their surroundings through the proce ss of specifically constructed worldviews in order to gain a self-defined individua listic purpose. The importance of understanding worldviews is imperative to the development of relationships, which Sue and Sue (2003) note. Sue and Sue (2003) and Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis (1992) recommended specific worldview-related competencies for counselors working with diverse populations, and these competencies also seem to be appropriate for academic advisors in our increasingly diverse academic system. First, the advisor should become awa re of the interpersonal dynamics that exist between their advisees and themselves; a nd second, the advisor should have a comprehensive understanding of his or her adviseesÂ’ cultural backgrounds in order to better understand the advisor/advisee relationship. This is important because as Hicks and Shere (2003) stated, an advisorÂ’s inherent values (worldview) may have a negative impact on the advising relation with a student whose life experiences do not match those of the advisor.
5 Importance of Understanding Student Development Those who research student development (e.g., Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Creamer, 2000; Grites & Gordon, 2000) postulated that students go through various developmental stages during their college experience. Student developmental theories help college personnel understand differences in students a nd how these differences in development may influence student learning, behavior, succ ess, and social interaction (Rodgers, 1990). ChickeringÂ’s (1969) psychosocial development theory is one of the most influential theories of college student development (Foubert, Nixon, Sisson, & Barnes, 2005; King & Kerr, 2005). Psychosocial theories assert that an individualÂ’s life span is characterized by certain stages and tasks through whic h a person develops. Central to psychosocial theory is the belief that the individualÂ’s social and cultural surroundings influence and shape the way in which development occurs. Therefore, critical aspects of advisorÂ’s recognizing student behavior incl udes the person within his or her social context, worldviews, and understanding his or her developmental stages (Johnson & Rhodes, 2005). Statement of the Problem The development of multicultural competence is, perhaps, the modern academic advisorÂ’s greatest challenge (Coll & Zalaquett, in press; Upcraft, e t al. 2005)). In order to be most effective, the advisor must be sensitive to the many values and perspecti ves his or her advisees hold (Herr, Cramer, & Niles, 2004; Sue & Sue, 2003). Academic advisors should become aware of the importance of worldviews and also understand that worldviews are dynamic paradigms that can be influenced by individuals and/or thei r environment. It is essential that advisors take into consideration the psychosocia l
6 development of students and their worldviews because these frameworks provide students with the personal information they use to make decisions. When students and advisors communicate well, the end product is a more satisfied student who is willing to persist to graduation (Edwards & Person, 1997). Most current models of advising do not take worldviews or levels of student development into consideration, and this may be one of the reasons many students fail to persist academically when they otherwi se might be successful. Purpose of Study The relationship of worldviews to advising satisfaction has received little attention in the literature. Coll and Zalaquett (in press) found that students who have or who develop worldviews to those of their advisors appear to seek advising more often and perceive advising as an important event. Thus, the goal of the proposed study is to extend Coll and ZalaquettÂ’s investigation by (a) examining similarities a nd differences among the worldviews of students; (b) comparing satisfaction with the advising pr ocess among students as it relates to their reported worldviews; (c) examining the relationship between selected noncognitive and demographic variables among students and advisors as a possible means of predicting academic success for students; and (d) com paring studentsÂ’ satisfaction with the advising process, as related to the students perc eption of the style of advising they received. With this in mind, the specific purpose of this study is to determine the relationships among a studentÂ’s worldview, personal characteristics, and sat isfaction with advising. This study also examines the relationships between the level of sat isfaction and perceived style of advising received. Because the enrollment of diverse stude nt
7 populations continues to rise, it is important that advisors understand the unique makeup of student worldviews in order to improve the advising relationship and studentsÂ’ academic success. The goal of the study was to determine whether specific student worldviews enhance the student/advisor relationship, improve the quality of advising, and increase the level of academic success among students. Theoretical Framework Historically, the fundamental purpose of student advising has been to provide critical answers to specific questions and to facilitate discussion of acade mic issues (Creamer, 2000). The role of advisors in higher education has shifted and become more complex as theorists linked advising interaction, level of student development, and satisfaction within the learning process (Chickering, 1969; Frost, 1990; Gordon, 2006). The promotion and enhancement of advising and of the student/advisor relationship has given rise to the term Â“developmental advising.Â” Developmental advising seeks to provide a holistic approach to the student/ faculty (advisor) relationship outside of the classroom environment, where the student can receive guidance and discuss topics such as coursework, career, and values (Upcraft, et al., 2005). These informal interactions between the student and advisor have yielde d positive outcomes in student attitudes towards college, achievement, personal development, social integration, motivation, satisfaction with advising, and retent ion (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Grites & Gordon, 2000). On the other hand, studies have shown that inadequate advising by faculty members leads to negative outcomes s uch as the decision to leave college, negative attitudes about faculty and staff, and lowe r academic achievement (Grites & Gordon, 2000).
8 The foundation for academic success begins when the student builds positive relationships with his or her advisor. Empirical investigations of student development across disciplines and college environments have shown that positive student development is associated with positive student/faculty interaction, developmenta l advising, and overall student satisfaction (King & Kerr, 2005; Upcraft, Gardner & Barefoot, 2005). ChickeringÂ’s (1969) theory of student development and developmental advising continues to provide a platform for examining student/advisor relationships a nd how they may contribute to overall academic satisfaction and development. The components of the theoretical framework and how they may influence a studentÂ’s satisfaction with advising are shown in Figure 1. The conceptual model presented in Figure 1 hypothesizes that there is a relationship between student characteristics and how students perceive advising Furthermore, the model hypothesizes that the studentÂ’s perceptions of the advising s tyle and student characteristics have an influence on student satisfaction with advising which may in turn influence retention, grade point average, interpersonal relationships emotional development, and career decision making. Conceptual Model
9 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Research Questions The theoretical framework illustrates the importance of developmental advis ing in an educational setting. The degree to which faculty provide developmental advising ma y vary according to institution environment, student, and student/advisor worldviews. This study will address the following question: 1. To what degree do a studentÂ’s worldview, self-confidence, gender, and perceptions of a counselorÂ’s advising style influence the studentÂ’s reported l evel of advising satisfaction? Four hypotheses have been developed to help answer the question posed in this study: Students who report high levels of satisfaction with advising will also report hig h levels of self-confidence as measured by the Erwin Identity Scale. Students who report high levels of satisfaction with advising will also report tha t they received developmental advising as measured by the Academic Advising Inventor y. Advising Style Perceived a) Developmental b) Prescriptive Student Characteristics a) Benevolence b) Self-worth c) Meaningfulness d) Self-confidence Advising Satisfaction Retention GPA Relationships Development Careers
10 Students with reported high levels of worldviews will report high levels of satisfaction as measured by the World Assumption Scale. Female students will report higher levels of satisfaction and higher levels of selfconfidence than male students. Definition of Terms This study uses several key terms repeatedly. As a means to assist the r eader their definitions are as follows: ChickeringÂ’s Theory of Psychosocial Development This is a widely used theory of college student development. The original theory was postulated by Chickering i n 1969 and revised in 1993 by Chickering and Reisser. The following seven vectors explain ChickeringÂ’s psychosocial theory of student development: (a) Developing Competence (b) Managing Emotions, (c) Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence, (d) Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, (e) Establishing Identity (f) Developing Purpose, and (g) Developing Integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Worldview Worldview is defined as a set of presumptions that individuals hold about the makeup of the surrounding environment (or world) and that influence the behavior of these individuals. It is the combination of culture, experience, attitude opinion, value, thought, and events that directly affect our daily lives (Koltko-Rivera, 1998, 2004). Self-efficacy According to Bandura (2001), self-efficacy is a personÂ’s selfconfidence of his or her capability to develop, organize, and execute an action required to complete a set goal. This paper uses the terms academic self-confidence and self-efficacy interchangeably.
11 Self-confidence. According to Erwin (1991), self-confidence is assuredness in oneÂ’s self and in oneÂ’s capabilities. It includes a conscious self-reliance on oneÂ’s capabilities to complete tasks, make decisions, and fulfill goals. Advising Advising is defined as a process that helps students develop professional, interpersonal, and academic success through a relationship with and the guidance of faculty members or assigned professional staff (Gordon, 2006). Delimitations of the Study This study is confirmatory in nature and uses an existing data set that was collected during fall 2006 from freshman students enrolled in a freshman seminar cla ss at the institution. The sample consists of 50% of the freshman who were enrolled in a required course. This study examines self-confidence, which is one of three compone nts found in ErwinÂ’s (1991) Identity Scale. Finally, the study does not assess the styl e of advising the advisor actually used. Educational Significance Academic advising continues to be a critical element in the studentÂ’s college experience and academic decision making. Because most universities and colleg es strive to retain every student that is enrolled (Upcraft, et al., 2005), it is crucial that advisors build positive relationships with their student advisees, which, in turn may promote retention and academic success. Therefore, a particular interest of this st udy is to determine the relationship that a studentÂ’s worldview and self-confidence have to hi s or her satisfaction with academic advising.
12 Organization of this Study This study will be organized into five chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of the topics that will be discussed in the study. Chapter 2 provides the literature framework upon which this study is grounded. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the method used for this study and describes the sample. Chapter 3 also will discuss the instruments used and their respective psychometric properti es. Chapter 4 presents the findings, and chapter 5 will provide a discussion of the findings, their implications, and implications for further research.
13 Chapter 2 Literature Review The following literature review will examine a number of factors that infl uence student development and academic advising. In order to discuss student development from a psychosocial perceptive, I selected ChickeringÂ’s (1969) student developmenta l theory, which continues to be the most widely used theory in college student development. Academic advising models will be reviewed to provide the reader with an understanding of the various models that may be applied to advising and also to demonstrate the complexity associated with each model. Lastly, the litera ture review will discuss how personal worldviews may influence relationships and perceptions of student/ advisor roles. Academic Advising Academic advising is defined as a process that helps students develop professional, interpersonal, and academic success through a relationship with and the guidance of faculty members or assigned advising staff (Gordon, 2006). Creamer ( 2000) stated that academic advising is a developmental and educational delivery met hod that empowers college students to make personal and academic decisions that promote personal growth. Advising has moved from providing students with information to a student-centered service that includes the needs of the institution (Frost, 1990; Gordon, 2006). Midgen (1989) defined an advisor as a staff member who helps to ensure that studentsÂ’ individual academic plans are consistent with their academic inter ests and
14 abilities. Furthermore, Midgen stated that the advisor provides the student with cur rent and accurate information regarding the curricular and academic policies and serves as a referral agent. According to Winston, et al. (1994), the shift in the advisor/advisee relationship began in the 1970s when it changed from an informational to a developmental focus. Academic advising is, perhaps, one of the only services that guarantees interaction with students and offers a unique opportunity for faculty to develop positive, lasting relationships that can promote student development (King, 1993; King & Kerr, 2005; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). Advising Models King and Kerr (2005) described seven organizational models for student advising, and they evaluated each in terms of the following seven factors: access to stude nt, institutional priority placed on advising, academic knowledge within discipline, knowledge of student development, training required or needed, cost, and faculty or staff credibility (see Appendix A). The seven organizational models are as follows: (a) The Faculty-only model in which faculty members are assigned to each incoming freshman. Most often the advisor is a faculty member in the student's declared major. (b) The Satellite model which employs advising subunits with colleges and schools. The role of the advisor can shift from a specific advising center to faculty advising depe nding on the needs and assets of the institution. The satellite model has disadvantages and advant ages that are similar to those of the faculty-only model. (c) The Self-contained model is based on an advising center and begins with student orientation. It employs a centraliz ed unit of advising staff who are skilled at working with undecided students and have general information regarding all majors. (d) Supplemental models which deliver advising
15 through the use of faculty members, but within a central advising center with a part -time coordinator who assists faculty members with academic transactions. (e) The Split model in which advisors provide advising at a specific student center, to undeclared students while faculty members provide advising of declared majors. (f) The Dual model involves two types of advisors: a faculty member who delivers advising related to curr icula and a staff advisor who provides general education advising, such as academic policies, transition, and graduation requirements. (g) The Total Intake model involves the use of a central office for all students until they have attained a specific level, a t which time they are transferred to a specific faculty advisor who represents the studentsÂ’ c hosen major. The use of decentralized models such as faculty-only, self-contained, and satell ite has decreased in the past 10 years, whereas shared models such as a combination of paraprofessionals and faculty have increased. Furthermore, the use of any mode l without an appropriate framework is outdated. The 3-I process developed by Gordon (2006) is among the most popular advising frameworks. The 3-I process integrates career advising with academi c advising through the use of the following three stages: inquire, inform, and integration. It provides for a planning and action phase in which both students and advisors are decision makers. During the "inquire" phase, the student is seeking questions and may begin to identi fy certain academic and career options of interest. Furthermore, the student begins to ask direct questions that are triggered by thinking about career concerns as wel l as identity concerns. The second phase is the "inform" stage, in which the student begins to gather information pertaining to his or her personal attributes, career goals, and co ursework. Within this phase the advisor plays a critical role in disseminating curric ulum and
16 academic information as the student attempts to retain and organize its meani ng in order to make the correct academic and professional decision. The third phase, "integrat ion," allows the student to engage actively in decision making by using the information he or she has learned about in the previous two stages. Although the student is encouraged to develop autonomy, the advisor continues to play a critical role in guiding student development (Gordon, 2006). The approach used to guide students is instrumental, and may impact the relationship between advisor and advisee. The two most common approaches to advising are developmental and prescriptive. A developmental approach to advising suggests that the advisor takes time to understand and know students by helpi ng them with decision making, not just course selection. However, a prescriptive approach tends to be more task-oriented and concrete, focusing mostly on course selection and registration (Winston & Sander, 1984). It is important for advisors to understand that each student who seeks and needs advising brings with him or her specific experienc es and perceptions of the student/faculty relationship. Furthermore, according to Chicke ring and Reisser (1993), a successful advisor needs to understand student development as a means to deliver and create a successful advising approach within a specific envi ronment. The 3-I process is illustrated in Figure 2.
17 Figure 2. Gordon (2006) 3-I Process Source: Gordon (2006) ChickeringÂ’s (1969) Psychosocial Theory of Student Development ChickeringÂ’s (1969) psychosocial developmental theory is one of the most influential theories of college student development (Estanek, 1999; Foubert, et al., 2005; King & Kerr, 2005). Psychosocial theories state that an individualÂ’s life span is characterized by predictable stages and tasks through which he or she develops. An individual must complete each developmental tasks or issue in order for the next sta ge to occur (Johnson & Rhodes, 2005). Central to psychosocial theory is the belief that the social context and environment surrounding the individual influences and shapes the way in which the individualÂ’s development occurs. Therefore, a critical aspect of understanding student behavior is to understand the person within his or her environment or social context (Johnson & Rhodes, 2005; Knefelkamp, Widick, & Parker, 1978). In order to understand better ChickeringÂ’s psychosocial theory, it is important to dis cuss INTEGRATE INQUIRE INFORM
18 other theories and works that influenced Chickering, such as works by Erik Erikson and Nevitt Sanford. EriksonÂ’s (1968) influence can be found in ChickeringÂ’s earlier writings, in stating that developmental dimensions can be subsumed into a general classifica tion of identity construction and should be considered as the most important tasks of young adults (Chickering, 1969; Pascarella, 1999). Erikson was one of the first theorists t o conceptualize identity development for young adults. He outlines eight stages of personality development across the life span or cycle: trust versus mistrus t, autonomy versus shame and doubt, initiative versus guilt, industry versus inferiority, identity versus identity confusion, intimacy versus isolation, generativity versus stagnati on, and integrity versus despair (Moore & Upcraft, 1990; Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). As previously stated, a psychosocial theory requires that an individual successfully c omplete the previous stage prior to moving forward; therefore, during each stage certain ke y developmental tasks are preeminent (Erikson, 1968; Newman & Newman, 2005). The resolution of a specific stage may result in an enhanced sense of self that, in turn, may result in an expansion of personal and social capabilities (Moore & Upcraft, 1990). St age completion and growth from one stage to the next are viewed as a movement into a more complex level that establishes a differentiated sense of self (Johnson, Buboltz & Seeman, 2003). A major theme in EriksonÂ’s theory is the concept of identity crisis. The term "crisis" suggests that there is an opportunity for development, a point at which there is an increased potential for growth as well as delicate vulnerability. It is e xpected that a form of crisis will occur during each developmental stage (Erikson, 1968). Therefore, t he term
19 identity crisis signifies the efforts a young adult makes as he or she att empts to forge an identity during the college years and redefines his or her sense of self in c ollege (Upcraft, et al., 2005). Erikson (1968) stated that the development of adolescence is the key challenge in identity and that one could not pass beyond the adolescent stage without the creation of some form of crisis (crisis is not identified as always being a negative experience) affecting the individualÂ’s life cycle. Similarly, ChickeringÂ’s (1969) the ory of college student development focused on the psychosocial development of the adolescent and his or her identity during the college years. Sanford (1967) stated that identity development of college students is a cognitive, intellectual, and emotional growth process that is achieved through the use of inte rnal and external stimuli such as those found in a college environment. According to Sanford, challenges faced by college students result in disequilibrium, at which time the student must attempt to establish or restore emotional equilibrium. The level of environm ental support available to the student will determine the success of the response. This cr isis may create differentiation and integration, which are opportunities for student s to develop complex thought and to connect the relationships among concepts. The psychosocial development of a student requires differentiation and integration; however, this is not a n automatic process. It requires challenges and support from the environment (Fouber t, et al., 2005). Exploring beyond Erikson and Sanford, Chickering eventually constructed a student development theory that he published as Education and Identity in 1969. Chickering attempted to demonstrate a connection between dimensions of student
20 development and the actual supporting environment. His work in Education and Identity is based on a longitudinal study conducted at 13 liberal arts colleges, with most of hi s participants being Caucasian males (Chickering, 1969). In his original work, Chickering (1969) created seven vectors of student development during college: (a) developing competence, (b) managing emotions, (c ) developing autonomy, (d) establishing identity, (e) freeing interpersonal rel ationships, (f) developing purpose, and (g) developing integrity (Chickering; Chickering & Reiss er, 1993). Chickering emphasized that development and growth occur along the seven vectors and will vary accordingly, depending on the student and the environment or the college. However, all students will at some point during their academic career s travel through the seven vectors (Chickering & Reisser). The first stage or vector, developing competence, comprises three components: intellectual skills, physical and manual skills, and social and interpersonal com petence. The ability of the individual to perceive competence appears to be the most import ant aspect of this stage. Confidence, in this vector, is the individualÂ’s ability to cope wit h crisis and successfully attain his or her goals (Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Riesser, 1993). The second vector, managing emotions, describes an individualÂ’s ability to learn and understand how to control emotions. A particular concern in college student development is the ability to control aggression and sexual impulses. Chickering (1969) viewed growth in the second vector as the opportunity to reflect on and increase individual awareness, while developing more effective means of emotional expre ssion.
21 Similar to the first vector, the third vector, developing autonomy is composed of three components: emotional independence, instrumental independence, and interdependence. An emotionally independent student, according to Chickering (1969), is free from the need for continued reassurance and approval from others. Instrument al independence is the ability to achieve specific activities and resolve problems w ith little or no assistance. The third component, interdependence, is the culmination of autonomy, or a student who is Â“attuned to the whole, and awareÂ” of his or her environment and responsibilities (p. 75). The fourth vector, establishing identity, was identified in ChickeringÂ’s (1969) earlier work as dependent on the development and the successful completion of the fir st three vectors. Identity development requires an individual to reflect on his or her se nse of self. Furthermore, it assumes that the person will have the ability to understand his or her sexual orientation and be able to conceptualize his or her image. Chickering consider s these two elements as two of the major components in development and a growing sense of self. The fifth vector, interpersonal relationships is defined as an increase in tolerance for others. Most recently, counselors and advisors have had the opportunity to discuss interpersonal relationships with members of diverse populations and examine how students develop an appreciation for cultural diversity. Overall, the student should develop a sense of greater trust and individuality (Chickering, 1969). Developing purpose, which is the sixth vector, concerns the personÂ’s ability to develop direction in his or her life. The student begins to develop purpose through the use of goal setting and by developing a set of priorities that allows him or her to exper ience a
22 vocational interest. Developing purpose may seem to be one of the most difficult tasks that advisors may encounter with nondeclared students (Chickering, 1969). The seventh vector, which is the last vector in ChickeringÂ’s (1969) theory, is developing integrity, Developing integrity is the means by which an adolescent develops a valid set of beliefs and values that influence his or her behavior. The development of values and beliefs, as presented by Chickering, occurs within overlapping stages t hat include humanizing of values, personalizing of values, and identifying similaritie s between values and the individualÂ’s behavior (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). In order to demonstrate the validity of a theory, it must be tested so as to demonstrate cause and effect and to support the stated hypothesis. Since the origina l 1969 postulation of ChickeringÂ’s theory, researchers have published numerous articles usi ng and testing ChickeringÂ’s psychosocial developmental theory (Estanek, 1999; Foubert, e t al., 2005; Pascarella, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). The various studies on student development prompted Chickering and Riesser (1993) to revisit and modify Chickering's (1969) student development theory by publishing the second edition of Education and Identity. The reevaluation of ChickeringÂ’s theory occurred with the support of more than 20 years of studies and offered the opportunity to revise and update the theory for application to a more relevant and diverse student population. Revising Student Development: Chickering and Reisser (1993) Winston and Miller (1987), based on findings from 241 female students, stated that interpersonal relationships precede autonomy. This study suggested that fema le college students are developmentally different from the population that Chickering
23 described in 1969. The researchers interviewed 24 of the 241 participants, who had above-average levels of autonomy as measured by the Student Development Task Inventory (SDTI) (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Winston and Miller found quantitati ve differences among female participants, particularly with respect to females' development of autonomy. The researchers concluded that the establishment of interpersonal relationships plays a critical role in the development of autonomy for females Because of similar findings in earlier studies, Chickering and Reisser renamed the fi fth vector. Instead of "freeing interpersonal relationships," it became "developing mature interpersonal relationships" and, consequently, moved to its current position, which is fourth and occurs prior to establishing identity (Chickering & Reisser). Based on findings from several similar studies, Chickering and Reisser (1993) developed a greater emphasis on interdependence, and stated that interdependence wit h others in fact is the foundation of autonomy. They define "interdependence" as the a bility to be part of a larger entity such as a community, culture, and society, while having t he ability to maintain awareness of the role that one has within the specific set ting, such as receiving or contributing (Rodgers, 1990). Because of this particular definiti on and its use, researchers retitled the vector "developing autonomy" as "moving thr ough autonomy toward interdependence." "Establishing identity" also was modified in order to reflect research fi ndings that supported cultural diversity, sexual orientation, and minority identity development (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1983; Branch-Simpson, 1984; Rodgers, 1990). Based on a study of 40 African American college students, Branch-Simpson found that developing competence through the college years was achieved through spiritual and religi ous
24 dimensions and that the relationships with immediate and extended family signifie d identity. The vector of establishing or managing emotions also was expanded beyond its original topic of aggression and the desire for sex. Managing emotions currently includes depression, anxiety, anger, guilt, and shame; moreover, the revision includes positive emotions such as joy, hope, and love. These changes are in keeping with the understanding that college students come with various degrees of mental capability and emotional stability, no matter their age and experience (Chickering & Reis ser, 1993; Reisser, 1995). The following reflect changes to the original vectors: (a) Fi rst vector: Developing competence is described as the studentÂ’s ability to develop competenc e in three fundamental areas: intellectual, physical, and interpersonal. Furt hermore, this first vector builds on the studentÂ’s self-confidence and capability to cope with crisis a nd ability in order to achieve goals (Chickering & Reisser); (b) Second vector: The second stage focuses on the studentÂ’s ability to manage emotions. Unlike in the original 1969 theory, this vector has been expanded to include a broader range of emotions, not solely anger and sexual desire. Managing emotions is considered to be the studentÂ’s awarene ss and acceptance of feelings that may be interpreted as positive and negative sc hemas. Within this vector a student should be able to control his or her emotions and feelings in order to respond appropriately to his or her environment (Chickering & Reisser); (c) Third vector: Within this stage a student begins to move through autonomy towards interdependence. Students begin to develop an increasing emotional independence while developing an understanding of their own independence from others and the larger community--for example, college or society (Chickering & Reisser); (d) Fourth vector:
25 The studentÂ’s ability to develop mature interpersonal relationships can be descr ibed as an increase of tolerance for cultural and interpersonal differences. Beyond cultural awareness, the fourth vector has been modified to include the individualÂ’s capacity for intimacy, which may result in his or her ability to develop lasting relationships (Chickering & Reisser); (e) Fifth vector: Establishing identity can be considered as the dependent variable of the previous vectors because they play a role in the development of individual identity. However, Chickering and Reisser identify specific eleme nts in the fifth vector that support identity development, such as (1) the person's ability to fee l comfortable with his or her body and appearance; (2) the personÂ’s level of understandi ng and comfort with his or her sexual orientation; (3) the personÂ’s awareness of sel f within the environment; (4) the personÂ’s ability to identify and conceptualize his or her soc ietal role; (5) the personÂ’s ability to self-identify in response to the criticism he or she receives from respected peers and family; (6) the personÂ’s self-esteem and accept ance of identity; and (7) the personÂ’s stability and ability to integrate the previous element. It is believed that as the studentÂ’s identity develops, a mature sense of self becomes evident (Alessandria & Nelson, 2005; Chickering & Reisser); (f) Sixth vector: "Developing purpose" looks at the studentÂ’s ability to make plans and set priorities. The student develops growth along this vector that includes vocational, personal, and familial investments. Students who move through this vector start to establish meaningful goal s that contribute to a meaningful purpose (Chickering & Reisser); (g) Seventh vector: Developing integrity is the foundation of developing values and is a structure that t he person can use as a guide to beliefs and experiences. The development of values establishes congruency between behaviors and beliefs that result in the stude ntÂ’s ability to
26 move away from dualistic automatic views and begin to think about and conceptualize his or her values and to respect those of others (Chickering & Reisser). Figure 3 illustrates Chickering and ReisserÂ’s model. Figure 3 ChickeringÂ’s Seven Vectors of Student Development Source: Chickering & Reisser (1993) Establishing Identity *Comfort Sexual Orientation Roles/Lifestyle Sense of Self Stability Integration Developing Competence Managing Emotions Autonomy/ Interdependence Developing Interpersonal Relationships Developing Purpose Clearer vocational plans Personal interests Family commitments Developing Integrity Humanizing values Personalizing values Developing congruence
27 Chickering and ReisserÂ’s (1993) vectors have been criticized for being too broa d and for not being able to guide practitioners through the underlying changes that occur in each vector (Foubert, et al., 2005). However, Chickering and Reisser supported the broad conceptual nature of the theory and stated that this is, in fact, its strength. Fur thermore, they stated that the theory's breadth allows practitioners to promote and adapt it to their specific student population and to provide their own interpretation as it applies to their environments. However, Pascarella (1999) pointed out that there is not enough consideration of the process and the change within and between the vectors, which is similar to the difficulties associated with EriksonÂ’s theory of development. F urthermore, the nonspecifics and the breadth have prompted criticism that vectors in nature do not constitute a theory and are closer to a model. Therefore, what appears to be developi ng within the vectors is in fact a natural phenomenon of student life and development. This lack of specification between vectors has made it a difficult to validate Chic keringÂ’s theory of student development. However, these criticisms over the years have not prevented researchers from being inspired to make this theory into the most wide ly used psychosocial theory in student development (Estanek, 1999; Foubert, et al.; Pearson & Bruess, 2001; Smith, 2005). Foubert, et al. (2005) explored gender differences among college students as these differences relate to Chickering and ReisserÂ’s vectors of student development Chickering and Reisser (1993) acknowledge that there may be differences in development as a function of gender (Gilligan, 2005; Josselson, 1996). The Foubert, et al. (2005) research focused on two specific questions. First, they sought to determine whether college students progressed in developing academic
28 autonomy, tolerance, mature interpersonal relationships, and purpose during their colle ge experience. Second, they asked whether gender differences influenced the degr ee of development (Foubert et al.). The sample for this longitudinal study was traditi onal-age college students. The authors randomly selected 407 participants from an unstated tota l of incoming first-year students. The sample consisted of females ( n = 227), males ( n = 180), Caucasians ( n = 321), Asian Americans ( n = 44), African Americans ( n = 28), and others ( n = 12), including Hispanics. Although the authors adequately described the sample, they failed to state the percentage of the total population that was random ly selected or the methods by which they were selected. ChickeringÂ’s (1969) vectors of development were measured via the Winston, et al. (1994) Student Development Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI), which is a 152-item instrument with an established score reliability coefficient of (.85) Similar instruments that may be used to measure student development are the Erwin (1991) Identity Scale or the Iowa Developing Competency Inventory (Hood & Jackson, 1983). Foubert, et al., (2005) used a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to predict gender differences with respect to the multiple dependent variables. T he MANOVA results revealed statistically significant differences across the vectors measured, with a moderate effect size of .68 indicating a high degree of development al change among the first year through the fourth year. With regard to gender differences, a statistically significant difference emerged for the vectors Toler ance and Interpersonal Relationship. However, the effect size was extremely low, threatening the p ossibility of generalizing this finding. Nevertheless, Foubert, et al. concluded that femal es develop a
29 higher tolerance through time than do males. However, females in this study began college with tolerance levels exceeding those of males. Although it is difficult to generalize from the results, because the sample used predominantly Caucasian participants, unequal group sizes, and findings that yie lded low effect sizes, the results support ChickeringÂ’s theory of student development and provide confirmation of the importance of understanding student development across the life span and across gender differences (Thieke, 1994). Moreover, this study supports the importance of understanding individual student development and schemas that may influence studentsÂ’ relationships and academic achievement within various college environments. In an attempt to determine variables that impact student success, Sm ith (2005) researched psychosocial factors and noncognitive variables, such as high school GPA and SAT scores, to determine the best predictors of academic success. Smith (2005) explored multiple variables, such as high school GPA and SAT scores, gender, and student development, to determine which variables best predict college student failure and dropout. The ongoing debate about college student retention prompted this study as a means to determine the role that institutions may take to retain students who are classified as at-risk. The study defined at-risk students as a catch-all category, including minority students from single-parent homes, students of lowe r socioeconomic status, and students whose parents had no high school diploma (Smith). Cabrera and LaNasa (2000) documented the importance of nonacademic factors in college student retention, demonstrating that students' abilities to build relat ionships, navigate their first-year experience, and manage emotional crises are c ritical components in college success. Similarly, Gerdes and Mallinkrodt (1994, as cited in Smith, 2005)
30 found that emotional and social variables have a higher predictability of student college success than does GPA. It is also noteworthy that the institution can contribute to studentsÂ’ success in various ways, such as helping students transition, providing counseling centers, and offering a positive college environment. Smith focused on examining the importance of nonacademic factors that influence retention, such as student development, relationships with the institution, and emotional characteristic s, all variables mentioned in Chickering and ReisserÂ’s (1993) theory of student development. Smith (2005) implied that students who have emotional, social, and environmental support, even if they are at-risk, have a higher probability of succeeding than do students who have low support and higher GPA and SAT achievement. The independent variables in this study were identified as student receptivity and e motional characteristics, whereas institutional and social relationships and GPA outc omes were identified as dependent variables. The independent variable was measured using t he College Student Inventory Form (CSI; Noel-Levitz, 2007), which is a 194-item instrument that has been found to yield a test-retest reliability coeffici ent of .80. The CSI contains 19 subscales that are scored on a 7-point Likert-format scale, with five m ajor categories: academic motivation, social motivation, coping skills, recepti vity to services, and relationship to institution. The dependent variables were measured by monitoring existent GPA and levels of retention. SmithÂ’s (2005) sample consisted of 991 students from a four-year state institution in the Northeast. Students identified as at-risk made up 30% ( n = 378) of the total sample. A multiple regression analysis revealed that incoming high school GPA, SAT scores, and receptivity were statistically significant predictors of student aca demic GPA up to the
31 fifth semester. Moreover, it appears that high school GPA was the strongest predictor of the fifth-semester college GPA. This would lead us to believe that the relations hip between the high school GPA and the college GPA is weakened when students score low on the CSI. Further analysis revealed that students entering college wit h high GPAs and low CSI scores had the lowest fifth-semester GPA, and were at higher risk for dr opping out (Smith). The results demonstrate the importance of establishing services t hat support student development in the areas of emotional and social support as a means to increase retention and academic success. Furthermore, the study supports the use of Chicke ring and ReisserÂ’s (1993) developmental theory as a means to understand student development and identity crisis during their college years, instead of focusing s o heavily on previous SAT and GPA achievements. According to Chickering and Reisser (1993), an individualÂ’s cognitive schema provides the capability to manage emotions and to become aware of his or her environment, and assists in the development of acceptance of his or her own and others' culture. Jannoff-Bulman (1992) defines schema as the latent nature of a personÂ’s observation and perception of a specific experience of the surrounding environment. This basic assumption and interpretation of an individualÂ’s experience and surroundings is also identified as the personÂ’s worldview. Worldview Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) defined "worldview" ( Weltanschauung ), in his Critique of Judgment, as a means for individual comprehension and construction of infinite perceptions within the context of the individualÂ’s world (Kant, 2005). The term Â“worldviewÂ” has been used in various professions and contexts since its first use by K ant.
32 The Oxford English Dictionary defines "worldview" as the perception of the world, a particular Â“philosophy of individual life,Â” and the outlook an individual or a group has on the world (Jewell & McKean, 2005, p. 1937). Additionally, a worldview is defined as a set of presumptions that are held individually about the makeup of the surrounding environment or world (Koltko-Rivera, 1998, 2004). Sigmund Freud (1933), in his New Introductory Lectures in Psycho-Analysis, stated that a worldview is a cognitive construction that attempts to solve individual problems of existence by placing everything that interests us in a fixed place. FreudÂ’s definition supports a conce ptual worldview that is individually constructed and may differ within a various people wit hin a specific culture. Only two years after KantÂ’s universal introduction of the term "worldview, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) used the term in his book An Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation in 1792. Fichte, who took a religious perspective, defines "worldview" as a governed supreme legislation and wrote that if humanity were able to accept the pri nciple of natural causality and moral freedom, people would be in state of free moral law, a nd nature would appear as contingent. He later explained that God is the union of moral and natural domains that creates the foundation for a divine individual worldview and that humanity has little control over infinite and universal perceptions (Fichte, 1988). Ficht eÂ’s argument contradicts the idea that a worldview is an individual construct and supports the concept that a higher force develops and controls all worldviews. In contrast, G. W. F. Hegel stated that a worldview is an objective and subjective reasoning that allows us to define elements in our infinite world intuition to its ri chest and finest identity (Tubbs, 1997). Hegel referred to worldview as a moral view of the
33 universe in that the moral experience of the individual defines attitudes that are developed by moments found in the present relations to natureÂ’s independence and significance. That is, an individual worldview construct is a perception of the indivi dual's relationship to his or her environment. Furthermore, Hegel later suggested that worldviews are indeed characterized by the individual and national consciousness; therefore, each person may have his or her own worldview (Tubbs, 1997). If this is an accepted notion--that a worldview is individually molded and that there are various t ypes-then Hegel would have been the first to address individual multiculturalism. Vince nt McCarthy (1978) supported the statement that a worldview is a general view that a n individual acquires by design and by participating in his or her culture within a spe cific time and through individual experiences. Levine (1995) suggested that Friedrich NietzscheÂ’s use of the term "worldvi ew" is an ordinary perspective on the realities and the concept of life. He supported this assertion by stating that Nietzsche would always use culture, race, nati on, religion, era, or name when attempting to describe a personÂ’s worldview. Furthermore, Levine stated that Nietzsche took into consideration cultural entities, historical eras, geographi cal variables, race, and religion, indicating an individual paradigm or worldview. It is NietzscheÂ’ s definition of the term "worldview" that begins to take on a fundamental and universal meaning that is currently used across disciplines. Anthropologist Robert Redfield (1953) described worldview as an inescapable paradigm of being human. Redfield stated that we all have a worldview that differs depending on cultural context and personal experiences: two elements that support a psychosocial perspective. Carl Jung observed that the dynamics of a worldvie w are some
34 of the principal elements affecting the client/therapist relationship. Furt hermore, he explained that in order for psychotherapy to be effective, the therapist must focus on the deeper issues that encompass the person as a whole and attempt to understand the client 's perspective. This definition and approach may be one of the first attempts in psycholog y to identify the person with his or her environment, leading to a more psychosocial phenomenon (Jones & Butman, 1991; Koltko-Rivera, 2004). This definition also lends itself to the advisor/advisee relationship. Koltko-Rivera (1998, 2004) has developed conceptual elements that help to further define an individual worldview. These fundamental elements or variables a re as follows: (a) Fundamental postulate: the psychological process (cognition) is strongly influenced by a personÂ’s beliefs about what will or can happen; (b) Individuality corollary: dissimilar people have distinctive worldviews that result in diffe rent level of understanding of reality and experiences; (c) Dichotomy corollary: a worldvi ew is composed of a limited number of bipolar dimensions dependent on the person's perception of his or her experience and environment (1998, p. 13-14). Moreover, individuals actively engage in their surroundings through the process of specific, constructed worldviews as a means to gain a self-defined, individualistic, purpose ful end (Koltko-Rivera, 1998, 2004). In other words, an individual worldview is the combination of culture, experience, attitude, opinion, value, thought, and events, which directly affe ct our daily lives (Sue & Sue, 2003). Approaches to and Models of Worldview Sue and Sue (2003) discussed dimensions that support a value-oriented model to individual worldviews as shown in Table 1. This framework, developed originally by
35 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), recognizes that racial/ethnic groups vary with respe ct to their perceptions of: (a)Time: the concept of time varies according to cul ture. Stages of time can be defined as a historical and traditional setting, the now moment, and/or the future; (b) Human activity: the behavior of cultures varies greatly; wher eas some value a doing philosophy (Â“remaining busyÂ”), others value being and becoming through the sense of growth. This sense of growth also is valued differently and can be measured by material accomplishments versus the inner self; (c) Social relations: re lationships are viewed in terms of peopleÂ’s interaction with others, such as lineal and authoritaria n. Within some cultures (traditional Asian cultures) it is apparent that the mal e figure in the home has absolute rule and creates a hierarchical relationship. Other cultures may have a more collateral relationship, defining members of the culture and how they may r elate to others; and (d) Relationship to nature: one's relationship with nature signifies eit her oneÂ’s harmonious and subjugating perceptions of nature, such as can be observed with many Native Americans, or a control and conquer nature, as displayed by many White Euro Americans (Sue & Sue).
36 Table 1 Value-Orientation Model Dimensions Value Orientations 1. Time Focus: What is the temporary focus of human life? Past The past is important. Learn from history. Present The present moment is everything. DonÂ’t worry about tomorrow. Future Plan for the future. Sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. 2. Human Activity What is the modality of human activity? Being It's enough just to be. Being & In-Becoming Our purpose in life is to develop our inner self. Doing Be active. Work hard, and your efforts will be rewarded. 3. Social Relations How are human relationships defined? Lineal Relationships are vertical. There are leaders and followers in this world. Collateral We should consult with friends/families when problems arise. Individualistic Individual autonomy is important. We control our own destiny. 4. People/Nature Relationship What is the relationship of people to nature? Subjugation to Nature Life is largely determined by external forces (God, fate, genetics, etc.). Harmony with Nature People and nature coexist in harmony. Mastery over Nature Our challenge is to conquer and control nature. Source : Sue & Sue (2003). The value-orientation model allows for a review of how members of a specific minority group differ from members of a dominant cultural worldview. Moreover, through acculturation and assimilation, the blending of worldviews can be visible wit hin a specific individual of a specific cultural group. A cultural worldview is changeabl e according to the experiences and perceptions of the member.
37 Using a similar values approach, Janoff-Bulman (1992) identified three variable s as a way to understand and predict individual worldviews. In an attempt to understand how the worldview of rape victims changes through the use of psychotherapy, Janoff-Bulman identified the following assumptions or beliefs about the world: (a) Benevole nce of the world is the belief that the world is a Â“good placeÂ” (p. 6). This belief refe rs to an event and to people, and assumes that people in general are benevolent, kind, and caring toward others. This view of the world appears to support research that suggests individuals believe events in their lives are for the most part pleasant. Furtherm ore, people are more likely to classify their life cycles or experiences as pl easant versus unpleasant, whether or not they experience positive events (Matlin & Stang, 1978; Peterson, 2000); (b) Meaningfulness of the world defines our assumption of the world regarding the b elief that events happen to specific people, while attempting to understand the distribution of good and bad. Therefore, we recognize or believe that good things happen to people who conduct good deeds, and vice versa. It is through the display of personal deservedness a nd determination that a moral and good person gains positive outcomes in life. Furthermore when a person views the world, meaningfulness also allows for negative behaviors to be punished as positive behavior is rewarded; (c) Self-worth is the global evaluation of self and perception of our own individualistic sense of good and capacity. A person's willingness to engage in appropriate behavior and judge individual competence is believed to be a self-worth value that promotes outcomes. Self-worth is intuitive, and supports the first two values of benevolence and meaningfulness (Janoff-Bulman). Understanding a multidimensional and multicultural worldview construct is an important undertaking to promote competence in diversity and as a means to promote
38 professional relationships that support and build empowerment and self-efficacy amon g our students. Cheng and OÂ’Leary (1995) conducted a study using the Scale to Assess World Views (SAWV; Ibrahim, 1991) instrument developed by Ibrahim and Kahn (1987) to understand differences between cultural values or worldviews of Taiwanese and U .S. counseling graduate students. Cheng and OÂ’Leary reported scores that yielded hig h test coefficients of .95 and .96. Similar to Sue and SueÂ’s (2003) cultural values inventory, the SA WV measures the following: (a) human nature (bad, mixture of good and bad, good); (b) human relationships (lineal-hierarchical, collateral-mutual, individualis tic); (c) time orientation (past, present, future); and (d) activity orientation (being, beingin becoming, doing) (Cheng & OÂ’Leary, p. 3). Cheng and OÂ’Leary conceptualized the importance of counselors as well as thei r clients understanding their personal worldview. Moreover, they recommended that we go beyond understanding differences and begin to develop an understanding for culturally sensitive values and perceptions, as described by Sue and Sue (1990, 2003). Furthermore, it is imperative that we begin to understand that there are more common values than differences among cultures, specifically the need for self-effica cy or motivation to reach self-actualization (Cheng & OÂ’Leary, 1995). Cheng and OÂ’LearyÂ’s (1995) study concentrated on determining the worldview of Taiwanese and U.S. graduate counseling students, using the following 15 values as their dependent variables: (a) human nature (bad, mixture of good and bad, good); (b) human relationships (lineal-hierarchical, collateral-mutual, individualisti c); (c) time orientation (past, present, future); and (d) activity orientation (being, beingin becoming,
39 doing). The sample for this study consisted of Taiwanese ( n = 37) and Caucasian ( n = 64). Because there were 15 subcategories and two independent variables, the authors used analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to measure relationships among variable s, using a .01 significance level to determine statistical significance. ANOVA results revealed statistically significant difference s between the participants in all 15 subcategories; however, most significant were findings tha t contradicted the current literature. Within the first three ANOVAs, Evil, Go od-Evil, and Good as dependent variables and gender and nationality as independent variables, there was a statistically significant difference, suggesting that Taiwane se students ( M = 8.2) saw human nature as being more negative than did U.S. students ( M = 6.6). Further analysis showed that Taiwanese students ( M = 7.9) saw human relationships as being more individualistic compared to U.S. students ( M = 5.6). Both of these findings are significant because the literature suggests that traditional Taiwanese should demonstrate more lineal and hierarchical relationships, as opposed to individualistic orientati ons, and should believe in the harmony and good of nature. These findings suggest that there are differences in cultural worldview v alues; however, the study further suggests differences within a culture that are not consi stent with the literature, as demonstrated by the Taiwanese students. This study a lso reveals a significant finding regarding time orientation because it stated that Tai wanese students have a greater orientation toward the future than do U.S. students, who are more oriente d toward the present. Past studies suggested that U.S. students are more likely than As ian students to have an orientation toward the future.
40 However, this study was limited by the sample size, and thus, as Cheng and OÂ’Leary (1995) stated, it should be used as a pilot study and as a mechanism for future research. In addition, the authors failed to address other instruments that could ha ve been used as a means to measure student worldviews, such as Janoff-BulmanÂ’s (1992) World Assumption Scale and Montgomery, Fine, and James-MyersÂ’ (1990) Belief Syste ms Analysis Scale (BSAS). A recent study that attempts to understand student worldviews is that of Coll and Zalaquett (in press), who used Janoff-Bulman's (1992) Worldview Assumption Scale. The authors sought to understand the differences and similarities between tra ditional and nontraditional student worldviews and the relationship between these views and student satisfaction with academic advising by comparing student and advisor worldvie ws. Beans and Metzner (1985) defined nontraditional students as individuals over the age of 25 who may or may not be married and with or without children. Many nontraditional students who work, commute, and assume the role of single parents tend to be goal-oriented and often more mature than traditional-age students. On the other hand, a traditional student can be defined as a student under the age of 25 who is not a parent and is not married or divorced (Coll & Zalaquett, in press). Current diversification of students has led many universities and colleges to st udy new strategies for recruitment and retention (Reinarz & Whites, 2001; Tinto, 2006). With the effort to retain students, the academic advisor has become a much more import ant member of the university. Coll and Zalaquett (in press) discussed this pivotal role a nd addressed the need for institutions to recognize the rising numbers of nontraditional students seeking a degree.
41 The focus of the Coll and Zalaquett (in press) study was to understand better the perceptions students held regarding their relationship with their academic advisors. The authors focused on how a studentÂ’s relational perception differs according to his or her academic category (i.e., traditional or nontraditional) and according to how sim ilar his or her worldviews were to the advisor's worldview. The sample consisted of 113 students and their assigned advisors, who consisted of five advisors in the School of Education and Social Sciences in a private, southeastern, four-year liberal arts univer sity. The demographic characteristics were as follows: females ( n = 86), males ( n = 17), Caucasian ( n = 95), Hispanics ( n = 9), African Americans ( n = 5), and others ( n = 4); there were 62 traditional students and 51 nontraditional students. All participants were volunteers and were selected according to simple random sampling as part of class partic ipation. Participants were informed of their rights and informed that not participatin g would have no effect on their grades. The authors did not state a hypothesis. However, it may be inferred that they expected that traditional and nontraditional students would have different worldviews. The reported dependent variable was student perception of academic advising, which wa s measured via the following six questions developed by the researchers: (a) Is your academic advisor effective at meeting your academic needs? (b) Are y ou satisfied with your academic advisor? (c) Is your academic advisor personable? (d) Does your academic advisor understand you? (e) Do you actively seek academic advising? and (f) Is advising important to you? ANOVA results revealed an unexpected finding of no statisti cally significant difference between traditional and nontraditional student worldviews However, a statistically significant relationship emerged between how stu dents perceived
42 their advisor and how similar were the studentsÂ’ and advisorsÂ’ worldviews (i.e., me asured standard deviation units). Coll and Zalaquett (in press) also found a statistically significant rela tionship between students' self-worth and whether they perceived their academic advisors a s understanding them. The authors concluded that students with perceived levels of self worth equal to or higher than their advisorsÂ’ tended to believe that their advisors understood them better than did those students whose perceived levels of self-worth wer e lower than those of their advisors. Furthermore, students whose levels of perceived s elfworth were higher than those of their advisors tended to report that they actively sought advising and believed that advising was important to them. The authors' unexpected findings suggest that, at least for this sample, differences in age or persona l experiences of students do not correspond to differences in worldviews, as suggested in the resear ch literature. However, the finding pertaining to the relationship between the self -worth levels of students and their advisors makes a significant contribution to the literat ure and provides avenues for further research into student advising relationships. The effort to understand individual worldviews represents a significant moveme nt to build affective relationships with students. It allows for a deeper understand ing of the studentÂ’s perspectives, principles, and values of life that can provide advisors with a glimpse into a multidimensional and multicultural worldview. Additionally, understanding of a worldview construct is an important undertaking that promotes competence in diversity and serves as a means for promoting professional relati onships that support student self-efficacy.
43 Self-Confidence According to Erwin (1991), self-confidence is assuredness in oneÂ’s self and in oneÂ’s capabilities. It includes a conscious self-reliance on oneÂ’s capabilit ies to complete tasks, make decisions, and realize goals. Similarly, Bandura (1997, 2001) defined self efficacy as a personÂ’s confidence in his or her capability to develop, organize, and execute an action required to complete a set goal. Self-efficacy is a com ponent or concept that derives from social cognitive theory, which establishes that behavior is subje ctive and is affected by the person, thought, and environment. Social cognitive theory suggest s that a person has the capacity to symbolize, develop, and control self-thought as well as to learn from internal and external personal and social experiences. The deve lopment and control of self-thought would suggest that an individual possesses an internal self-regulating system that affects motivation and learning (Bandura, 2001; Bandura Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003). The triadic relationship becomes interrelated and influences a personÂ’s se lf-belief or self-confidence to accomplish goals. This process is part of the self-regulat ory system that all individuals possess and, furthermore, aids in the development of an individualÂ’s beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, research shows that self-regulation contribute s not only to beliefs and behaviors but also accounts for academic achievement (Pajares 2002; Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Bandura (2001) introduced self-efficacy as a concept related to an individualÂ’s self-regulatory system and self-confidence. It is the mechanism that regulates an essential part of the personÂ’s reciprocal motivation through the belief in an achievable goal or the ability to execute an action required to complete a set goal. The self-regulat ory system
44 mediates the degree to which each triadic component influences a personÂ’s thought, feelings, behavior, and motivation. Moreover, individual experiences and perceptions develop self-regulation in important ways, such as the accumulation of perceptions a bout performance, and ultimately influence self-belief. These experiences and beliefs comprise a personÂ’s self-system, which influences a personÂ’s ability (Bandura; Paja res, 2002). Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) stated that the psychological development of self-regulation involves motivation, self-awareness of performance, social s ettings, and sensitivity to environment, which is similar to the way in which Erwin (1991) identi fied self-confidence. Self-regulation, according to Zimmerman and Risemberg, i s interdependent with the personÂ’s social environment and behavioral triadic influence s. An individualÂ’s perception activates the self-system, providing information about pa st events and experiences, accomplishments, and failures. These events are process ed, stored, and used by the self-efficacy belief system, which affects the individua lÂ’s thought, behavior, and action within his or her environment. This process influences motivation and action, determining what activities a person likely will engage in and succee d at. For instance, a studentÂ’s perception is based on the data or information obtained from class and work performance, vicarious experiences, and persuasive advice received from others such as a peer or professor; a student uses the interpretation and perception of these educational experiences to gauge his or her capacity and ability to succeed ( Bandura, 2001). Because human behavior is ever-changing, educators need to understand that learning is a bi-directional experience that is influenced by the studentÂ’s s elf-regulatory system (Bandura, 2001). Therefore, a studentÂ’s perception of achievement is deter mined
45 by how he or she understands the bi-directional experience, and is influenced by a tea cher or advisor relationship that may enhance self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has been found to predict a behavior in a given task (Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Negative perceived self-efficacy may cause a person t o behave anxiously in a situation, which may create negative behavioral outcomes. Further more, according to Zimmerman, researchers have found that perceived self-eff icacy has a positive association with academic choice and overall success in school. Moreover, s elfÂ– efficacy or self-confidence in oneself is a task-specific entity, whic h has been found to be a consistent predictor of performance, achievement levels, success, and per sonal goal (Zimmerman, et al., 1992). Bandura, Adams, and Beyer (1977) stated that there are four sources of self-efficacy: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal pers uasion, and emotional arousal. A personÂ’s performance and accomplishment of a task is considere d to be the most influential source for the development of self-efficacy. In other w ords, a person will develop perceived success according to how he or she performed on the previous task and how successful he or she was (Bandura, et al., 1977). However, a criticism of this belief is that the perception of previous events does not lead to higher self-efficacy and, in fact, just decreases anxiety due to positive reinforc ement (Hawkins, 1992). Vicarious experience is interpreted as the idea that a person is in control or determines his or her capability for a given goal based on continuous observation of others performing and completing a specific task. Bandura, et al. (1977) posited that observing others conducting a task similar to oneÂ’s own will result in the belief tha t this
46 specific goal also can be completed. In other words, through modeling, one can cognitively develop a schema that supports oneself in engaging and completing the assigned task. Verbal persuasion is the most frequently utilized and recognized source of self efficacy. Verbal persuasion is the idea that a person gains a higher level of self-efficacy through the use of verbal command. However popular, Bandura, et al. (1977) found that persuasion per se is not as reliable a source as is performance accomplishme nt and vicarious experience. The fourth and final source for self-efficacy is emotional arousal, or the belie f that self-efficacy may be influenced by the individualÂ’s physiological stimulat ion, such as a personÂ’s anxiety regarding a specific task or goal. Emotional arousal dete rmines the level of self-efficacy according to the individualÂ’s level of anxiety regarding the performance of a specific task (Bandura, et al., 1977). Hence, a personÂ’s given perception of the world (i.e., worldview) may influence his or her self-confidence, life expectations, st andards, values, environment, and culture (Ross & Wertz, 2003). If self-confidence levels are influenced by a personÂ’s worldview, environm ent, and values beyond the four previously mentioned components, it may be possible to predict college success to some degree by understanding the studentÂ’s worldvie w, developmental stage (i.e., values, environment, emotional stability, and identity) and his or her experiential perception. A study by Quimby and OÂ’Brien (2004) revealed the role that self-efficac y has in predicting student and career decision making among nontraditional college students The authors indicated in the literature review that perceived career barrier s and social support
47 account for the variance in student and career decision making and for the self-eff icacy of nontraditional college women. Furthermore, they discuss career counseling interve ntions that help facilitate success among nontraditional female college students. Q uimby and OÂ’Brien sought to understand particular risks associated with nontraditional fem ale college students, such as low levels of self-efficacy that can affect thei r ability to achieve academically and advance in their related careers. Furthermore, the a uthors attempted to gain knowledge and develop awareness of factors impacting academic succes s among nontraditional students. The authors hypothesized that perceived self-efficacy expectations would explain variance in academic and career decision making am ong nontraditional college women (Quimby & OÂ’Brien, 2004). Participants were 354 nontraditional college women enrolled at a large mid-Atlantic University. Participants ranged in age from 26 to 68 years; nearl y 71% were Caucasian, 15% were African American, 2.5% were Asian American, 3.8% were Latino/a, 3.1% were Middle Eastern, 1.3% were Native American, 0.6% were biraci al, and 3.1% were classified as Other (Quimby & OÂ’Brien, 2004). All participants were enrolled as part-time or full-time undergraduate students for an average of 5.2 sem esters. This study measured self-efficacy using Taylor and BetzÂ’s (2004) original Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (CDMSE-SF), which assesses the role that self-efficacy has on career decision making. The CDMSE-SF measures self-confidence in accompl ishing career-related tasks and consists of 25 items rated on a 5-point Likert-forma t scale. The CDMSE-SF has been found to yield scores that culminated in a high score relia bility coefficient of .94 for the total scale. Students also were administered the Se lf-Efficacy Expectations of Role Management (SEERM, Lefcourt, 1995) form, which measures
48 participantsÂ’ beliefs in their ability to manage successfully the tasks re lated to the student role. This scale has been reported to yield a coefficient alpha score reli ability coefficient of .95. An ANOVA was conducted to compare levels of perceived career barriers, social support, and self-efficacy between two groups of nontraditional college students. Resul ts revealed that female nontraditional college students without children perceived the three barriers mentioned earlier as being a greater hindrance to academic succ ess than did students with children. Furthermore, a statistically significant differe nce was found on other measures of perceived social support. That is, students who had children had a higher sense of self-efficacy. This study revealed that nontraditional coll ege women have a high perceived self-confidence in their ability to manage the student role a nd pursue career-related tasks. Consistent with previous research, this study indicate s that nontraditional college women feel confident in completing the necessary steps a ssociated with career development with high levels of perceived social support. Quimby and OÂ’BrienÂ’s (2004) study represents the first investigation of the role of contextual variables in predicting student career decision-making and self-e fficacy among nontraditional college women. The significance of this study is evident as the population of nontraditional female college students increases, and educators need t o provide appropriate advising as a means to increase self-efficacy and academ ic success. Jakubowski and Dembo (2004) examined the relationship among academic self-regulation, self-efficacy, and the studentÂ’s self-belief system of ide ntity style during their first year in college. Most college students come into higher education with a set of beliefs that are either based on cultural values based or are developed due to specif ic
49 experiences. Hofer, Yu, and Pintrich (1998) stated that a studentÂ’s early belief s might have individual constraints or facilitate identity development. Jakubowski and Dembo (2004) identified the development of a student as a psychosocial process and described MarciaÂ’s (1966) psychosocial developmental m odel that derives from EriksonÂ’s development through the life span theory. However, unlike Erikson, Marcia identifies four major categories or lateral stages of deve lopment: (a) identity diffusion, (b) foreclosed, (c) moratorium, and (d) identity achievement. Furthermore, Jakubowski and Dembo recognized Berzonsky and KurkÂ’s (2000) framework as representing a model of social cognitive development. Berzonsky and Kurk (2000) stated that it is possible to identify individuals by the use of identity styles. These identity styles help distinguish individual proces s and evaluate self-relevant information used as an identity construct. In addition, Boy d, Hunt, Lucas, and Kandell (2003) stated that a personÂ’s identity style and psychosocial development, and individual self-efficacy is directly related to identity deve lopment through motivation and the willingness to engage in self-regulated behaviors. Jakubows ki and Dembo (2004) hypothesized that informational identity and the action stage of change (self-regulation) are related to academic self-regulation. The refore, a person who is willing to engage in identity change has a higher probability of self-re gulating his or her academic achievement and progress. Identity style and stage of chan ge (student selfbelief system) were identified as independent variables. Dependent variables were identified as academic self-regulation and levels of self-efficacy. This study consisted of 194 undergraduate students at a private four-year institution, who at the time of the study were enrolled in a learning and study stra tegy
50 class. The sample consisted of 114 females and 96 males, which ethnically consisted of 91 Caucasian, 42 African Americans, 37 Hispanics, and 24 Asian Americans. The mean SAT score of surveyed students was 119 points lower than the University means of 1182. The authors used the following instruments to measure specific variables. Sel fregulation was measured via a 9-item survey derived from the 32-item Dynami c and Active Learning Inventory (DALI; Chissom & Iran-Nejad, 1992 ), which measures proactive learning strategies. Self-efficacy was measured via a 9-i tem self-efficacy subscale from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSL Q). Student identity was measured via Berzonsky and KurkÂ’s (2000) Identity Style Inventory (ISI3), which consists of 30 statements representing a 5-point Likert-format scale w ith a coefficient of .79. The final instrument the authors used was the ATTS inventory that measures the stage of change, using 32 items representing a 5-point Likert-f ormat scale. The authors reported a .82 coefficient; however, no previous published studies have provided test/re-test coefficient scores for the ATTS. Due to the large numbe r of items, the author developed various random subscales in order to control for and minimize any effect that one scale may have had on another and on reported fatigue. A two-step analysis was used to determine whether an increase in knowledge o f self-regulation occurs among first-year college students. Findings re vealed that students who scored high in the informational subscale indicated that they had invested time in constructing their identities. Furthermore, students with higher self-effic acy scores appeared to have a higher sense of willingness and self-regulation. Moreover, ide ntity subscale scores were statistically significantly correlated to stude ntsÂ’ willingness to improve their self-regulation; that is, students who scored high on identity were m ore
51 likely to monitor their beliefs and identity development. This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating once more the need for educators to be aware of t he importance of self-efficacy in academic achievement and, as discussed by J akubowski and Dembo (2004), in student identity development. Summary The current increase in diverse students in college student enrollments and their increase in public and private colleges and universities mandates a unique approach and methodology for recruiting, enrolling, and advising as a means to retain students a nd increase academic success. The need for institutions to improve how they address the student/advisor relationship is discussed by Coll and Zalaquett (in press), who report that those students who develop worldviews similar to those of their advisors appear to seek advising more often and perceive advising as an important event. Similarly, Ki ng and Kerr (2005) state that the development of a relationship between students and advisors is a fundamental necessity in order to address diversity among college students, re tention, and academic success. In order to help understand studentsÂ’ development during their college experience, Chickering (1969) developed a psychosocial theory that has assisted educators in addressing student identity development. His theory is derived from EricksonÂ’s psychosocial theory of human development through the life span. Psychosocial theories focus on factors such as environment, emotions, biology, and relationships with the environment, or what is considered the person in his or her environment (PIE). Chickering developed and modified his theory in 1993 with Reisser
52 as a means to meet the changing demographics of students in college and to maint ain theory validity and reliability. Winston and Miller (1987) found that female students developed differently from male college students; specifically, female students developed interpers onal relationships before they developed autonomy. This finding is an important contribution to the literature, providing an understanding of how college students develop according to thei r gender, and may provide educators an approach to advising that is nontraditional and more individualized to the student. Furthermore, this study supports the development of an advising model that focuses on building a relationship between student and advisor based on the studentÂ’s developmental stage. The rise in a more diverse student population and the rise in student enrollment also brought an awareness of mental health concerns in college. Chickering and Re isser (1993) addressed these concerns by establishing the management of emotional development as a vector, which includes depression, anxiety, anger, and shame, as we ll as positive emotions such as joy, hope, and love. The seven vectors of development provide educators the opportunity to view students holistically and to interact with ea ch student individually as he or she proceeds through the following stages of development: competence, managing emotions, autonomy and interdependence, interpersonal relationship, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. The development of identity is asserted to be the dependent variable within ChickeringÂ’s theory (Figure 3). However, as Chickering and Reisser (1993) and Zimmerman (2000) state, a student must conform in terms of body appearance, self-awareness of sexual orientation, environment, role in society, self-identificat ion with
53 criticism by peers, and self-esteem as a means to develop the capacity to m ake appropriate, informed, mature thought. Identity development, and specifically the seventh vector, requires the per son to develop values and perceptions that guide beliefs and experiences. These beliefs are shaped by the personÂ’s experience, cognitive schema, and perceptions of the world, which can be identified as a personÂ’s worldview (Ibrahim, 1991). This approach is different from a singular hierarchical model of advising in which the student becomes only a participant of an institution, yet it is imperative that we attempt to u nderstand individual worldviews and how the student uses them to define their college experiences A worldview is the combination of culture, experience, attitude, opinion, value, thought, and events that directly impact our daily living (Sue & Sue, 1990, 2003). Tubbs (1996) and Levine (1995) stated that individuals are the result of variance in culture and worldviews. Another approach to the development of worldviews that is culturally base d and experience based is the values-oriented model by Sue and Sue (2003). Sue and Sue identified four stages: time, activity, social relations, and people/nature rel ationship. Understanding cultural values or worldviews can enhance student development and the relationship between student and advisor as the student seeks advising (Coll & Zal aquett, in press). Furthermore, Coll and Zalaquett suggested that students matched with a n advisor with similar worldviews ultimately would seek advising more often fr om that advisor, increasing the likelihood of a positive relationship. However, the point at which a student will seek a change in advisor is in part dependent on the studentÂ’s self-eff icacy level ( Jakubowski & Dembo, 2004). Therefore, students with low self-confidence may
54 not address concerns or disappointment with their advising procedure and consequently may suffer the consequences of a lower grade or GPA. According to Bandura (2001), self-efficacy is a personÂ’s judgment of his or her capability to develop, organize, and execute an action required to complete a set goal while, according to Erwin (1991), self-confidence is the assuredness in oneÂ’s self a nd in oneÂ’s capabilities. It includes a conscious self-reliance on oneÂ’s capabilit ies to complete tasks, make decisions, and goals. These similarities allow us to interchange the terms within the literature. Self-efficacy is a component or concept that derives from social cogniti ve theory, which establishes behavior and which is subjective and affected by the person, thought, and environment. As a means to help us understand self-efficacy, Bandura stated that t he following four elements help develop and increase self-efficacy: performanc e accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. A personÂ’s performance and accomplishment of a task is considered to be the most influential source for the development of self-efficacy. In other words, a pers on will develop perceived success according to how he or she performed on a previous task and how successful he or she was (Bandura, 1997). This process of observation and task performance is a major function in social learning from which the self-effica cy concept is derived. Various studies have demonstrated that students with high levels of self-effic acy tend to have a higher probability of achieving and performing better in college than do students with low levels (Bandura, 2001). However, there appears to be a gap in the literature as to what role self-efficacy has on academic satisfac tion. Specifically, what
55 role does a studentÂ’s worldview, developmental stage, and his or her self-efficacy have on academic advising satisfaction? The implications of these questions may le ad to the development of an advising model that matches the student with a specific worldview and developmental level to an advisor with the same or similar worldview as a means to increase retention and academic performance. Chapter 3 will discuss the purpose of the study as mentioned in chapter 1, and address the research question; description of sample; instruments; procedures use d to analyze the data; and the limitations of the study.
56 Chapter 3 Methodology Introduction The following chapter will discuss the purpose of the study; the research questi on; description of sample; instruments; procedures used to analyze the data; and the limitations of the study. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to determine the relationships among worldview, selfconfidence, and satisfaction with advising. This study also examines the relati onships among the level of satisfaction, the worldviews of students, and the studentsÂ’ perceptions of the style of advising they receive. Because the enrollment of diverse st udents continues to rise, it is important that advisors understand the dimensions that make up unique student worldviews in order to assist with establishing effective advising rel ationships. The goal of the study was to confirm the proposition that specific student worldviews, self-confidence, and perceptions of the advising style enhance the student/advisor relationship and increase studentsÂ’ reported satisfaction. Research Questions This study explored the following research question and hypothesis: 1. To what degree do a studentÂ’s worldview, self-confidence, gender, and perceived advising style received influence the studentÂ’s reported level of satisfac tion with the advising he or she receives?
57 The research question was analyzed using a simple-linear regression, which w ould reveal the degrees for which any of the variables are related and whether any are statistically significant. A PearsonÂ’s correlation was used to calcul ate and determine the strength of the relationship between variables. Further examination using mean, s tandard deviation, and skewedness were calculated to examine the distribution of each vari able. Hypothesis Four hypotheses were developed to help to answer the major question posed in this study. All four hypotheses were calculated and analyzed by using Pear sonÂ’s correlation with an alpha of .05 to determine the strength of the relationship between variables. a) Students who report high levels of advising satisfaction will also report high levels of self-confidence. b) Students who report high levels of advising satisfaction will also report that they received developmental advising. c) Students with reported high levels of worldviews will report high levels of satisfaction. d) Female students will report higher levels of satisfaction and higher levels of self-confidence than male students. Design of the Study This study uses an existing data set that was collected during fall 2006 fro m freshman students enrolled in a freshman seminar class at a private comprehensi ve university in the Southeast. The sample consists of 50% of the freshman who were enrolled in a required course. The research examines the degree to which student advi sing
58 satisfaction can be predicted by the studentsÂ’ reported level of self-confiden ce, worldview, and the advising style they received. Description of Sample The data used in this study were collected at a private, Catholic institution, located in Florida. The university is comprised of three academic schools: the School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business, and the School of Education and Social Services. The institution has an undergraduate population of approximately 12,137 students and graduate students ( n = 881), of whom 57% are female. Slightly more than ( n = 1,384) of these undergraduate students reside in on-campus housing; the remainder of the students commutes to campus or attends one of the 14 centers across the United States ( n = 6, 916). Sample The sample consists of a convenient population of 382 students enrolled in the freshman seminar course in fall 2006. All students were invited to participate, and 202 agreed to participate. A total of 11 surveys were eliminated due to incomplete re sponses. The 191 students who completed the surveys included 90 males and 101 females, with a sample mean age of 18.28 (SD = 1.63). Most of the participants in the study (71.2%) were Caucasian ( n = 136). The remaining participants were African American ( n = 20), Hispanic (n = 20), Asian ( n = 1), and other ( n = 13). One person did not report ethnicity ( n = 1).
59 Table 2 Frequencies and Percentages of Participants N % Valid % Valid African American 20 10.5 10.5 Hispanic 20 10.5 10.5 Asian 1 .5 .5 Caucasian 136 71.2 71.6 Other 13 6.8 6.8 Total 190 99.5 100.0 Variables The independent variables in this study are the studentsÂ’ reported world assumptions, level of academic self-confidence, and student reported perceived advisi ng style received. The dependent variable is student level of academic advising s atisfaction. Instrumentation For the purpose of this study, worldview was assessed using the World Assumption Scale (WAS) developed by Janoff-Bulman (1992) (see Appendix C). Leve l of psychosocial development was assessed by the Erwin Identity Scale (EIS ,; Erwin, 1991) (see Appendix D). Self-efficacy was assessed via the self-confidenc e subscale of the EIS, and student advising satisfaction was assessed using the Academic Advi sing Inventory developed by Winston and Sander, 1984 (see Appendix E). A discussion of each instrumentÂ’s reliability and validity is provided below. The World Assumption Scale (WAS) is a 32-item questionnaire developed to assess individual worldviews. The WAS assesses the following three major ass umptions: (a) benevolence of the world : believing that the world is a good place and that, overall, people are kind; (b) meaningfulness of the world : measures a belief of justice, control, and randomness; and (c) self-worth : assesses whether the person is happy with who he or she is and whether the person does good in order to receive the greatest good.
60 Respondents report their assumptions by indicating their agreement on a 6-point Li kertformat scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agre e). Benevolence is an 8item subscale with a possible score range of 1838 and measures how people feel in general about the world. Meaningfulness is a 12-item subscale with a possible scor e range of 32Â–52, and it measures assumptions of justice, control, and randomness. Self-worth has 12 items within the subscale and has a possible score range of 27Â–57, measuring assumptions about personal luck, self-control, and self-worth. Consistent with Janoff-Bulman (1992), Goldenberg and Kimberly (2005) reported a calculated total scale alpha coefficient of .86. The Erwin Identity Scale (EIS) is a 59-item questionnaire designed to measur e three components of identity as defined by Chickering (1969). There are three subcategories of identity: confidence, sexual identity, and conceptions about body ima ge. Self-confidence is an assuredness in oneÂ’s capabilities (i.e., self-eff icacy) that includes a conscious self-reliance and understanding of necessary dependence on environmental factors. A person who exhibits self-confidence tends to feel comfortable with hi s or her beliefs, decisions, and behavior. Sexual identity is identified as a personÂ’s abilit y to clarify and accept his or her sexual feelings and orientation. A reported high degr ee of sexual identity can be interpreted as the absence of guilt from sexual feeling s. Conceptions about body and appearance are an individualÂ’s ability to assess accurat ely and accept his or her appearance. A person who reports a high degree of self-acc eptance regarding body and appearance has the ability to balance personal preference and the desires of social norms set by his or her peers. Respondents report their agreement on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (not true of me) to 5 (very true of me). The range of
61 scores for the subscales being utilized is as follows: (Confidence 24-120 and Sexua l Identity 19-95). Consistent with ErwinÂ’s (1991) score of the EIS, DeMars and Erwin (2004) reported a total scale score alpha coefficient of .79. The Academic Advising Inventory (AAI) is a 52-item questionnaire design ed to have a prescriptive and developmental advising subcategory and is divided into four major categories: (a) developmental and prescriptive advising measures how the student perceives his or her advising, (b) descriptive and frequency of activities a student observes during sessions with his or her advisor, (c) reported satisfaction of advising scored on a 4-point scale, and (d) demographic information (Winston & Sander, 1984). Within the developmental and prescriptive measures, the AAI has subcategorized thre e subscales that are used to assess perceived services received. The first i s Personalizing Education (PE), which is an 8-item subscale that measures the advisorÂ’s approach t o a holistic concern for the studentÂ’s education, including vocational/career, relati onships, university activities, personal and social concerns, goal and outcome expectati on-setting, and assisting students with the identification and location of services and resources available on campus. The Personalizing Education subscale has a possible range score of 8-64. Scores of 33-64 are characterized as Â“developmental advisingÂ” and reflect a mutually derived relationship between the student and the advisor. A reported score range of 8-32 is identified as Â“prescriptive advising,Â” which indicates a formal a nd distant relationship between the student and the advisor. The second is Academic Decision Making (ADM), a 4-item subscale that measures the studentÂ’s perceived aca demic process that takes place at each meeting between the advisor and advisee, including academic progress, student interest and abilities, and academic concentrat ion as a means
62 to assist with the registration for appropriate courses. ADM has a possible score range of 4-32. Reported high scores of 17-32 are indicative of developmental advising, and low scores of 4-16`represent prescriptive advising. The third, Selecting Courses (SC), is a 2item subscale that measures a studentÂ’s perceptions of how the advisor approaches him or her selecting courses. Emphasis is placed on assisting students in course selec tion by first determining specific course needs and later developing an appropriate plan and s chedule. SC has a possible score range of 2Â–16, with high scores (9-16) representing developmental advising and low scores (2-8) indicative of prescriptive advising. The AAI was reported by Dickson, Sorochty, and Thayer (1998) to have high constructrelated validity and test retest reliability of .78. As a means to determine and measure the internal consistency of the instrume nts used in the study, the author used CronbachÂ’s alpha in order to measure reliability. CronbachÂ’s alpha comprises a number of items that are designed to measure a single construct and determine the degree to which the items in the instrument measure the s ame construct. However, it does not measure the validity of the instrument. The resul ts of CronbachÂ’s alpha for all instruments are shown in table 3.
63 Table 3 CronbachÂ’s Alpha Instrument Overall Reliability Data Collection The data for this study are derived from existing data collected in fall 2006. Appendix F contains an approved copy of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). During mid-semester, students and advisors were approached in a required SLU 101 (freshman seminar course) and asked to participate in an institutional study that was approve d (see appendix G) by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Participants r ead and signed an informed consent that explained the intent and purpose of the study (see Appendix F). The survey instrument was presented in the following six ways as a means to dec rease response fatigue: (a) WAS, EIS, AAI, (b) AAI, WAS, EIS, (c) EIS, AAI, WAS, ( d) AAI, Scale Items Mean SD Skew Sample Range N CronbachÂ’s Alpha Worldview Assumption Survey 32 .85 Benevolence 8 32.03 6.5 -.215 1248 188 .79 Meaningfulness 12 42.91 7.83 -.472 1367 190 .71 Self-worth 12 52.66 8.71 -.351 3270 184 .80 Erwin Identity Scale 59 .92 SelfConfidence 24 87.62 14.61 -.163 54115 186 .88 Sex Identity 19 62.65 10.96 -.053 3292 181 .81 Academic Advising Inventory 49 .92 PE 8 38.81 10.90 .024 1364 199 .73 ADM 4 17.90 5.79 .120 432 199 .48 SC 2 10.64 3.74 -.304 216 199 .32 Satisfaction 5 14.17 .452 -.964 520 200 .86
64 EIS, WAS, (e) WAS, AAI, EIS, (f) EIS, WAS, AAI. Responses were collected a nd immediately secured. Data Analysis Data will be analyzed using SPSS 14.0 for Windows. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be employed to analyze the retrieved data. The demographi c data collected using the AAI will be used to produce a description of the sample in terms of gender, age, grade point average, and reported ethnic group. The data analysis involves the use of descriptive statistics, which in this study includes sums, means, and standard devi ations. This study used a correlational research design to test the relationship betw een student reported worldview and academic advising satisfaction, as a means to expa nd on the reported findings of Coll and Zalaquett (in press). In addition, an analysis of r eported levels of psychosocial identity development, worldview, and perceived advising sty le received will be conducted in order to determine the relationship between reported scor es and advising satisfaction. The studentsÂ’ reported gender was considered as a moder ating variable. A missing value analysis will be conducted as a means to determine, m anage, and identify trends within the data. If outliers are identified within the data se t, the appropriate measure is transformation, alteration, or deletion. Because the number of participants was predetermined and because the study consisted of existing data, a priori power analysis was not possible. Therefore, a pos t-hoc power analysis was conducted (Granaas, 1999). Statistical power can in fact be controlled by the study design, however, in situations in which the researcher is conducting an analysis of existing data; a post-hoc power analysis can assis t the researcher in determining whether a nonsignificant statistical finding is the result of low
65 power (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2004). Thus, in order to better understand the findings of this study and to control for internal validity, I computed a post-hoc power coeffici ent using G Power 3, a statistical power program set at high effect size of .50, s ample 169, and ( .05) (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, in press). The results of the input for a one tail t test reveal a post-hoc power analysis of: t value 1.65, df = 167, and a post-hoc power value of 1.00. The post-hoc power analysis suggests that the sample size is sufficient, and the probability of committing Type II error is decreased. T his analysis could be used as a guide to future researchers who are not able to perform an a prior i power analysis. A summary of chapter 3 reveals that this study sought to answer one major question and four hypotheses that seek to help understand the relationships among levels of self-confidence, worldviews, and advising satisfaction according to how stude nts perceived the advising received. Data analysis consisted of descriptive st atistics, simple linear regression, and correlations to determine the degree of relationship of vari ables. Chapter 4 will provide descriptive statistics that help us answer the stated ques tion and corresponding hypothesis.
66 Chapter Four Results The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships among worldview, self-confidence, and satisfaction with advising. More specifically this study examines the relationships among level of satisfaction, worldviews of students, a nd the studentÂ’s perceptions of the style of advising he or she received. This investigati on also employed ChickeringÂ’s (1969) theory of student development to assess the impact t hat a studentÂ’s level of self-confidence may have on his or her worldview and satisfact ion with advising. Furthermore, this study examines the relationship between a student Â’s worldview and satisfaction with developmental and prescriptive advising styles The methodology for the present study involves an examination of existing data. Survey All analysis is presented for the total sample as well as separately for males and females, as various studies have suggested the probability of gender differe nces in determining satisfaction with academic advising and noted the importance of e xamining gender differences (Kelly, 2003). To control for error, findings with a statist ical significance of p >.05 will be considered nonsignificant. However, it should be noted that even nonsignificant consideration does not imply nonpractical consideration. Participant Descriptive Statistics The participants whose responses constitute the database that was used for the present study were full-time students at the university campus. The number of
67 participants included in the existing data set or sample, mean score, the standard deviation, and minimum and maximum scores on the measures conducted are presented in Table 4 for the total sample sub-category scores, with representing genderspecific scores. Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Female Students N Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum WAS: Benevolence 100 33.07 6.51 14 48 WAS: Meaningfulness 101 42.41 7.45 20 61 WAS: Self-Worth 98 52.77 8.75 32 70 EIS: Confidence 99 88.70 14.32 54 111 EIS: Sex Identity 98 62.76 11.13 32 87 AAI: PE 99 37.86 10.88 13 63 AAI: ADM 98 17.98 5.91 8 32 AAI: SC 98 10.68 3.64 3 16 AAI: Satisfaction 99 14.08 3.5 5 20
68 Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Male Sample Table five presents the descriptive statistics for the male sample such as mean, standard deviation, and score ranges for each subscale of the various instruments utilized. N Mean Standard Deviation Minimu m Maximum WAS: Benevolence 88 30.84 6.45 12 43 WAS: Meaningfulness 89 43.48 8.25 13 67 WAS: Self-Worth 86 52.55 8.72 32 70 EIS: Confidence 87 86.39 14.61 57 115 EIS: Sex Identity 83 62.53 10.82 41 92 AAI: PE 88 38.42 10.64 13 64 AAI: ADM 89 17.51 5.61 4 29 AAI: SC 89 10.56 3.71 2 16 AAI: Satisfaction 89 14.06 3.8 5 20
69 Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for Total Sample N Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum WAS Benevolence 188 32.03 6.565 12 48 WAS Meaningfulness 190 42.91 7.837 13 67 WAS Self-Worth 184 52.66 8.719 32 70 EIS confidence 186 87.62 14.611 54 115 EIS Sex identity 181 62.65 10.963 32 92 AAI PE 187 38.12 10.746 13 64 AAI ADM 187 17.75 5.763 4 32 AAI SC 187 10.63 3.670 2 16 AAI Style 185 1.7027 .45831 1.00 2.00 SATISFAC 188 14.0745 3.69489 5.00 20.00 Note. WAS= World Assumption Scale; EIS= Erwin Identity I nstrument; AAI = Academic Advising Inventory. Table six presents the descriptive statistics for the total sample such as m ean, standard deviation, and score ranges for each subscale of the various instruments utilized.
70 Table 7 Scale Intercorrelations Benevolence Meaningfulne ss Self-Worth Confidence PE ADM SC Meaningfulness 35** Self-Worth .34** .38** Confidence .08 .01 .46** PE .04 -.09 -.08 .009 ADM .05 -.08 -.06 -.05 .30** SC .09 -.02 -.04 -.04 .27** .44** Satisfaction .03 -.11 -.10 -.023 .41** .18** .10 Note. N = 188 p < .01 The instruments employed in this study exhibited acceptable psychometric properties. With the exception of some dimension sub-scales, all internal consiste ncy reliability coefficients exceeded .80, as shown in Table 3. Scale intercorre lations are presented in Table 7, with alpha reliability coefficients along the diagonals.
71 The sample of participants used in this student sample included both sexes, with a homogeneous age population with a mean of 18.28 (SD = 1.63). Only responses of students who had fully completed all of the instruments were utilize d for the current study and the basis of analysis. Question one: Â“To what degree do a studentÂ’s worldview, self-confidence, gender, and perceived advising style received influence the studentÂ’s reported level of advising satisfaction?Â” is analyze d by conducting a simple linear regression, which would reveal the degree to which the variables are related and if any are statistically significant. A Pe arsonÂ’s correlation will be calculated to determine the strength of the relationship between vari ables. Four hypotheses were developed to help answer the question posed in this study. All four hypotheses were analyzed by using PearsonÂ’s correlation with a n alpha of .05 to determine the strength of the relationship between variables. a. Students who report high levels of advising satisfaction will also report high levels of self-confidence (See table 8). b. Students who report high levels of advising satisfaction will also report that they received developmental advising (See table 10). c. Students with reported high levels of worldview will report high levels of satisfaction (See table 11). d. Female students will report higher levels of satisfaction and higher levels of self-confidence (See table 12).
72 Table 8 Satisfaction Regressed on AAI, EIS, and WAS Variables B Std. Error Beta T sig (Constant) 10.041 2.777 3.616 .000 Benevolence .043 .045 .076 .959 .339 Meaningfulnes s -.040 .039 -.083 -1.020 .309 Self-Worth -.024 .040 -.055 -.600 .549 Confidence -.025 .028 -.095 -.905 .367 Sex Identity .041 .034 .120 1.209 .229 PE .134 .027 .384 5.034* .000 ADM .051 .053 .079 .980 .329 SC -.084 .082 -.082 -1.018 .310 Table eight represents a simple linear regression, which was calculated p redicting student satisfaction based on the following independent variables: (a) Benevolence (b) Meaningfulness, (c) Self-worth, (d) Confidence, (e) Sexual Identity ( f) PE, (g) ADM, (h) SC The analysis revealed a significant equation between PE and Satisfaction of ( F (8, 160) = 4.649, p < .005), with an R2 of 189 Student satisfaction is equal to 10.041 + .134
73 (PE) when measuring developmental advising, representing an increase in sati sfaction for every .134 points reported in PE. This analysis reveals the importance of a developmental model for advising a nd suggests that the other variables, which were shown not to be significant ( p > .05), are not a good predictor of advising satisfaction. Similar to the results Coll and Zalaque tt (in press) reported, scores on worldview alone are not predictors of satisfaction nor was there a statistical significance in gender and worldview. However, unlike Coll and Z alaquett, who matched student and advisor worldview, this study was limited to just the self-reporting of student worldviews.
74 Table 9 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction and Self-confidence Variables Confidence SATISFACTION SelfConfidence Pearson Correlation 1 -.023 Sig. (2-tailed) .758 N 186 184 SATISFAC Pearson Correlation -.023 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .758 N 184 200 Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 shown in table nine tested the relationship between selfconfidence and satisfaction with advising and hypothesized that students who report high levels of advising satisfaction will also report high levels of self-confidence This study did not find a correlation between self-confidence and satisfaction ( p > .05, n = 184).
75 Table 10 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction and Developmental Advising Variables SATISFAC PE SATISFAC Pearson Correlation 1 .413(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 200 199 PE Pearson Correlation .413(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 199 199 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 -tailed). Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 shown in table ten tested the relationship between developmental advising and satisfaction with advising, and hypothesized that students who report high levels of satisfaction with advising also perceived that they had rece ived developmental advising. This study did find a significant relationship between st udent reported level of advising satisfaction and perceived advising style receive d ( p < .01, n = 199). Furthermore, an independent-sample t test revealed a statistical significant difference in satisfaction ratings between students who rated their advi sors as developmental and students who rated their advisors as prescriptive ( t (195) = 4.064, p < .05). The mean score for satisfaction among the students who perceived that they had received developmental advising was significantly higher ( m = 14.84, sd = 3.65) than the mean score for the students who perceived prescriptive advising ( m = 12.50, sd = 3.64).
76 Table 11 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction and Worldview Variables SATISFAC Benevolence Self-Worth Meaningfulnes s SATISFAC Pearson Correlation 1 .036 -.103 -.115 Sig. (2tailed) .623 .166 .118 N 200 186 182 187 Benevolence Pearson Correlation .036 1 .347(**) .359(**) Sig. (2tailed) .623 .000 .000 N 186 188 182 187 Self-Worth Pearson Correlation -.103 .347(**) 1 .387(**) Sig. (2tailed) .166 .000 .000 N 182 182 184 183 Meaningfulness Pearson Correlation -.115 .359(**) .387(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .118 .000 .000 N 187 187 183 190 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 -tailed). Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 shown in table eleven tested the relationship between worldview and satisfaction with advising, and hypothesized that students who report high levels of advising satisfaction would also report high levels of worldviews. This study did not find a correlation between worldview and satisfaction ( p > .05, n = 187).
77 Table 12 PearsonÂ’s Correlation of Satisfaction, Self-confidence, and Gender Gender SATISFAC Confidence Gender Pearson Correlation 1 .002 .079 Sig. (2-tailed) .980 .284 N 191 188 186 SATISFAC Pearson Correlation .002 1 -.023 Sig. (2-tailed) .980 .758 N 188 200 184 Confidence Pearson Correlation .079 -.023 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .284 .758 N 186 184 186 Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 shown in table twelve tested the relationship between gender, self-confidence, and advising satisfaction, and hypothesized that female stude nts would report higher levels of self-confidence and higher levels of advising satis faction. This study does not support a relationship between female reported levels of self-conf idence and higher levels of advising satisfaction ( p > .05, n = 186). Furthermore, there are no statistically significant differences in reported levels of advising sat isfaction between male and female students ( p > .05, n = 186).
78 Chapter Five Discussion The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the relationship between worldview, self-confidence, and satisfaction with advising. More specifi cally, this study examines the relationship among the level of advising satisfaction, t he worldviews of students, and the studentÂ’s perception of the style of advising he or she received. In this discussion, the purpose of the study will be reviewed and the major findings of the main research question and hypotheses summarized, and the implicati ons for future research discussed. In addition, chapter 5 will provide a brief discussion regarding the relevance of developmental advising as a tool for developing aff ective relationships with students that may yield higher levels of advising satisfa ction and may, in turn, increase retention and academic success and provide an environment that supports student development. Finally, the limitations of the current research and directions for further research will be discussed. Inherent in academic advising is the relationship that faculty members and s tudent develop through the process of academic and career decision making (Gordon, 2006). Although there are several models of academic advising, the developmental model is, perhaps, most progressive. Developmental academic advising is a delivery met hod that empowers students to make personal and academic decisions that promote personal growth (Creamer, 2000). The relationship that an advisor and a student build may enhance the studentÂ’s personal development and promote higher levels of academic
79 satisfaction. Variables such as worldview, gender, age, and developmental level are salient to the development of a relationship between the advisor and student. They are foremost in determining the degree to which the student is satisfied with the advis ing he or she receives. Student satisfaction with advising may, in turn, may directly i mpact institutional retention efforts. The literature suggests consistently that student retention is linked to student satisfaction with advising, and advising satisfaction has been linke d to the similarities of student/faculty worldviews, cultural value perspective s, and advising competence (Bailey, Bauman, & Lata, 1998; Coll & Zalaquett, in press; Herr, C ramer, & Niles, 2004; Upcraft, et al., 2005). Although the results supporting advising satisfaction continue to be promising, a gap exists in the literature regarding the relationshi p between the studentsÂ’ perception of advising, reported worldviews, self-confidence, and thei r overall advising satisfaction. Hence, the purpose of this study was to extend the l iterature on advising satisfaction by developing a better understanding of the relationshi p between advising satisfaction and the studentÂ’s perception of the advising he or she receiv ed, the studentÂ’s reported score on self-confidence, and the studentÂ’s worldview. Summary of Findings The research question assessed to what degree a studentÂ’s worldview, selfconfidence, gender, and perceived advising style received influence his or her reported level of advising satisfaction, as measured by the Academic Advising Inve ntory A simple linear regression was calculated, predicting student satisfacti on based on the following independent variables: (a) Benevolence, (b) Meaningfulness, ( c) Selfworth, (d) Confidence, (e) Sexual Identity, (f) Personalized Education, (g) Aca demic Decision-Making (h) Selecting Courses. The analysis revealed a signi ficant relationship
80 equation between PE (developmental advising) and satisfaction with advising ( F (8, 160) = 4.649, p < .05), with an R2 of 189 No other significant relationships were found between the eight monitoring sub-scales. Four hypotheses were developed to help ans wer the major question posed in the study. The first hypothesis stated that students who report high levels of advising satisfaction would also report high levels of self-confidence. PearsonÂ’s correl ation with an alpha of .05 was used to determine the strength of relationship between variable s. Data analysis did not reveal a significant correlation between self-confidenc e and satisfaction ( p > .05, n = 184). The finding suggests that the level of student self-confidence is not directly related to the level of reported advising satisfaction. Although, sel f-confidence may determine how comfortable a student is with decision making and self-ima ge, it appears that there is no significant relationship between self-confidence a nd satisfaction. However, self-confidence may be indirectly related to the reported level of advising satisfaction since a student uses self-confidence when making the decision t o speak to or seek an advisor, or to actively engage in their academic career independentl y. The second hypothesis stated that students who report high levels of advising satisfaction would also report that they received developmental advising. Data ana lysis revealed a significant relationship between studentsÂ’ reported level of advisi ng satisfaction and their perceptions of the advising style they received ( p < .01, n = 199). PearsonÂ’s correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship betwe en variables at an alpha of .05. In order to determine if there was a statistical significance in advising satisfaction between prescriptive advising and developmental advising, an independe nt t test was conducted. This revealed a significant difference between student satisfaction
81 with prescriptive and with developmental advising ( p < .05), suggesting that students preferred a developmental approach versus a prescriptive approach. The findings of this hypothesis support previous studies in which developmental advising led to an increase in advising satisfaction. The use of a developmental approach can provide the faculty/advisor with the opportunity to develop positive relationships with his or her students, which may enhance the studentsÂ’ academic performance and college experience. The third hypothesis tested the relationship between worldviews and satisfacti on with advising. It stated that students who report high levels of advising satisfa ction would also report high levels of worldview in three areas: benevolence, meaningfulnes s, and self-worth. Data analysis did not reveal a significant correlation betwee n overall worldview scores and satisfaction ( p > .05, n = 187). However, data analysis did reveal a statistically significant correlation between high levels of benevolence and gender ( F (1, 187) = 5.528, p < .05). This suggests that female students in this sample were more likely to perceive the world as a good place and that, overall, people are kind. This finding contradicts findings by Coll and Draves (in press) who reported no significa nt differences between gender and overall worldviews when using the World Assumpti on Instrument (WAI), but it provides evidence of a relationship between various aspects of worldview and optimism. Coll and Draves results suggest that worldview may vary as a function of individual experiences. Astin (1977) and Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) found that female students tend generally to increase in self-confidence through academic par ticipation and college student involvement, resulting in higher peer and faculty interaction. Ther efore,
82 my fourth and final hypothesis of this study tested the relationship between ge nder, selfconfidence, and advising satisfaction. It stated that female students would repor t higher levels of self-confidence and advising satisfaction than male students. Data analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between female reported levels of selfconfidence and higher levels of advising satisfaction ( p > .05, n = 186). There were no statistically significant differences in reported levels of advising satisfaction betw een genders ( p > .05, n = 186). The analysis suggests that gender is not a factor in satisfaction with advising. Although, there were significant differences between gender and r eported levels of benevolence of the world, it appears that male and female students had similar reported levels of satisfaction with advising. Moreover, the analyses of the fol lowing hypothesis revealed no significant difference in self-confidence and gender, sugge sting that male and female students did not report differences in their level of self-conf idence. This suggests that an advisorÂ’s approach to advising may not have to differ based on the studentÂ’s gender, allowing the advisor to focus mostly on his or her approach to developmental advising. Although not a significant finding, advisors should remain aware of gender factors, such as experience that may influence the stude ntÂ’s perception of advising and education. Practical Implications Creamer (2000) described academic advising as an educational activity that assists college students developmentally in making decisions in their personal and academic lives. The role of the advisor has become multifaceted due to changes i n the composition of the student body at many academic institutions. In most cases, the definition of and the job requirements for advising have evolved to meet the needs of the
83 diverse groups that comprise the contemporary college-student population in various settings. Developmental advising seeks to provide a holistic approach to the student/faculty (advisor) relationship outside of the classroom environment, where the student can receive guidance and discuss topics such as coursework, career, and values (Upcraf t, et al., 2005). These informal interactions between the student and advisor yield positive outcomes in student attitudes towards college, achievement, personal development, socia l integration, motivation, advising satisfaction, and retention (Chickering & Re isser, 1993; Grites & Gordon, 2000). On the other hand, inadequate advising by faculty members has been shown to have negative outcomes such as the decision to leave college, negative attitudes about faculty and staff, and lower academic achievement (Grites & Gordon, 2000). The findings of this study indicate that a positive relationship exists betw een developmental advising and studentsÂ’ level of satisfaction with advising. The resul ts would suggest that overall student characteristics are not as relevant to advisi ng satisfaction as the style of advising that the faculty or advisor uses. Simil ar to findings by Noel-Levitz (2007) and Winston and Sander (1984), this study supports the positive relationship between developmental advising and advising satisfaction versus pr escriptive advising. GordonÂ’s (2006) 3-I process is an effective means to promote developmental advising. Developmental advising integrates career advising with academic a dvising through the use of the following three stages: inquire, inform, and integration. In the f irst phase, the advisor should seek to inquire for information about students, as means to better understand studentsÂ’ needs, relationship to and place within society, and cultural
84 norms. During the second phase, the advisor plays a critical role in disseminating curriculum and academic information as the student attempts to retain and organize its meaning in order to make the correct academic and professional decision. The se cond phase helps students to become informed about their career and academic goals. In th e last phase, integration, the student and advisor engage actively in decision-making by using what has been provided and learned in the previous two stages. This study recommends that the advisor and student both engage in the 3-I process as a means to develop a positive and lasting academic relationship that promotes and encourages the development of student autonomy, while allowing the advisor to continue to play a critical role in guiding and mentoring the student. The approach used to guide students is instrumental and may impact the relationship between advisor and advisee. Although the present study suggests that individual student characteristics may not be significant in how students reported advising satisfaction, it is important that advisors not dismiss the role of individual values and cultural differences and awareness in their attempt to implement a developme ntal advising approach. Worldview A worldview is the combination of culture, experiences, attitudes, opinions, values, and thoughts that directly impact an individualÂ’s daily living (Sue & Sue, 1990, 2003). Sue and Sue (2003) and Ibrahim (1991) asserted that there are differences in cultural worldview values; however, the literature also notes differences w ithin specific cultures, suggesting that a worldview may be an individual construct that is not enti rely culturally bound. Coll and Zalaquett (in press) reported that the worldviews of a student
85 alone were not positively related to student advising satisfaction unless the student Â’s reported worldview matched that of the advisor. In a more recent study, Coll and Draves (in press) concluded that there were no significant differences between th e worldviews of male and female students, and that the worldview may be influenced by individual experiences. These findings suggest that cultural values and experiences, the environment, and religion are significant contributors to how a person may perceive his or her environment and interpret the world. The present study hypothesized that students with higher levels of worldview would report higher levels of advising satisfac tion; however, this study did not find statistically significant differences in overal l worldview scores or any significant relationship to advising satisfaction. However, i t is important to note that female students reported higher levels of benevolence of the world. This f inding suggests that although no significant differences exist in overall worldview scores, there is a possibility that gender does influence some aspects of how an individual percei ves the world. This finding, although inconclusive, would suggest the possibility that gende r differences exist between male and female studentsÂ’ perceptions of their s urroundings and their relationships with others. Furthermore, this finding would suggest that fema le students may approach the advising session more positively or benevolently than m ale students, which would influence their overall experience and relationship with their advisor. It is important to note that although not measured in this study, there may exi st a relationship between a studentÂ’s perceived levels of advising satisfaction and t he advisorÂ’s gender.
86 Self-confidence Self-confidence, according to Erwin (1991), is assuredness in oneÂ’s self and in oneÂ’s capabilities. It includes a conscious self-reliance on oneÂ’s capabilit ies to complete tasks, make decisions, and fulfill goals. Self-confident persons feel comfortable with expressing beliefs and making decisions, have faith in their capabilities, and a re aware of their own limitations (Erwin). The results of this study did not reveal a statist ically significant relationship between a studentÂ’s reported level of self-confide nce and his or her satisfaction with advising. Nonetheless, findings by Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992) provide support for the notion that there is a positive association between academic choice and overall success in school and self-confidence. Moreover, selfÂ–efficac y or self-confidence in oneself is defined as a task-specific entity that has been found to be a consistent predictor of performance, achievement levels, success, and personal goa l attainment. It is important for advisors to assist students in developing self-confidence, and a strength-based perspective could be useful when working with students who may have low self-confidence. A strength-based perspective is an orientation that emphasizes the studentÂ’s resources, capabilities, support systems, and motivation to meet challe nges and to overcome adversity and to achieve and maintain social well-being (Coll & C olman, 2007; Baker, 1999). A strength-based perspective can change a studentÂ’s view from resignation to resilience (Edwards & Chen, 1999; Schreiner, 2005). Students eventual ly develop a systematic plan that encourages self-improvement and empowerment. This
87 perspective should not substitute for the developmental approach to advising or the 3-I process. It should be used, however, as a catalyst to and support for good advising. Limitations This study employed a post-hoc analysis of the existing data. Nonetheless ther e were several limitations to this study. The first limitation is the degre e to which students could accurately report the advising style that their advisor delivered. Since advi sors within the institution have not been trained to deliver a specific approach to advising, such as developmental or prescriptive, students may have been reporting what they would prefer from an advisor and not what was actually delivered. Another limitation involved the assignment of advisors. Whereas some advisors might be using a developmental approach to teaching and advising, others are activel y using a prescriptive approach, which might be due to a lack of appropriate training. Som e students might have had an assigned advisor within their specific study areas, but undeclared students would not have this type of advisor. The level of advising and the type of advising relationship might differ greatly depending on whether the st udent has a faculty advisor or an assigned, nondeclared academic advisor. Moreover, the compositi on of advisors is not diverse, with male advisors making up 64% ( n = 25) of the advising body and female advisors comprising 36% ( n = 13). Another limitation is related to sampling, since the majority of the students sampled were Caucasian. The results may reflect the beliefs of only this group. The next limitation is related to generalizability. The data were coll ected from freshman students at a small Catholic university, and were gathered during the f irst freshman semester in a university experience course. These factors may have influenced
88 the studentsÂ’ attitudes towards advising and education, and may not be generalized to other institutions of higher education. Suggestions for Future Research While this study demonstrates that developmental advising can be used to increase advising satisfaction, the question remains regarding how students per ceive the advisor/student student relationship. Therefore, further investigations are stil l needed to determine how individual students may construct their relationship with their advisor s and how they perceive the advising services they receive. This is important and woul d allow college advisors to understand how students perceive the student/advisor relationship, which may directly influence outcomes. Given the limited rese arch on how worldviews may influence student decision making, cross-cultural and gender studi es are needed in order to compare the similarities and differences of worldviews among various student groups, allowing us to develop the best advising practices accordingly. Fin ally, additional longitudinal studies are needed to determine how a studentÂ’s developmental level influences advising satisfaction and how advising satisfaction may infl uence student retention. Conclusion This study supports the current research literature that affirms the import ance of nonacademic factors in advising satisfaction (Gordon, 2006; Winston & Sander, 1984). StudentsÂ’ perception of their relationship with their advisors is well documented as a factor in successful retention efforts. Cabrera and LaNasa (2000) have demonst rated that students' abilities to build relationships, navigate their first-year experie nce, and manage emotional crises are critical components in college success and the advising out come.
89 Nutt (2000) described academic advising as an integral part of how the student will perceive his or her relationship with the institution. Gordon and Habley (2000) indicated that the relationship that a student and academic advisor build is a major fac tor in recruitment and retention. Many researchers have supported the link between aca demic advising and student retention, suggesting that ongoing contact between advisors and students is an essential element in retaining students (Carstensen & Sil berhorn, 1979; Glennen, 1976; Noel, 1976; Tinto, 1993). Researchers also found that student retention is mostly linked to student satisfaction and plays an important role in the studentsÂ’ commitment to their academic institutions (Atkins & Hord, 1983; Brown & Rivas, 1993; Bauman & Lata, 1998). These studies support Edwards and PersonÂ’s contention that the academic advisor has become a Â“criticalÂ” piece in the Â“recruitment,Â” Â“r etention,Â” and Â“survival of most institutions of higher educationÂ” (1997, p. 20). The present study attempted to determine the relationships among studentsÂ’ reported worldview, self-confidence, perceived advising style received, and t heir reported level of academic advising satisfaction. Although preliminary results sugg est that developmental advising can be effective in increasing the probability of satisf action with academic advising, additional research is warranted to validate and standardiz e measures of prescriptive and developmental advising styles. This study also revealed a significant difference in benevolence of the world between genders, suggesting that femal e students have a greater belief that the world and people are for the most part good. Althoug h not conclusive, this finding suggests that there may exist a difference in worldvie ws, or at minimum, a difference in how female students perceive their surroundings and
90 relationships with others, which may have a direct bearing on how they perceive the experience of receiving advising. Therefore, it is important to create positive college environments that promote student development and autonomy. The present study suggests that universities should provide appropriate training in developmental advising to faculty members becaus e this may enhance the student/faculty relationship and the studentÂ’s college experie nce. Furthermore, this study supported findings by Coll and Zalaquett (in press) and Coll and Draves (in press) who suggested that overall student worldviews are not a function of gender or age but may be more closely related to individual experiences. As a re sult, advisors should become aware of affective advising methods and styles as a means t o enhance student learning and promote positive college experiences that may influenc e decision making.
91 References Alessandria, K. P., & Nelson, E. S. (2005). Identity development and self esteem of fi rst generation American college students: An exploration study. Journal of College Student Development 46(1), 3-12. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1983). Counseling American minorities In D. W. Sue & D. Sue (Eds.), Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (pp. 404-409). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bailey, B. L., Bauman, C., & Lata, K. A. (1998). Student retention and satisfaction: The evolution of a predictive model. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Institutional Research Conference. Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424797). Baker, R. L. (1999). The social work dictionary (4th ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 1-26. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 125-139.
92 Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocia l functioning. Child Development, 74 769-782. Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Review, 55 485Â–540. Berzonsky, M. D., & Kurk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, a nd the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15 81-89. Boyd, V. S., Hunt, P., Lucas, M., & Kandell, J. (2003). Relationship between identity processing style and academic success in undergraduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 44 (2), 155-167. Branch-Simpson, G. G. (1984). A study of the patterns in the development of Black seniors at the Ohio State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Brown, T., & Rivas, M. (1995). Pluralistic advising: Facilitating the development a nd achievement of first-year students of color. In M. L. Upcraft & G. L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 121Â–137). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transiti on. Cabrera, A. F., & LaNasa, S. M. (2000). Overcoming the tasks on the path to college for AmericanÂ’s disadvantaged. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107 31-43. Carstensen, D. J., & Silberhorn, C. A. (1979). A national survey of academic advising, final report. Iowa City: American College Testing Program.
93 Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. ( 2001). Academic self-efficacy and firs t year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 55-64. Cheng, H. P., & OÂ’Leary, E. (1995). A cross-cultural comparison of the worldviews of American, Chinese, and Irish graduate counseling students and implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and Values, 40 (1), 45-56. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chissom, B., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1992). Development of an instrument to assess learning strategies. Psychological Reports, 71 (3), 1001-1002. Coll, J. E., & Colman, C. (2007). A strength-based advising model: Promoting student development and self-efficacy. Manuscript submitted for publication. Coll, J. E., & Draves, P. (in press). An examination of the relationship between optimism and worldviews. Journal of College Students Coll, J. E., & Zalaquett, C. (in press). The relationship of worldviews of advisors and students and satisfaction with advising: A case of homogenous group impact. Journal of College Student Retention. Creamer, D. G. (2000). Use of theory in academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, & R. H. Wesley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
94 DeMars, C. E., & Erwin, T. D. (2004). Scoring neutral or unsure on an identity development instrument for higher education. Research in Higher Education, 45 83-95. Dickson, G. L., Sorochty, R. W., & Thayer, J. D. (1998). Theory of practice: Creating a student development curriculum using the developmental advising model. NASPA Journal, 35 119-136. Edwards, J. K., & Chen, M. (1999). Strength-based supervision: Frameworks, current practice, and future directions. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 7 (4), 349-357. Edwards, R., & Person, D. (1997). Retaining the adult student: The role of admission counselors. Journal of College Admission, 154 18-21. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton. Erwin, T. D. (1991). Assessing student learning and development San Francisco: JosseyBass. Estanek, S. M. (1999). Student affairs and truth: A reading of the great books. NASPA Journal, 36 278-287. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (in press). G Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods Fichte, J. G. (1988). Early philosophical writings. (D. Breazeale, Trans.). New York: Cornell. (Original work published 1792).
95 Foubert, J. D., Nixon, M. L., Sisson, S. V., & Barnes, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal study of Chickering and ReisserÂ’s vectors: Exploring gender differences and implications for refining the theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46 461-471. Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (W. J. H. Sprott, Trans.). New York: Norton. Frost, S. H. (1990, March). Educational improvement through academic advising: Advisor attitudes and practices that make a difference. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Institutional Research, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 270 076) Gilligan, C. (2005). A longitudinal study of Chickering and ReisserÂ’s vectors: E xploring gender differences and implications for refining the theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46 461-471. Glennen, R. (1976). Intrusive college counseling. School Counselor 24 48-50. Goldenberg, I., & Kimberly, M. (2005). Inner representation, coping, and post traumati c stress symptomatology in a community sample of trauma survivors. Basic Applied Psychology, 27 (4), 361-369. Gordon, V. N. (2006). Career advising: An academic advisorÂ’s guide. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Gordon, V. N., Habley, W. R., & associates. (2000). Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
96 Granaas, M. (1999). Type I and type II error. Educational statistics discussion list (EDSTAT-L). Online Granaas, M. (1999, January 7). Re: Type I and Type II error. Educational Statistics Discussion List (EDSTAT-L). Grites, T., & Gordon, V. (2000). Developmental academic advising revisited. NACADA Journal, 20 (1), 12-15. Grites, Y. (1979). Academic advising: Getting us through the eighties. (AAHE -ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education. Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (3), 330-365. Hawkins, R. M. F. (1992). Self-efficacy: A predictor but not a cause of behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 23 251-256. Herr, E. L., Cramer, S. H., & Niles, S. G. (2004). Career guidance and counseling through the lifespan: Systematic approaches (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hicks, M. A., and Shere, C. (2003, Winter). Toward reflective admission work: Making the case for a transformative approach to admission practice and reflection in a ction. Journal of College Admission, 178 251-256. Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be selfregulated learners. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. (pp. 57-85). New York: Guildford Press.
97 Ibrahim, F. A. (1991). Contribution of cultural world view to generic counseling and development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70 13-19. Ibrahim, F. A., & Kahn, H. (1987). Assessment of world views. Psychological Reports 60 163-176. Jakubowski, T. G., & Dembo, H. M. (2004). The relationship of self-efficacy, identity style, and stage of change with academic self-regulation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35 (1), 7-24. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York: Free Press. Jewell, E. J., & McKean, E. (2005). The new Oxford American dictionary (2nd ed.). (p. 1937). New York: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, P., Buboltz, W. C., & Seeman, E. (2003). Ego identity status: A step in the differentiation process. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81 191-195. Johnson, M. M., & Rhodes, R. (2005). Human behavior and the larger social environment: A new synthesis. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of womensÂ’ identity from college to midlife. New York: Oxford University Press. Kant, I. (2005). Critique of judgment. (J. H. Bernard & M. Lucht, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1790). Knefelkamp, L., Widick, C., Parker, C. A., (1978). Applying new developmental findings. San Francisco: JosseyÂ–Bass. King, M. C. (1993). Academic advising, retention and transfer. New Directions for Colleges 21 (2), 21-31.
98 King, M., & Kerr, T. J. (2005). Academic advising. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B. O. Barefoot, and Associates (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the fist year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 320-338). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Patterson. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (1998). MaslowÂ’s Â“TranshumanismÂ”: Was transpersonal psychology conceived as Â“a psychology without people in itÂ”? Journal of Humanistic Psychology 38 71-80. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8 (1), 3-58. Levine, P. (1995). Nietzsche and the modern crisis of humanities. Albany: State University of New York Press. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 551-558. Matlin, M., & Stang, D. (1978). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity in language, memory, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. McCarthy, V. A. (1978). The phenomenology of moods in Kierkegaard. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Midgen, J. (1989). The professional advisor. NACADA Journal, 9 (1), 63-68. Moore, L. V., & Upcraft, M. L. (1990). Theory in student affairs: Evolving perspectives. In L. V. Moore (Ed.), Evolving theoretical perspectives on students (pp. 3-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
99 Montgomery, E. D., Fine, M. A., & James-Meyers, L. (1990). The development and validation of an instrument to assess an optimal worldview. Journal of Black Psychologist, 17 (1) 37-54. Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (2005). Development through life: A psychosocial approach. Belmont, CA: Thomson. Noel, L. (1976). College student retention: A campus wide responsibility. Journal of the National Association of College Admissions Counselors, 21 33-36. Noel-Levitz. (2007). 2007 National Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report. Retrieved on January 20, 2007, from: https://www.noellevitz.com/Our+Services/Retention/Tools/Student+Satis faction+ Inventory/Student+Satisfaction+Inventory+overview.htm Nutt, C. L. (2000). One-to-one advising. In V. N. Gordon, R. H. Wesley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook San Francisco : JosseyBass Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. (2004). Post hoc power: A concept whose time has come. Understanding statistics 3 (4), 201-230. Pajares, F. (2002). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research 66 (4), 543-578. Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-effica cy, selfconcept, and school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 235-266). London: Ablex Publishing. Pascarella, E. T. (1999). New studies track community college effects on stude nts. Community College Journal, 69 (6), 8-14.
100 Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pearson, F. C., & Bruess, B. J. (2001). The gender debate about identity and moral development continues: What about the men? Paper presented at the National Association of Student Personnel Administration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455177). Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 44-55. Priest, R. & McPhee, S. A. (2000). Advising multicultural students. In V. N. Gordon, R. H. Wesley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Quimby, L. J., & OÂ’Brien, J. (2004). Predictors of student and career decision-making self-efficacy among nontraditional college women The Career Development Quarterly, 5, (2), 323-340. Reinarz, A. G. (2000). Delivering academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, R. H. Wesley, & Associates (Eds.), Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reinarz, A. G., & White, E. R. (Eds.). (2001). Beyond teaching to mentoring San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Redfield, R. (1953). The primitive world and its transformation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student Development, 36 505-511.
101 Rodgers, R. F. (1990). Recent theories and research underlying student development. In D. G. Creamer (Ed.), College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s (pp. 27-79) Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Ross, K. B., & Wertz, R. T. (2003). Quality of life with and without aphasia. Aphasiology, 17 335-364. Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sheehan, O. T., & Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American studentsÂ’ psychological development. Journal of College Student Development, 36 522530. Schreiner, L. A. (2005). Strength-based advising: A new lens for higher educa tion. Journal of College Student Development. 25 (2), 20-27. Smith, J. S. (2005). The effects of student receptivity on college achievement and retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6 273-288. Sue, D.W. (1978). Eliminating cultural oppression in counseling: Toward a general theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 419-428 Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20, 644-688 Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
102 Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (2004). Application of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22 63-81 In Quimby, L. J., & OÂ’Brien, J. Predictors of student and career decision-making self-efficacy among nontraditional college women The Career Development Quarterly, 52 323-340. Thieke, W. S. (1994, November). Developmental change in freshman students: Validating ChickeringÂ’s theory of student development Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ. Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of college student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8 (1) 1-19. Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2003). Identity development of diverse populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher education ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Tubbs, N. (1997). Contradiction of enlightenment: Hegel and the broken middle. Aldershot: Ashgate. Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Winston, R. B., Miller, T. R., Erder, S. C., & Grites, T. G. (1994). Developmental academic advising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
103 Winston, R. B., & Miller, T. K. (1987). Student development task and lifestyle inventory manual. In W. S. Thieke (1994). Developmental change in freshman students: Validating ChickeringÂ’s theory of student development Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ. Winston, R. B. & Sander, J. A. (1984). The academic advising inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 82-91. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self motivation for academic attainment: The role of self efficacy beliefs and personal g oal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29 663-676. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemburg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A s ocial cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22 (1), 73-101.
105 Appendix A Advising Delivery System Matrix: Delivery system Access/ Priority Knowledge Knowledge Need for Cos t to Credibility Availability Placed of academic of student required Institution with facult y To Student on Advising Discipline development Training and staff Faculty Low Low High Low High Low High Professional Advisor High High Average High Average High Low Counselor Average Average Average High Average High Average Peer High Average Low Low High Low Average Paraprofessional High High Average Average High Low Average Source: King & Kerr (2005)
106 Appendix B Journal Critiques Author Title Theory Population/Sample Instrumentation Comm ents Sheehan, O. T. & Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American studentsÂ’ psychological development Chickering Student Identity Development 126 Freshmen students ( n= 63 Asian) (n=63 American) Convenience Sample *no random assignment Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI) (Winston & Miller, 1987). No significant difference in gender. However, there are similarities among American and Asian students on the SDTLI tasks. Caution should be placed on the SDTLI since it is based on Western values. Alessandria, K. P. & Nelson, E. S. (2005). Identity development and self-esteem of first generation American college students: An exploration study Chickering Student Identity Development 175 college students ( n=45 FGA) (n= 130 NFGA) Convenience Sample *no random assignment FGA=first generation Erwin Identity Scale (EIS-III) (Erwin, 1987). Index of Self Esteem (ISE) (Hudson, 1982). Counter to H1: FGA had significantly higher self-esteem scores than NFGA F(1, 146)=10.28, p <.05). No significant relationship between gender and EIS-III. Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA was tested to measure for ethnic group differences with EIS-III, resulting in no significance. Foubert, J. D., Nixon, M. L., Sisson, S. V., & Barnes, A. C. (2005). A longitudinal study of Chickering and ReisserÂ’s vectors: Exploring gender differences and implications for refining the theory Chickering Student Identity Development 407 college students ( n=227 females) (n=180 males) (79% Caucasian; 11% Asian; 11% African American; and 3% other) Random assignment Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI) (Winston & Miller, 1987). This study on like previous examples did find a significant difference within gender and the SDTLI; F(3, 192)=11.54, p<.001. However, the effects size was reported as being extremely low (.04). Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. ( 2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Social Cognitive (self efficacy & optimism) 1 st year college students Wave 1 ( n=373) Wave 2 ( n=256) Longitudinal Life Orientation Test (Scheier & Carver, 1985) Authors developed an 8-item liker scale to measure selfefficacy. (*article reported Coefficient alpha .81, but no pilot study) A powerful relationship between selfefficacy and studentÂ’s level of optimism and their successful first year experience. Furthermore, self-efficacy directly correlated with academic success. Dinter, L. D. (2000) The relationship between self-efficacy and lifestyle patterns Social Cognitive (self efficacy) 195 college juniors/seniors ( n=73 females) (n=122 males) Convenience Sampling General Self Efficacy Scale (Sherer,et al., 1982) Scale for Interpersonal Success (Wheeler, Kern, & Curlette, 1993). The study revealed a significant correlation between belonging and social interest scale of ( r=.484, p<.001). Furthermore, the study revealed a relationship between striving for perfection and self-efficacy.
107 Continuation of Appendix B Author Title Theory Population/Sample Instrumentation Comm ents Coffman, D. L., & Gilligan, T. D. (2002). Social support, stress, and self-efficacy: Effects on student satisfaction. Social cognitive (selfefficacy) College students Convenience Sampling Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener, Larson, & Griffin, 1985). Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)(Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)(Cohen & Kamarck et al., 1983). College Self Efficacy Instrument (CSEI)(Solberg et al., 1993). Self-efficacy was reported and correlated with higher levels of life satisfaction as was with those individuals who scored low on stress. Social support appears to have had the strongest correlation with life satisfaction; however, the authors warn us not to generalize due to the small sample size and sample population. Coll, J. E., & Zalaquett, C. (in press). The Relationship of Worldviews of Advisors and Students and Satisfaction with Advising: A Case of Homogenous Group Impact. Worldview Traditional & Nontraditional College students & advisors ( n=115 students) (n=5 advisors) World Assumption Scale (WAS) (Janoff-Bulman,1992) Authors developed a 5 item Likert scale to measure advising satisfaction. Analysis of the data revealed no significant differences among traditional and nontraditional student worldviews. However, there was a significance of (F = 4.398, p < .0148) when comparing student self-worth and their perceptions of how well their advisor understood them. Hsiao-Ping, C., & OÂ’Leary, E. (1995) A cross-cultural comparison of the worldviews of American, Chinese, and Irish Worldview Graduate Counseling Students ( n=37 Asian) (n=29 Irish) (n=64 American) The Scale to Assess World Views (SAWV) (Ibrahim & Kahn, 1987) There were significant differences between cultural groups as to how they perceived the world. Chinese participants viewed relationships as hierarchical and perceived nature to be good and bad. Lyddon, W. J., & Adamson, L. A. (1992) Worldview and Counseling Preference: An analogue Study Worldview Undergraduate Students ( n=69 females) (n=21 males) Organicism Mechanism Paradigm Inventory (OMPI)(Germer et al., 1982). Counseling Approach Evaluation Form (CAEF) (Ponterotto & Furlong, 1985). This study supports that individuals may be inclined to respond to a specific counseling modality according to how they perceive the world.
108 Appendix C Janoff-Bulman (1992) WORLD ASSUMPTIONS SCALE Using the scale below, please select the number that indicates how much you agree or disagree with each statement. Please answer honestly. Thanks. 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = slightly agree 5 = moderately agree 6 = strongly agree 1. Misfortune is least likely to strike worthy, decent people. 2. People are naturally unfriendly and unkind.* 3. Bad events are distributed to people at random.* 4. Human nature is basically good. 5. The good things that happen in this world far outnumber the bad. 6. The course of our lives is largely determined by chance.* 7. Generally, people deserve what they get in this world. 8. I often think I am no good at all.* 9. There is more good than evil in the world. 10. I am basically a lucky person. 11. People's misfortunes result from mistakes they have made. 12. People don't really care what happens to the next person.* 13. I usually behave in ways that are likely to maximize good results for me. 14. People will experience good fortune if they themselves are good. 15. Life is too full of uncertainties that are determined by chance.*
109 16. When I think about it, I consider myself very lucky. 17. I almost always make an effort to prevent bad things from happening to me. 18. I have a low opinion of myself.* 19. By and large, good people get what they deserve in this world. 20. Through our actions we can prevent bad things from happening to us. 21. Looking at my life, I realize that chance events have worked out well for me. 22. If people took preventive actions, most misfortune could be avoided. 23. I take the actions necessary to protect myself against misfortune. 24. In general, life is mostly a gamble.* 25. The world is a good place. 26. People are basically kind and helpful. 27. I usually behave so as to bring about the greatest good for me. 28. I am very satisfied with the kind of person I am. 29. When bad things happen, it is typically because people have not taken the necessary actions to protect themselves. 30. If you look closely enough, you will see that the world is full of goodness. 31. I have reason to be ashamed of my personal character.* 32. I am luckier than most people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Scoring : Reverse score the asterisked statements and then sum the responses for each of the three subscales, as indicated below. Benevolence of the World: Statements 2+4+5+9+12+25+26+30 Meaningfulness of the World: Statements 1+3+6+7+11+14+15+19+20+22+24+29 Self-Worth: Statements 8+10+13+16+17+18+21+23+27+28+31+32
110 Appendix D Erwin Identity Scale (EIS) (1977, 1980 1=not true of me 2=not very true of me 3=unsure 4=somewhat true of me 5=very true of me 1. I am sure of myself as most other people seem to be sure of themselves. 2. I have found one of the easiest ways to make friends with others is to be the kind of person they would like me to be. 3. It seems like when I trust someone to whom I am attracted I get hurt. 4. I do not have as strong a control over my feelings as I would like. 5. It does not bother me that I am not as attractive as other people. 6. I rarely express my feelings to a friend for fear I will get hurt. 7. When I look in the mirror at myself, I am satisfied with the physical image I see. 8. I usually do not have the assurance that what I am doing is the best thing. 9. I believe that people should follow an established dress code in order to be accepted in a work environment. 10. I sometimes regret my behavior in informal social situations, e.g. parti es. 11. My feelings often interfere with my interactions with other people. 12. It usually takes so much effort to make decisions that I wish somebody else would make decisions for me. 13. I have many doubts about what I am going to do with my life. 14. I feel comfortable when I am seen with someone who dresses out of style. 15. If I really let go of my feelings, I probably would not do anything that I would later regret. 16. When I compare myself to people whom I think are extremely good looking, I feel inferior. 17. In most situations, I would not hesitate to express my beliefs to those with opposite beliefs.
111 18. Most of the time I am comfortable with my feelings. 19. I believe there is only one right person for me with whom I could establish a close love relationship. 20. A person should adapt his or her appearance to the group that happens to be with him or her at the time. 21. I envy those people who know where they are going in life. 22. If I did not wear the basic style of dress that other people wear, I would feel left out and excluded. 23. If I shared my true feelings with a close friend (male or female), s/he would probably think less of me. 24. No matter how sad I feel, I usually think things will get better. 25. Each day presents new challenges that I cannot wait to confront. 26. I feel confident that I have chosen or will choose the best occupational field for me. 27. I am capable of understanding most ideas I read about. 28. When I am hurt by someone I care for, I find it hard to trust others for quite a long time. 29. I often feel inferior when I compare myself to other people. 30. I often have uneasy thoughts about the way I appear to other people. 31. I believe there are only a few people (1 or 2) in the world with whom I could be happy with in a close love relationship. 32. I do not mind appearing different in dress from other people because that is me. 33. No matter how hard I try, I do not feel prepared to enter the working world. 34. Even though it may be contrary to my normal wishes, I usually dress to fit the situation or wishes of others. 35. My confidence is really shaken when I see so many capable people with abilities as good as or better than mine. 36. If I seem to be not dressed appropriately for a particular situation, I usually become very anxious and feel out of place.
112 Continuation of Appendix D 37. When I am a stranger in a group, I often introduce myself to others. 38. When other people discuss how important it is to be handsome and pretty, I feel badly and wish I were more attractive. 39. I would not change my style of clothes just because my boss indicated that I should dress more like him or her. 40. When I am in a crowd, I feel uncomfortable about the way I look. 41. It is uncomfortable for me to speak out in groups for fear my statement may be incorrect. 42. I realize that most of my feelings and desires are natural and normal. 43. My relationship with people of the opposite sex usually have not lasted as long as I would like. 44. There are certain feelings I have that I do not understand. 45. My feelings often overwhelm me when I try to establish close friendships. 46. I would not pattern my appearance after the dress style expected by my peer group. 47. If a boss or teacher criticizes my work, it is usually because they do not understand me. 48. I frequently have doubts that I can have a successful and happy close love relationship. 49. I usually do not smile because I am uncomfortable with the way my smile looks. 50. When I fall in love, I am reasonably sure of my feelings. 51. I still have difficulty making decisions for myself. 52. To satisfy my needs, I have to be aggressive or clever. 53. I feel some guilt when I realize how strong my feelings are. 54. I do not understand myself very well. 55. I do not know myself well enough to make a firm occupational choice. 56. It is difficult for me to answer questions like these about myself.
113 Continuation of Appendix D 57. I have trouble making decisions when other people disagree with me. 58. Even when I have most of the facts, I often postpone making decisions. 59. Other people know what is better for my life than I do.
114 Appendix E
115 Continuation of Appendix E
116 Continuation of Appendix E
117 Continuation of Appendix E
118 Appendix F
About the Author Jose E. Coll received an Associated Degree from Palomar Community College, CA. in 1999 while serving in the Marine Corps. He later went on to receive a BachelorÂ’s Degree in Social from Saint Leo University, FL and a Masters in Social Wor k from the University of Central Florida. Mr. Coll has worked as a clinical social worker with adolescents and families i n an outpatient facility. He went to work later as a behavioral specialist se rving children within Autism, Severely Emotionally Disturbed, and Emotionally Mentally Handi cap. Mr. CollÂ’s research interests are predominately focused on the development of worldviews and its relationship to student development, cognitive complexities, and multicultural counseling. He has published and presented on worldviews in national and international conferences. Currently, Mr. Coll is an Assistant Professor of S ocial Work and Director of Freshman Advising at Saint Leo University, FL.