Need-Supportive Advising for Undecided Students

Academic advising promises to address the problem of retaining students in college through graduation specifically by supporting their engagement in college course work (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In fact, advocates assert and research supports the proposition that of all the services offered to students in U.S. 4-year public universities, academic advising exerts the greatest influence on persistence (Cuseo, 2003; Noel-Levitz, 2011).

Moreover, students deemed undecided or undeclared, those who have yet to choose a major when they enter college, show less propensity to persist to their second semester (St. John, Hu, Simmons, Carter, & Weber, 2004) or second year (Leppel, 2001) than students who have decided on a program of study. Some undecided students exhibit low efficacy toward decision making (Bullock-Yowell, McConnell, & Schedin, 2014) compared to decided students. For them, participation in academic advising may prove critical, especially when engaging in academic major decision making.

Although they vary in their levels of undecidedness, most first-year students demonstrate evolving critical-thinking and decision-making skills (Baird, 1969; Gordon, 2007; Titley & Titley, 1980). Personal and social factors likely play a role in students' undecidedness as well as levels of known information or decision-making skill competencies (Gordon, 2007). Academic advisors can prompt undecided students to initiate and navigate the major exploration process by helping them understand themselves, educational programs and curricula, occupations, and decision-making processes and outcomes. Advisors can use a number of strategies to assess and inform in these critical areas, such as formal assessments, programming events, and perhaps most directly, one-on-one advising sessions (Gordon, 2007; Slowinski & Hammock, 2003). Through personal relationships established with students, advisors show genuine interest in advisees and their needs (Fox, 2008), and because of the skills and knowledge academic advisors bring to practice, undecided students may benefit from advising sessions throughout the decision-making process.

Many have discussed the parallels between effective teaching and effective advising (e.g., Crookston, 1972/2009; Ryan, 1992). To meet the main educational goals of advising sessions, advisors teach students to increase their knowledge about academic programs and foster their academic decision-making and problem-solving skills (Hemwall & Trachte, 1999; Laff, 1994; Ryan, 1992). Because teaching practices that facilitate adaptive outcomes may prove particularly effective when applied to meeting students' basic psychological needs, advisors may turn to research on environmental support for motivation and well-being to find an applicable approach for helping students setting and reaching their goals. For example, according to self-determination theory, environmental support for basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness leads to a variety of psychological benefits across multiple contexts, including classrooms (e.g., deCharms, 1976; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008), parenting (e.g., Chirkov & Ryan, 2001), workplace management (Hardré & Reeve, 2009), sports coaching (e.g., Allen & Howe, 1998), and clinical therapy or counseling (Williams, Lynch et al., 2006; Williams, McGregor et al., 2006).

Extensive literature highlights the benefits of met psychological need and the importance of support for persons in both educational and other practical contexts. Therefore, the extent to which an advisor advances a student's sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness may affect that student's perceptions of his or her own autonomy and competence in making academic choices. In an effort to connect self-determination theory to the academic advising context, we explored the relationship between advising purported to meet the three basic psychological needs and student demonstrations of autonomous and competent decision making for an academic major.

Self-determination Theory and Supporting Psychological Needs

According to self-determination theory, human functioning is optimized when an individual's basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore, when forces contribute to satisfaction of these three self-determination needs, persons experience internalized motivation toward activities in the context of the support as well as enhanced well-being (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The need for autonomy is satisfied by engagement in self-initiated activities (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Satisfaction of the need for competence reflects mastery of tasks through successful interactions with the environment (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Relatedness is satisfied through a sense of belonging as well as feeling support or care from others (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the present study, we focus on all three psychological needs and collectively refer to assistance in meeting them as need-supportive advising.

To meet the psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, a person must feel support from others within the environment (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Researchers have uncovered a number of specific strategies to support individuals' sense of autonomy and enhance motivation in the classroom (see Su & Reeve, 2011). Specifically, offering meaningful rationales and choices, allowing expression of negative feelings, and using noncontrolling language are crucial for autonomy support (see, e.g., Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, & Matos, 2005). For example, Assor et al. (2002) found that by relating the nature of a task to students' goals, providing choices, and permitting students to express dissatisfaction with the task, teachers enhanced student engagement. In addition, students in the Assor et al. study demonstrated positive feelings about tasks related to their goals as expressed by their interest in, enjoyment of, and engagement with course work.

Of particular interest to us, one longitudinal study showed that teachers' support of student autonomy positively predicted student need satisfaction and engagement over the course of a semester (Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2012). Specifically, the researchers showed that teacher support for student autonomy at Time 1 positively predicted student need satisfaction at Time 2, which in turn fully mediated the relationship of student engagement at Time 3. We used a similar model to look at the relationship between students' perceptions of need-supportive advising and their levels of autonomous and competent decision making on a major as indicated through their reported need satisfaction over an academic year.

As with autonomy support, a number of practices have been linked to positive perceptions of competence and other adaptive outcomes. Skinner and Belmont (1993) asserted that a structured classroom environment featuring clearly communicated expectations and activities tailored to students' abilities strengthened students' perceptions of their own competence. They found that students who saw their teachers as facilitating structure predicted effort and persistence during academic tasks. Similarly, Jang, Reeve, and Deci (2010) found that teachers' use of clear instructions, strong guidance, and informative feedback positively contributed to student engagement independently of specific autonomy support. Providing regular noncomparative and informative feedback also augments perceived competence as well as persistence, interest, and engagement (Anderson, Manoogian, & Reznick, 1976; Butler, 1987; Deci, 1971, 1972; Harackiewicz, 1979; Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004). Zook and Herman (2011) found that students' perceptions of teacher support of student competence—in the form of clearly explained and organized materials and feedback focused on students' effort, creativity, and strategy—exerted a stronger effect than support for autonomy and relatedness on intrinsic motivation in a specific course.

Finally, the research suggests that a person experiences relatedness support when others display interest, demonstrate involvement, and show warmth as well as when an individual develops intimate relationships with others in the environment (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Kasser & Ryan, 1999; LaGuardia & Patrick, 2008). Skinner and Belmont (1993) conceptualized teacher involvement as demonstrated affection toward and expressed interest in the student as well as availability and dedication. In their study, self-reports from teachers and students on need support showed that although both teacher behavior and student views of teacher behavior were positively associated with student engagement, teacher self-reported involvement showed a greater correlation with student engagement than did students' self-reported perceptions of their teacher involvement. Another study showed that students with a sense of belonging at their school—as defined by feeling respected and comforted by peers, teachers, and other school personnel—displayed greater orientation toward tasks to gain understanding as well as enhanced perceptions of competence (Anderman & Anderman, 1999) than those who did not feel this sense of belonging. Based on these findings, practices that reinforce feelings of relatedness, including communication of positive regard with warmth and acceptance and without pressure, may help advisors develop student motivation and persistence.

Predicted Benefits of Need-Supportive Advising

In line with the literature on need support in classroom, workplace, clinical, and other applied settings, we expect that advising responsive to individuals' psychological needs will benefit students. Thus, through advisor need support, we expect to see enhanced student autonomous motivation, engagement, and performance on focal tasks in advising sessions. Therefore, in this paper we refer to need-supportive advising as practices found to meet student needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

The most immediate benefits of need-supportive advising may translate to motivation and attitudes surrounding decision making for a major. Need-supportive practices that have influenced autonomous motivation and perceptions of competence through need satisfaction, as measured in several settings (e.g., teaching, parenting, coaching, counseling), may apply to advising situations. For example, Guay, Senécal, Gauthier, and Fernet (2003) found diminished feelings of autonomy and self-efficacy toward career decision-making activities among students whose parents and friends provided feedback intended to control the student's choices. The authors recommended that counselors (with similar functions as advisors in this context) engage in autonomy-supportive practices to induce feelings of student self-efficacy and autonomy toward decision-making tasks.

Because need-supportive advising may positively influence student outcomes related to major decision making, students entering college undecided about a major may benefit the most from this approach. Guay, Ratelle, Senécal, Larose, and Deschênes (2006) found that decided students reported higher levels of self-efficacy than undecided students. Additionally, decided students reported more perceived autonomy toward career decision making, experienced more autonomy support from friends, and received fewer controlling messages from or bore fewer imperious behaviors of friends and parents than chronically undecided students (i.e., those for whom experiences of indecision remain stable and moderate over time).

Moreover, advising designed to help meet students' psychological needs may effectively mitigate a host of personal and social factors that contribute to undecidedness (Gordon, 2007). Undecided students report experiencing more anxiety (e.g., Fuqua, Seaworth, & Newman, 1987; Goodstein, 1965) and exhibit low efficacy toward decision making (Taylor & Betz, 1983) compared to decided students. Some research suggests that advising approaches that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness effectively address challenges for undecided students. For example, students with mothers who encouraged independence experienced less indecision than others (Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999). Also, Berrios-Allison (2005) found that those from close-knit families enjoy the encouragement of exploration and decision-making commitment. Therefore, to the extent that advising meets one's needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, undecided students faced with decisions may demonstrate self-initiation and competence after experiencing need-supportive practices.

Method

Through this study, we investigated the role of need-supportive advising for student decision making on majors throughout an academic year. Specifically, we hypothesized that advising experiences that support students' autonomy, competence, and relatedness will positively predict students' basic psychological need satisfaction. Additionally, we posited that basic need satisfaction will positively predict autonomously regulated and competent decision making on a major. We expected to see evidence that need-supportive advising offered at the beginning of the semester correlates with student need satisfaction determined toward the end of the academic year. Also, as did Jang et al. (2012), we expected to find that need-supportive advising offered throughout the year will predict positive autonomous and competent decision making behaviors of students at the end of it.

We used a longitudinal design to uncover the relationship between need-supportive advising and autonomous and competent decision making on a major. We looked at the relationship as a function of basic psychological need satisfaction. Participants completed an online survey at three time points throughout either the 2012-2013 or 2013-2014 academic years. Students typically receive an assigned advisor upon enrollment and meet with that same advisor while in the department. Therefore, the participants reported on experiences with the same advisor at all assessment points.

Measures

On the survey, participants responded to demographic questions regarding ethnicity, age, year in college, and gender. Also, they could add any information about their advising experiences in an open-ended response. Participants rated the extent to which the items are true for them on a 7-point Likert-type scale (7 = very true and 1 = not at all true), unless otherwise noted.

The following measures were adapted from the classroom and teacher context to assess the students' perceptions of their advisor. We used an adapted version of the Learning Climate Questionnaire (Williams & Deci, 1996) to measure participants' perceptions of autonomy-supportive academic advising (15 items). An example item is, “My advisor makes sure I really understand the goals of my degree and what I need to do.” In our study, the scale demonstrated acceptable reliability at both time points T1 (α = .90) and T2 (α =.92). An adapted version of the support of competence subscale (Zook & Herman, 2011) assessed participants' perceptions of competence-supportive advising (10 items). An example item is, “My advisor is always willing to provide help.” Two items were reverse scored. Zook and Herman reported Cronbach's α = .91 for this subscale; we found Cronbach's α = .92 for the scale, and Cronbach's α = .95 at each of the time points. An adapted version of the teacher involvement subscale, as reported by the student, in the Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire–Short Form (Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1988) was used to assess participants' perceptions of relatedness-supportive advising (8 items). An example item is, “My advisor really cares about me.” Three items were reverse scored. Belmont et al. reported Cronbach's α =.80 for this subscale. In our study, Cronbach's α =.86 for the scale, and Cronbach's α = .88 at each of the time points. All three of these measures were combined to create a single variable to represent need-supportive advising.

We employed a modified version of the Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction at Work Scale (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993) to assess the extent to which participants' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied within the advising relationship (21 items). This scale was modified from the original, which reflected a work and employer environment, to address the advising and advisor context. Example items included, “I am free to express my ideas and opinions in advising sessions” (autonomy); “My advisor tells me I am good at course work and tasks” (competence); and “My advisor cares about me” (relatedness). Eight items were reverse scored. Previous research has reported an average Cronbach α =.83 for the overall scale (Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, 2003; Kashdan, Julian, Merritt, & Uswatte, 2006). In our study, Cronbach's α =.89 at both time points.

An adapted version of the Career Decision-Making Autonomy Scale (Guay, 2005) was used to assess students' autonomy for making decisions about their academic major, instead of for assessing the career decision-making process as originally designed. The scale includes seven activities (e.g., “seeking information on academic major programs”) that participants rated based on the extent to which they are engaging, or would engage, in the activities, for the following reasons: intrinsic (pleasure), identified (i.e., importance), introjected (i.e., to avoid feeling guilty and anxious), and extrinsic (i.e., for reward or by command from somebody else). In accordance with scoring procedures, we computed a perceived autonomy index (PAI) for each activity using the following formula to properly weight the score:

The PAI for each activity was averaged together to create a total PAI, with higher scores indicating greater autonomous regulation of academic major decision making. Subscale values ranged between Cronbach's α values of .91 and .95 (Guay, 2005). Prior research also established the construct validity of the scale (Guay, 2005). In our study, we obtained Cronbach's α values that ranged from .90 to .96 for the subscales across both time points.

A modified version of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form (Betz, Hammond, & Moulton, 2005; Betz & Klein, 1996) measured students' competence toward major decision making instead of career decision making (14 items) as originally designed. An example item is, “Select one major from a list of potential majors you are considering.” Participants indicated the level of confidence for completing a task on a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = complete confidence and 1 = no confidence at all). Items were averaged together to create a score of competent major decision making; Cronbach's α =.94 for the scale, and Cronbach's α = .96 at both time points.

Results

Means and standard deviations for all of the variables are presented in Table 1. Simple bivariate correlations were examined among the variables within each time point (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 1 Means (standard deviations) for variables, N = 145

View Fullscreen

Table 2 Correlations for variables at Time 1

View Fullscreen

Table 3 Correlations for variables at Time 2

View Fullscreen

We examined the relationship between need-supportive advising and students' autonomous and competent decision making toward an academic major as explained by students' need satisfaction. To test the hypotheses, we conducted path analyses using maximum likelihood procedures. A number of fit indices were used to assess goodness-of-fit as per recommendations by Hu and Bentler (1999). In the model the following paths for initial and end time point data (T1 and T2) were estimated: need-supportive advising to need satisfaction and advising and need satisfaction to autonomous and competent decision making. We also estimated the correlation between autonomous and competent decision making for both time points. To test the effect of advising over time, we estimated paths from each variable at T1 to the corresponding variable at T2, as well as the paths from each variable at T1 to each subsequent variable at T2 (e.g., from need satisfaction at T1 to autonomous and competent decision making at T2). All continuous predictor variables were mean centered.

The model produced moderate fit: χ²(7) = 15.63, p < .05, CFI (comparative fit index) = .99, TLI (Tucker-Lewis index) = .95, RMSEA (root mean squared error of approximation) = .09, SRMR (standardized root mean squared residual) = .05. In considering the addition of paths to improve model fit, we looked at modification indices larger than 3.84 (3.84 is the critical value of χ²[1], p < .05). We added a path from competent decision making at T1 to autonomous decision making at T2 because we surmised that students who feel more competent about their academic major decision making will feel more autonomous about their decision making in the future. The model with this added path produced acceptable fit: χ²(6) = 8.57, p = .20, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04. A chi-square difference test comparing this model to the nested model, excluding the added path, provided support for the model with the added path: χ²_diff(1) = 7.06, p < .01. Table 4 lists the standardized coefficients and standard errors for the direct effects in the full model. Figure 1 displays the tested model.

Table 4 Standardized coefficients and standard errors for direct paths and correlations for full model at Times (T) 1 and 2

View Fullscreen

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Note. SUPP = Need-supportive advising, NEED SAT = need satisfaction, AUTO DM = autonomous decision making, COM DM = competent decision making. The dotted line represents the added path.

The following direct paths were not statistically significant for T1 predictors: need-supportive advising at T1 to autonomous and competent decision making at T1, need-supportive advising, need satisfaction, and competent decision making at T2; need satisfaction at T1 to need satisfaction and competent decision making at T2; autonomous decision making at T1 to autonomous decision making at T2. The path from need-supportive advising at T2 to competent decision making at T2 showed no statistical significance. A model without these nonsignificant paths was estimated. This model produced good fit: χ²(12) = 415.63, p = .21, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05. A chi-square difference test applied to this model and the fuller model that included the nonsignificant paths provided support for the trimmed model (χ²_diff [6] = 7.05, p = .32), suggesting that the more parsimonious model should be retained. In the second, trimmed model, the path from need satisfaction at T1 to autonomous decision making at T2 was not significant (p = .064) and so was not retained. Figure 2 illustrates the final model with statistically significant standardized coefficients and standard errors for the direct effects.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Note. SUPP = Need-supportive advising, NEED SAT = need satisfaction, AUTO DM = autonomous decision making, COM DM = competent decision making. All paths significant at p ≤ .001, except the paths from need-support advising at T1 and T2 to autonomous decision making at T2, which are significant at p < .05.

Indirect effects were estimated by including the INDIRECT statement in Mplus. We obtained bootstrap estimates based upon 5,000 resamples to investigate each indirect effect. Bootstrap confidence intervals suggested that all indirect effects were significant. The hypotheses for each separate time point were supported. Specifically, at T1 and T2, need satisfaction mediated the relation between need-supportive advising and autonomous and competent decision making such that more need-supportive advising significantly predicted greater need satisfaction, which in turn significantly predicted greater autonomous and competent decision making toward an academic major.

We also found partial affirmation for the hypothesis about need-supportive advising at T1 predicting autonomous and competent decision making at T2. Specifically, need-supportive advising at T1 positively predicted autonomous and competent decision making at T2 indirectly through need satisfaction and competent decision making at T1; however, we found a negative, direct relationship between need-supportive advising at T1 and autonomous decision making at T2. This relationship is maintained when the mediators are included in the analysis. Table 5 lists standardized coefficients, standard errors, and confidence intervals for the indirect paths.

Table 5 Standardized coefficients and standard errors for indirect effects at Times (T) 1 and 2

View Fullscreen

Discussion

We examined the relationships between need-supportive advising and academic major decision making as expressed through basic need satisfaction. Because of the parallel between advising and teaching (e.g., Hemwall & Trachte, 2005; Ryan, 1992), we sought to answer questions typically explored in classroom settings (e.g., Jang et al., 2010). Overall, the results suggest that advising that addresses students' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness predicts students' enhanced feelings of competence and autonomy toward decision making about their academic major because of the increased feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness they experience through advising.

Results from the model indicate that need-supportive advising significantly predicts satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Specifically, at both time points, students felt greater need satisfaction during advising that was personally relevant and academically beneficial as well as when the advisor demonstrated care toward the student. This finding aligns with a long history of research demonstrating the benefits of need-supportive environments (e.g., Chirkov & Ryan, 2001; Guay et al., 2008; Hardré & Reeve, 2009). At both time points, need satisfaction predicted both autonomous and competent decision making, which corresponds with long-standing motivation research (e.g., Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981).

Results also show that need-supportive advising received at the beginning of the year significantly predicted autonomous and competent advisee decision making toward the end of the year, and this effect manifested through multiple pathways. Specifically, when students perceive that advising sessions augment their feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, their initial increased feelings of autonomy and competence toward decision making may translate into positive feelings of autonomy and competence toward making a decision on a major at a later time point. This finding correlates with the hypothesis that students who gain confidence about decisions may continue to feel confident, which may contribute to self-initiated decisions on a major.

Contrary to our hypotheses, the direct effect of need-supportive advising at each time point negatively predicted autonomous decision making at T2. This finding suggests that when they perceive that advising helps meet basic psychological needs, students may feel less enjoyment about decision making. However, because it reflects the direct effect of need-supportive advising after accounting for the role of need satisfaction, this finding potentially reflects undecided students' anxiety or frustration, which advisors may pique when focusing on them extensively through directed choice, feedback, and care. In fact, research suggests that many undecided students feel anxiety (Gordon, 2007), which may inhibit them from enjoying and or taking interest in tasks related to the major decision-making process.

Conclusion

We investigated the relationship between perceived need support, need satisfaction, and major decision making in the context of advising. Results support the hypothesis that undecided students who perceive receiving supportive advising that satisfied their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness may experience enhanced motivation toward major decision making over time. Although the hypotheses need further testing through well-designed intervention studies, these results indicate that advisor–student relationships may benefit from advisor cultivation of practices that support the psychological needs of autonomy and competence especially in terms of decision making.