ABSTRACT

This study compares outcomes of prescriptive and developmental advising models by means of a posttest-only quasi-experimental design. Three outcomes of interest are degree progression, student satisfaction with advising, and average course-pathway cost. Two years of archival records from first-time, full-time degree-seeking students (n = 96) provide data, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test evaluates the hypotheses. Results for both progression and satisfaction fail to reject the null hypotheses that there is no difference in outcomes between advising models. Results for average course-pathway cost support the alternative hypothesis, which states that students aggregate different – in this case, lower – average course-pathway cost under developmental advising than under prescriptive. The results of this study imply that basic cost analysis can be successfully integrated with academic outcome analysis and that developmental advising confers cost benefits to both the student and the institution, which is of particular importance for underfunded institutions serving historically disadvantaged students.

摘要

本研究通过仅后测的准实验设计比较了规范性和发展性建议模型的结果。三个感兴趣的结果是学位进展、学生对建议的满意度和平均课程途径成本。来自首次全日制攻读学位的学生 ( n = 96) 的两年档案记录提供了数据，Wilcoxon 符号秩检验评估了这些假设。进展和满意度的结果都未能拒绝建议模型之间结果没有差异的无效假设。平均课程路径成本的结果支持替代假设，该假设指出学生汇总不同-在这种情况下，发展建议下的平均课程路径成本低于规定下。这项研究的结果表明，基本成本分析可以成功地与学术成果分析相结合，并且发展性建议可以为学生和机构带来成本收益，这对于为历史上处于不利地位的学生提供服务的资金不足的机构尤为重要。