The book is correct - it is the statement of the Fundamental Theorem of Cyclic Groups. Its proof is rather simple:
Let $t$ belong to <$a^d$>, then $t$ = $a^{dq}$, where $q$ is an integer. Let $s = \gcd(n,d)$. Then $d = sp$, for some integer $p$. Then, $t = a^{spq},$ so $t= (a^s)^{pq}$, so $t$ belongs to <$a^s$> = <$a^\gcd(n,d)$>. Thus, <$a^d$> is a subset of <$a^{\gcd(n,d)}$>.
Let $r$ belong to <$a^{\gcd(n,d)}$>, then $r = a^{sm}$, for some integer $m$. Now, by Bezout's identity, there exist $x,y \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\gcd(n,d)= s = nx + dy$, so $r= a^{nx + dy}= a^{dy}$, since $a^{nx} =e$. But, $a^{dy}$ belongs to <$a^d$>, so, we are done, that is, we have proved that <$a^{\gcd(n,d)}$> is a subset of <$a^d$>, so from our results, we have:
<$a^s$> = <$a^d$>, where $s = \gcd(n,d)$.
Your professor probably considered $d$ to be a divisor of $n$, meaning that they're perfectly correct, but aren't generalizing just yet.