. am?

£13:

I

a. x
.II. 19.2,
3!?!

..

 

3.3%

:Jok:

Whinvméfimflfio , 7

. H . .434.

 

 

a LIBRARIES
.‘1 00 g MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CREATING COMPLEX PARTNERSHIPS: A MULTIPLE
STUDY INVESTIGATION INTO SELF-AUTHORHSIP

presented by

JANE ELIZABETH PIZZOLATO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Educational Psychology

 

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
W, 4/ 52005
0

Date

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN REIURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

FEiagzifi 20h?

 

AUG 2 5 2007

 

DSZCb:

 

_AIll3_Ls mm:
'5va

 

 

WQHMIL
1 vv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/06 «EEC/Dam.mms

CREATING COMPLEX PARTNERSHIPS: A MULTIPLE STUDY INVESTIGATION
INTO SELF-AUTHORSHIP

By

Jane Elizabeth Pizzolato

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Psychology

2005

ABSTRACT

CREATING COMPLEX PARTNERSHIPS: A MULTIPLE STUDY INVESTIGATION
INTO SELF-AUTHORSHIP

By
Jane Elizabeth Pizzolato

By way of four related studies, this mixed-method project explored assessment
and development of self-authorship in college students at a large Midwestern university.
The guiding questions for this project were: (a) What does self-authorship look like in
college students? And (b) what affects development and expression of self-authorship in
college students?

From these questions four studies were conducted to investigate gaps in the
literature: (a) Presently we know college graduates can self-author. Can college students
self-author? If so, what does self-authorship lock like in college students? (b) Self-
authorship assessment: How do we measure self-authorship? (c) The process of self-
authorship: What specific skills are involved in developing self-authorship? And ((1) data-
driven practices: What might specific practices need to entail to promote self—authorship?
Data for the first study consisted of individual interviews with thirty-five participants.
Data for the second, third, and fourth study consisted of Likert-type responses from 991
participants and short narrative responses about decision-making from 613 participants.

Findings across studies suggest self-authorship comes in two forms: reasoning
and action, where the ability to construct knowledge in‘ways that acknowledge the
contextual nature of reality and one’s internal foundations is captured in self-authored
reasoning. Self-authoring action then represents actions consistent with one’s reasoning

abilities. The ability to reason in self-authored ways, the pre-cursor to self-authored

action, seems to develop through student processing of provocative moments via
construction and enactment of appropriate schemas for moving through the provocative
moment. Whether students are able to act in ways consistent with their reasoning
capabilities seems related to student assessment of their environment and balancing the
benefits of self-authoring in the situation with the implications of such action on students’
multiple important possible selves. Lastly the findings point toward a shift from a
student-centered approach under the LPM to a leaming-centered approach.

This project is significant in that it clarifies existing work on self-authorship by
further detailing the micro-processes involved in college student development and
expression of self-authorship. In addition, a tool for assessing self-authorship is proposed.

And finally, this project calls for re-examination of the increasingly more popular LPM.

PREFACE

I think intuitively I understood that there might be something like self-authorship
before I ever formally learned about the possibility. During my second year of college I
took an educational psychology course where we learned all about traditional ed psych
theories of learning, motivation, and development, and I also was introduced to the
epistemological development literature. Although I never spoke during class I practically
overwhelmed my professor outside of class, asking about how these studies were
conducted, about the findings, about the ordering of the ways of knowing, and about the
implication that the ways of knowing were consistent and coherent across contexts. I had
a sense then that just understanding the socially constructed nature of reality could not be
an endpoint, because it just seemed so unfulfilling, so not based in the practical reality of
needing to be more connected personally, emotionally, and morally to one’s cognitive
sense-making practices. I was fixated on what happened next, what came after contextual
knowing, and better understanding if there was something in constructed knowing
(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986/ 1997) and the commitment stages (Pen'y,
1968) that might help me understand other possible ways of knowing. That was in 1997.

I kept these ideas in the back of my head as l pursued other avenues of interest in
college, and even during my first year of graduate school. In my second year of graduate
school, however, my initial interests became my primary interest and ultimately the
driving intellectual curiosity behind my dissertation work. During that fall semester I
took a student affairs course - EAD 873—and as a part of the course I had to write a

personal development narrative where I described my development in college and then

iv

used theories from the course to analyze my description. As I wrote this paper I was able
to re-explore old questions. In response to one of my drafts of this paper my professor,
Anna Ortiz, wrote “This reminds me of self-authorship. Are you familiar with Making
their own way?” in the margins of my paper. I was not, but that comment prompted me to
purchase the book and discover self-authorship.

My initial reading of Making their own way (Baxter Magolda, 2001) helped me
understand better my own struggles to make sense of and move through my feelings of
disenchantment with the academy. The idea of self-authorship also helped me begin to
envision what an epistemic position beyond contextual knowing might look like and feel
like. But my long ago question about the implication that ways of knowing are assumed
to be consistent and coherent across contexts persisted. In my own experiences it felt like
some contexts were more open to a self-authored way of knowing, while other contexts
actively discouraged coming to know from such an orientation. Was it possible to be self-
authored in a context that demanded other ways of knowing for success? Fortunately I
had the space to explore this question with Anna, because I was taking another course
with her where one course requirement was to keep an ongoing journal with her that was
a wild mix between analytical and conversational writing. As a part of the course we
discussed knowledge construction, enactment, and the contextual nature of it all. In
response to one of the readings I used my own experiences to write about the absence of
conversation about student feelings of discomfort and disequilibrium in classes conducted
via engaged pedagogy, and how such feelings might factor into our understanding of the
relation between subjugated and reclaimed knowledge. At the end of this entry Anna

WI'OICZ

You articulate the tension between subjugated and reclaimed knowledge so
accurately. While I’m excited that you are learning in new ways, that are valuable
and meaningful, I share your concern about re-assimilating into. . .the
psychological paradigm. Often, it does no good to have mind and the self open in
such ways, only to find that others. . .mandate their closure. The good comes in the
form of self-knowledge and self-awareness. As we spoke about this week, this
exploration is critical to your existence in the academy. Coming to know yourself
in different ways won’t make many of the identity politics easier, but you will be
more assured of the position you take in the political minefield. You make an
important point in your entry here- how these courses are helping you in your
work with students. . ..This is where you become a change agent, in the academy
and in students’ individual lives. It’s the greater good.
Anna’s comments about the complexity and contextuality of how we know or feel we can
know in situations was important in my development as a scholar because it validated my
experiences and also helped me understand where the good would come in spite of the
tension. Her comments helped me to see my experience from a broader perspective,
rather than remain stuck in the emotional experience of it all. This ability to step outside
the immediate moment and to see how the work I was doing now helped me prepare for
my future possible self was important for me because it helped me better understand the
work I was doing and hoped to do.
In my dissertation I take up the questions of “What is self-authorship?” and
“What do we need to know in order to best assess if and how self-authorship is happening
in college students?” Although I am asking these questions because I am personally
interested in the answers, so that I might better understand my own developmental
process during college and beyond, I am also asking these questions because I seek to
help students. This connection between myself and my own development with that of
others was key to the work reported here, because until this comment from Anna and

conversations surrounding this comment I had not been able to bring together the work I

was doing for myself and school with the work that l was doing for and with students in

vi

the classroom. My teaching life and my scholarly life were separate. Anna’s comments
helped me learn to bring the two parts of my intellectual identity together, and it is my
work to understand students through both research and practice that allowed me to
undertake the project reported here.
The Dissertation

My dissertation is a compilation of four studies conducted between August 2002
and December 2003. The first study represents an analysis of the first set of data from my
two-year longitudinal study of self-authorship in high-risk college students. The second
study reports on my work to construct an instrument to measure self-authorship. And the
third and fourth studies examine the micro-processes associated with student displays of
self-authorship.
Becoming College Students: Constructing a Model for Self-Authorship

This study (Chapter 2) represents a piece of a two-year longitudinal study of self-
authorship development in hi gh-risk college students, and grew out of questions raised
through my work with college students. During my first two years at Michigan State
University I taught 6 sections of TE/CEP 150: Reflections on Learning. This course is the
foundational educational psychology course in the teacher preparation program. In this
course I introduced students to seminal ideas related to learning, motivation, and
development theories.

The major challenge of this course was to help students better understand how to
analyze the process of learning, and be more purposeful learners themselves. For students
who were primarily interested in learning how to teach, studying learning often felt like a

step in the wrong direction because they seemed to feel they knew all about learning and

vii

much about teaching. I challenged them to articulate and demonstrate what they knew by
engaging them in a semester long self-study process. As a part of the course the students
all chose a course they were taking concurrently with TE/CEP 150 in which they would
study their own learning behaviors, cognitive processes, and outcomes. The students kept
journals about what they were learning, how they were trying to process material in class
and out of class, their successes and failures, and their attributions for these outcomes.
We used these journals in class discussions of theories, and the students used their
journals as data for constructing two papers where they analyzed their learning using
theories from the course as theoretical lenses. One of my consistent observations was that
students often found this a new kind of task and were at least temporarily unsure of how
to engage in this kind of learning.

I knew I could like write an informative paper. . .[but] something that had research

but also had my own identity in it, I didn’t think I could write. (Stephanie)

I didn’t want to. I didn’t think I could learn by observing how I learned, I

didn’t think that was going to help me. . .I didn’t think that you could

really think about how you learn and use it to think about how others

learned. And the fact that it was a written type paper--that made it worse.

No, definitely I was anxious because it was so new and I never truly, I

valued others opinions. . .I think that I was still in that mode of thinking,

and I think I was thinking I don’t even know if I know how to learn and

she wants me to do a self-study on how I think about how I learn in this

class, and I wasn’t sure I was going to be able to know how to learn, much

less know how and why I learned. I didn’t have confidence. I wasn’t in the

College of Ed yet, and I was unsure about everything, and whether I

would be able to do the assignment the way I was supposed to, let alone

benefit from it in any way. (Anne)
Although students were often unsure of how to approach this task, as I observed and

interacted with them over the course of the semester many of them seemed to learn much

through this project—about themselves and their learning. For example Anne said:

viii

I didn’t think I could do it [the self-study], you proofread my paper and I thought
you were crazy, I can’t do what you want, but you gave me some direction and I
remember going home thinking-that I just wrote this paper and now I have to
really rip it apart and rearrange things. I was kind of disheartened at first and I
took the night off, but the next morning I worked on it, and it made me realize
you can’t write a paper in one fell swoop. And I was proud of it when I finished. I
still am. I was like wow I wrote that. It’s really wild. My girlfriend read it, and
she was like oh my God...and you know what I did learn, is this paper made us
integrate the topics we were learning in class into our own learning, like how do
we think about ourselves. . .it made me realize I changed as a person and I
changed as a learner, and I would not have thought about it, or thought wow I
really didn’t look at my classes in the same way before. (Anne)

And Ariana described how she was able to ask new questions and challenge theory
through her work on her self-study.

While I agree with Erikson’s ideas, I cannot help but ask myself to what extent

does [sic] his ideas hold true?. . .The majority of my life I was under the care and

supervision of my parents. My parents never took the time to listen to one of my
stories. In contrast to my grandmother, they often told me they had no time to
listen to my “silly” stories. Ormrod says that if adults discourage these activities,
the child may formulate guilt over their needs and desires. This leaves me with an
unanswered question. What happens when a child, such as myself, encounters
conflicting messages regarding their [sic] creativity? (Ariana)

In my course project for 966 and in my apprenticeship project for CEPSE I
explored the ways in which disequilibrium and dissonance served as catalysts for
epistemological change and movement toward self-authorship in the context of TE/CEP
150’s self-study project. As a result of these projects I developed further questions about
how self-authorship might be provoked in college students, and the kinds of
environmental supports that may be necessary for students to move through
disequilibrium toward self-authorship. According to Baxter Magolda (2001) such

movement seems to come through having to construct a formula for success where one is

not available or easily accessible.

ix

Based on my own work in and around TE/CEP 150, and Baxter Magolda’s
assertions I began to consider student subgroups that might be more likely to self-author
than other groups. In my thinking I was drawn back to an experience from my first
semester of teaching at MSU. In that first TE/CEP course I taught I had a most amazing
group of students, but it was one of them in particular who taught me a very important
lesson. Holly was a community college transfer student, exceptionally bright, and
extremely hardworking. During the course of the semester she shared a lot with me about
how she came to be in college, how she balanced her commitment to her family and work
and school, and in the process she opened my eyes to a higher education experience I’d
never known. My own experience in higher education was one of privilege. Higher
education was never a question of if or how, but where. I attended a small liberal arts
college on the east coast. My friends and I came from hi gh-income brackets. Our parents
paying for our education was never a question. And many people I knew in high school
and college attended college because it was “the next step,” and did not really have much
of a sense of purpose beyond that. Holly’s commitment to her education, her highly
developed purpose, and her ability to articulate the ways in which context impacted
achievement blew me away. She seemed to be in a whole different place from the other
students in terms of knowing and understanding her place in the world, and how to act in
goal-directed ways where the goals were internally defined.

Remembering her stories led me to consult the literature on first generation
students, socio-economic status and college students, and transfer students. In the process
of my review of this literature I discovered the literature on another subgroup of students

-high-risk college students. As I read about the challenges this diverse group of students

faced, I came to wonder about whether they might have greater opportunity to self-author
prior to college or during college than their lower-risk peers.

In response to my hypothesis, and with guidance from Kris Renn, I chose to
undertake a two-year longitudinal study of a group of institutionally identified hi gh-risk
students. I believed the longitudinal study might be necessary in order to see them
encounter and make sense of challenging, disequilibrizing situations on their college
campus. Partway through my first set of interviews with first-year, hi gh-risk students,
however, I found myself surprised by the degree to which they had already self-authored.
Chapter Two of this dissertation reports on my findings from this first set of interviews,
and proposes a model of self-authorship development based on the patterns that emerged
from my work with these participants.

Developing a Model of Self-Authorship

During my third year of school at MSU, 2002-2003, I was immersed in collecting
and analyzing data for my Spencer RTG project, which ultimately became the study
reported in chapter two of this dissertation. As I spoke with my participants and began to
see patterns and themes emerge around self-authorship development, and I made some
comments to my then advisor, Ellen Altermatt, about how I wished there was actually a
measure for self-authorship. Every time I made such a statement she would respond by
encouraging me to consider constructing such an assessment tool as a part of my
dissertation project. Initially I disregarding her suggestions, feeling not statistically
competent enough to undertake such a project

As time passed, however, I entered the second and third rounds of interviews with

my participants, and I began to learn more of the struggles they were facing in their

xi

college lives. A number of these students spoke quite passionately about how they felt
unprepared, like they did not fit in with their peers, and/or that they were dissatisfied with
the type of help they were receiving. As all of my participants were also involved with at
least one university-supported retention program for hi gh-risk students, I wondered about
possible differences in coping styles between my participants and high-risk students who
were not participating in such support programs. And I began to wonder about how one
might create a program and accompanying assessment plan to best serve the needs of this
population of students. As their struggles become increasingly more pronounced, and as
they began to articulate the ways in which they were working through them I was drawn
back to the idea of constructing an assessment tool for self-authorship. If these students
were entering with epistemological skills that implied self-authorship, and they were
encountering environmental challenges that called into question their internally defined
sense of self, and carefully developed coping and knowledge construction skills, would it
be possible to track their epistemic journeys through college in ways that would also
allow for program evaluation? In my attempt to answer this question I began to compile a
set of items that were ultimately revised and tested, and grew into the scale construction
process described in chapter three.
Creating Crossroads for Self-Authorship: Investigating the Provocative Moment

In order to better understand how institutions, programs, and courses might be
created to most effectively help students develop self-authorship I knew that I needed
more than a measure to assess self-authorship development. Prior to the construction of
programs, practices, and pedagogies designed to promote self-authorship, however, there

needed to be a richer understanding of exactly how self-authorship develops in college

xii

students. Previous work on self-authorship and practices to promote self-authorship have
been rooted in Baxter Magolda’s (2001) description of her 39 White, college graduate,
participants developed self-authorship in their lives after graduation from a selective
public university in the Midwest. My first study on self-authorship in high-risk students
is equally limited. It describes how a group of 35, institutionally identified high-risk
students, at a large public Midwestern university developed self-authorship. Additionally,
although to differing degrees, both my work and that of Baxter Magolda’s focused on the
general process of self-authorship.

In chapter four I look across the developmental trajectory, but focus on one piece
of the self-authorship process—the types of student and situation characteristics
associated with a provocative moment. In this study I begin to clarify the both person and
environment characteristics related to student experience of situations as provocative
enough to count as The Crossroads. My intentions in undertaking this study were to
uncover particular skills and characteristics whose fostering might help a student move
toward self-authorship.

Inducing Self-Authorship in College Students; Exploring Student Development through
Externally Induced Provocative Moment

As I studied the narratives of the 613 students who participated in the study
reported in chapter four, I felt like there might be specific patterns in students’ responses
to situations where provocation was externally induced. Said otherwise, I was getting a
sense that it might be worthwhile to examine the specific responses to externally induced
disequilibrium that seemed to lead to displays of self-authorship. Given the calls for

institutions of higher education to focus more on how to promote student outcomes like

xiii

self-authorship (e. g., ACPA, 1996; Astin, 1996; Baxter Magolda, 2001; Baxter Magolda
& King, 2004; CAS, 2003), it seemed important to pay particular attention to student
development in the context of externally induced disequilibrium. In chapter five I focus
on those situations that students described as created by others that were also
provocative—that caused them to experience a level of disequilibrium that challenged
their existing senses of self and way(s) of knowing.

In Relation to the Literature

Through the four studies reported in my dissertation I attempt to elucidate the
process of self-authorship in college students in a way that will allow for the construction
of practices and programs that can be empirically tested for their effectiveness in
promoting self-authorship. I see my work as building on Baxter Magolda’s (2001) work
describing self-authorship development in college graduates and her subsequent efforts to
propose ways in which self-authorship could be facilitated in college students.

In response to my dissertation work and related publications and presentations, I
have received much criticism for either not asserting myself as different from Baxter
Magolda or for being too critical of Baxter Magolda’s work. My response to both forms
of criticism is the same. I do not seek to diminish or belittle existing work on self-
authorship. Baxter Magolda’s research has provided an invaluable contribution to the
literature on student development in the context of higher education. In my own work I
am attempting to understand how her findings may help us understand epistemological
development and its outcomes in college-aged students. Our samples are different, but
our goals are similar—to clarify developmental patterns in students and propose ways in

which student developmental outcomes can be effectively promoted in ways that

xiv

recognize both the needs and goals of higher education (and/or specific programs within
higher education) and the needs, goals, and values of the individual students involved. In
the studies reported here I undertake this investigation by examining the micro-processes
involved in self-authorship of my college student participants. In sharing my findings I

attempt to connect to and build on, rather than negate Baxter Magolda’s own findings.

XV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Because my work on this dissertation would not have been as thought-provoking
an experience, nor would I have found as much joy and humor in the process without a
number of important others, I acknowledge the following people for their great
contributions to my dissertation and my development as a person and a scholar.

My dissertation committee: Linda Anderson, Kristen Renn, Anna Ortiz, Jere
Brophy, Matthew Wawrzynski, and Raven McCrory, for asking interesting questions,
encouraging me, and for signing millions of forms millions of times. And Ellen
Altermatt, who put two long years of work into my development as a researcher-scholar
while she was at MSU. I am especially appreciative of Anna’s willingness to mentor me
from afar after she left MSU. And special acknowledgement goes to Kris for all the
thought, time, and care she put into my helping me make sense of my data and myself as
a researcher.

Between pilot studies and the final studies reported in this dissertation I benefited
from the generosity of 1500+ student-participants. I’m particularly grateful to the 35
students who shared their triumphs, trials, fears, and hopes with me over their first two
years of school. Their resilience and ability to articulate their ways of knowing and being
are an inspiration.

A large and diverse collection of faculty members and graduate students provided
me with class time to recruit participants and administer surveys. I remain appreciative of
their willingness to support my research.

My friends here at Michigan State have been a most fantastic collection of bright

and funny people who are serious students and can ask me good questions, but who are

xvi

also socially aware enough to know how to let loose and have fun. Outside of MSU, I
have a wonderful support system in friends who have put up with all my school drama,
have let me share in their own drama, and who help me enjoy splendid forays into
different ways of being in the world.

My sister is also an important source of motivation for me. I’ve always believed
she is much smarter than I am, and that combined with her unflagging commitment to her
academic goals has always helped keep me on my toes. Karen also deserves recognition
here because she’s put up with all my princess-ness during my dissertation and always.

My parents have always been great cheerleaders and ready with encouraging
words, open arms, and a handy checkbook. Their willingness and ability to support me in
and around all my educational endeavors has sustained me through many less than ideal
situations. And their joy in my accomplishments has helped me understand all that I’m

capable of.

xvii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. xxi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER ONE
CHANGING POSSIBIILITIES: THE IMPLICATIONS OF SELF-AUTHORSHIP FOR
COLLEGE STUDENT OUTCOMES ............................................................ 1
College Student Development and Student Outcomes ...................................... 3
The Potential of Self-Authorship ........................................................... 4
Self-Authorship and The Learning Partnerships Model ................................. 5
Summary of the Problem ........................................................................ 7
Purpose of the Dissertation ..................................................................... 8
Statement of Significance ....................................................................... 9
CHAPTER TWO
BECOMING A COLLEGE STUDENT: CONSTRUCTING A MODEL FOR SELF-
AUTHORSHIP DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 11
Hi gh-Risk Students ............................................................................. 13
Why Hi gh-Risk Students May Possess Self-Authored Ways of Knowing
.............. l6
Experiences that May Provoke Self-Authorship ............................................ 16
Method ........................................................................................... 17
Findings ........................................................................................... 21
Disequilibrium and Provocative Experiences ........................................... 21
College Admissions Privilege ............................................................. 25
Summary of Findings ....................................................................... 32
Limitations and Areas for Future Research ................................................. 34
Implications for Practice ....................................................................... 35
Conclusion ....................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER THREE
THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A SELF-AUTHORSHIP SCALE ...38
Self-Authorship ................................................................................. 38
Scale Development Method ................................................................... 42
Review of Existing Items .................................................................. 42
Expert Review ............................................................................... 43
Pilot Testing of Items ....................................................................... 43
Data Collection: Participants .............................................................. 44
Exploratory Factor Analysis .............................................................. 45
Internal Consistency Analysis ............................................................. 45
Test-Retest Reliability ...................................................................... 46
Scale Development Results ................................................................... 46
Exploratory Factor Analysis ............................................................... 46

xviii

Internal Consistency Analysis ............................................................ 46

Test-Retest Reliability ..................................................................... 47
Naming of the Factors ..................................................................... 47
Scale Validation Method ...................................................................... 49
Sample ........................................................................................ 49
Procedures .................................................................................... 51
Measures ..................................................................................... 51
Confirmatory Analysis ..................................................................... 53
Internal Consistency, Normative Information, and Correlational Analyses .........53
Validity Estimate ............................................................................ 53
Scale Validation Results ...................................................................... 54
Confirmatory Analyses ................................................................... 54
Internal Consistency ....................................................................... 58
Normative Information .................................................................... 58
Correlational Analyses ..................................................................... 59
Validity Estimate ........................................................................... 59
Discussion ....................................................................................... 61
Limitations ....................................................................................... 63
Conclusions ...................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER FOUR
CREATING CROSSROADS FOR SELF-AUTHORSHIP: INVESTIGATING THE
PROVOCATIVE MOMENT ..................................................................... 65
Purpose and Research Questions ............................................................. 68
Method ........................................................................................... 68
Participants ................................................................................... 69
The Experience Survey ..................................................................... 70
Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................. 71 ,
Findings .......................................................................................... 73
Theme 1: Provocation in the Decision-Making Process ................................ 74
Theme 2: Reaching Self-Authorship and Other Decision-Making Outcomes. . . ....83
Summary of Thematic, Qualitative Findings ............................................ 85
Quantitatively Investigating the Model .................................................. 85
Discussion and Implications for Practice ................................................... 90
Limitations and Areas for Future Research ................................................. 92
Conclusion ....................................................................................... 93
CHAPTER FIVE

IN DUCING SELF-AUTHORSHIP IN COLLEGE STUDENTS: EXPLORING
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH EXTERNALLY INDUCED PROVOCATIVE

MOMENTS ................................................................... 94
Research Questions and Purpose ............................................................. 97
Method ........................................................................................... 98
Participants ................................................................................... 99
Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................ 101
Findings ........................................................................................ 102

xix

Externally Induced Provocative Moments and Self-Authorship .................... 102

Facilitative Interpretations of Decision-Making Situations .......................... 102
Internally Defined Beliefs versus Acquired Beliefs .................................. 108
Isolation and Connection in the Self-Authoring Process ............................. 110
Discussion ...................................................................................... 1 13
Limitations and Areas for Future Research ................................................ 114
Implications for Practice ..................................................................... 115
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 1 17
CHAPTER SIX
EMERGING UNDERSTANDINGS OF SELF-AUTHORSHIP AND THE LEARNING
PARTNERSHIPS MODEL: A GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................. 119
What is Self-Authorship? ..................................................................... 120
How Does Self-Authorship Develop? ...................................................... 123
Provocation ................................................................................. 125
Schemas and Self-Authorship ............................................................ 127
What Affects Expression of Self-Authorship? ............................................ 129
Self-Authorship and Situational ......................................................... 131
Research Implications of the Reasoning-Action Split ................................ 133
Reconsidering The Learning Partnerships Model ......................................... 135
The Self in Self-Authorship .............................................................. 137
Validating Learners’ Capacity to Know through Skill Development ............... 140
The Meaning of Experience in “Situating Learning in Learners’ Experience”. . .. 140
Mutually Constructing Meaning, Leaning-Centered Education ..................... 141
The LPM Outside of the Classroom .................................................... 144
Limitations and Future Directions for Research .......................................... 145
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 147
END NOTES ...................................................................................... 149
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 150

XX

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

LIST OF TABLES

Four Factor Solution .............................................................. 47
Test-Retest Reliability ............................................................ 47
Sample Demographics ............................................................ 50
Academic Majors Represented in Sample ..................................... 51
Data Collection Summary Table ................................................ 51
Four-Factor Solution ............................................................. 53
Capacity for Autonomous Action Subscale .................................... 55
Problem Solving Orientation Subscale ......................................... 56
Perceptions of Volitional Competence Subscale .............................. 57
Self-Regulation in Challenging Situation ...................................... 58
Normative Information for the Self-Authorship Survey ..................... 59
Factor-Total Correlations ........................................................ 59
Summary of Codes ............................................................... 72
Categories and Examples of Decision-Making Purposes .................... 81

Non-Self-Authored Outcome Categories: Definitions and Narrative

Examples ........................................................................... 85
Means and Standard Deviations ................................................ 87
Correlations between Variables ................................................. 88
Predicting Provocation from Student and Situation Characteristics .......... 89
Self-Authorship Expression Matrix ........................................... 133

xxi

Figure 1

Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Figure 6

LIST OF FIGURES

Becoming a College Student: A Proposed Model of Self-Authorship

Development ............................................................................ 33
Phases of Crossroad (Baxter Magolda, 2001) Emergence ........................ 73
Proposed Model of Crossroad (Baxter Magolda, 2001) Emergence ............ 85
Decontextualized Proposed Model of Self-Authorship Development. . . . . 124
Proposed Factors Affecting Provocation .......................................... 126
Proposed Model of Self-Authorship Development & Expression ............. 132

xxii

CHAPTER ONE
CHANGING POSSIBILITIES: THE IMPLICATIONS OF SELF-AUTHORSHIP
FOR COLLEGE STUDENT OUTCOMES
Recent focus on developing increasingly more streamlined ways of enhancing
outcomes of student participation in higher education has led to the proposal of a number
of reforms (e.g., ACPA, 1996; Astin, 1996; Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2003, 2004c; King &
Baxter Magolda, 1996; Kuh, 1996). The Student learning Imperative (SL1) (ACPA,
1996) has emerged as a particularly influential document in this movement. Its push to
better support student development of reflective ability, problem-solving skills, and a
“coherent” identity has led to a variety of reforms (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1999; Cockrell,
Caplow, & Donaldson, 2000; Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001; Piper,
1997). Coupling this call for promoting student development of a “coherent” identity
with increasing focus on the growing diversity of the college student population has
challenged scholars and practitioners to explicitly consider the role of diversity in identity
formation. In the face of this challenge a number of scholars have focused on preparing
students to live in a multicultural society or on studying the developmental impact of
multicultural experiences (e.g., Antonio, 2001; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, &
Allen, 1998; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; Pascarella, Palmer, Moye, & Pierson, 2001).
Both the push for diversity education and the cognitive outcomes outlined in the

SL1 are reflected in changes in general education goals. The University of Iowa
emphasizes increases in students’ abilities “to understand and to cope with the
complexity and diversity of contemporary life.” The University of Wisconsin-Madison

stresses student proficiency outcomes related to literacy and quantitative reasoning, as

well as “appreciation of diversity.” And a major goal at Michigan State University is to
help students “recognize some responsibilities and opportunities associated with
citizenship in a democratic society and in an increasingly inter-connected world.” These
goals certainly embody the spirit of The Student Learning Imperative and calls for
increasing emphasis on diversity education, but operationalizing these goals is
challenging. How will institutions support student development toward “recognizing
some responsibilities and opportunities associated with citizenship in a democratic
society?” How can institutions assess growth in students’ abilities “to cope with the
complexity and diversity of contemporary life?”

Breaking large, abstract goals down into behaviors, attitudes, and ways of
knowing colleges and universities can foster is an institutionally recognized challenge. In
fact, at a recent Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) meeting (October, 15,
2000), the twelve1 participating institutions recognized that they had not developed
strategies to promote and accurately measure student achievement of general education
objectives. The Hewlett faculty fellows at Michigan State University, one of the CIC
institutions, noted the importance of ways of knowing—the ways in which students orient
themselves toward knowledge and the knowledge construction process—in facilitating
student development. In spite of this notation, the executive summary from their project
showed a lack of knowledge about how to effectively support students’ epistemological
development. “Students should and will encounter multiple ways of knowing and
generating meaning and somehow learn to integrate and use such learning effectively” (p.

8). How will students move from encountering to integrating “multiple ways of knowing

and generating meaning?” What can be done to clarify how students will “somehow learn
to integrate and use such learning effectively?”
College Student Development and Student Outcomes

Difficulty in clarifying how students can move from recognizing, to effectively
using or negotiating between multiple ways of knowing may stem from the college
student development literature. According to college student development research, as
students progress through college, their ways of knowing become increasingly more
relativistic (Perry, 1968), constructed (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986),
and contextual (Baxter Magolda, 1992). They move away from thinking there is always a
single right answer, and begin to see that determining what is right requires analysis of
relevant evidence in light of the context (Baxter Magolda, 1992, 2000, 2001; Belenky et
al., 1986; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; King, 2000; King & Kitchener, 1994; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991; Perry, 1968). This contextual way of knowing has been considered
the pinnacle of college student development, because such a way of knowing allows for
the completion of complex tasks via strong analytical skills.

In relation to general education goals and the desired student outcomes outlined in
the SL1, contextual knowing should allow students to understand the complexity of
knowledge, and recognize that there are multiple perspectives on issues and multiple
ways to construct meaning from situations. Contextual knowing should allow students to
cope with this diversity of perspective, because students using such a way of knowing
should be able to choose a perspective out of an array of possible perspectives based on
what seems most appropriate given the context. Where contextual knowing falls short is

in its ability to help students move from acknowledging multiple perspectives to

integrating and learning to use these multiple perspectives most effectively. Contextual
knowers may be able to effectively interact with others and construct knowledge, but
their interactions and knowledge construction processes are not driven by an internally
defined sense of self. Said otherwise, students may learn to evaluate what counts as right
or good based on the context, thus enhancing their problem solving skills and helping
them effectively interact in a multicultural society. However, in so doing students need
not move beyond contextual knowing, where knowledge construction is guided by logic
and awareness of context (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992). In short, students may be able to
show signs of cognitive development and critical thinking (SLI and common general
education goals) without necessarily learning to integrate and most effectively use
multiple perspectives on knowledge construction.

The potential of self-authorship.

Self-authorship may help clarify what types of skills students must develop, and
what types of programs, practices, and interventions might help students “somehow learn
to integrate and use such learning [about multiple ways of knowing] effectively.” Here
self-authorship is defined as a relatively enduring way of orienting oneself toward
provocative situations that recognizes the contextual nature of knowledge, and balances
this understanding with one’s own internally defined beliefs, goals, and sense of self
(Pizzolato, 2003; see also Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2004a; Kegan, 1994). Baxter Magolda
(2001) recently introduced empirical evidence for self-authorship through her
longitudinal study of ways of knowing. This evidence emerged when her participants
were in their late twenties and early thirties. Self-authored participants used their

internally defined sense of self and goals to direct decision-making and knowledge

construction. From her examination of how her participants developed self-authorship,
Baxter Magolda claimed college students were not developing self-authorship because
institutions were too readily supplying students with formulas, rather than pushing
students to solve problems themselves.

So while the SL1 focused on developing practically applicable, complex cognitive
skills, self-authorship may specify the type of skills required for students to function in a
multicultural society, and effectively cope with challenges. Said otherwise, the SLI goals
remain important, but students may be able to meet these goals and change the way they
cognitively organize knowledge without developing an internally defined sense of self,
goals, and principles—the hallmark of self-authorship. Consequently, students may
perform in ways suggestive of their achievement of general education and SLI goals
without learning to integrate and most effectively use multiple ways of knowing, because
they have not developed a way of knowing that includes their goals and sense of self.

Through a focus on facilitating self-authorship within the undergraduate
experience, however, students may be able to achieve the SLI and general education goals
of their institution, and develop an internally defined identity. Students may not only
encounter and be able to use individual ways of knowing to generate meaning, but learn
how to integrate this knowledge in ways that allow them to cope with cognitive and
interpersonal dissonance, through further definition of their internally defined identity.

Self-authorship and the Learning Partnerships Model.

Through careful consideration of her participants’ stories of self-authorship
development, Baxter Magolda (2001, 2004c) constructed the Learning Partnerships

Model (LPM). The LPM is a proposed framework for facilitating self-authorship in

higher education. Through the LPM, Baxter Magolda puts forth guiding principles to
move students toward self-authorship: (a) validate learners as knowers, (b) situate
learning in learners’ experiences, and (c) define learning as co-constructing meaning.

As self-authorship and the LPM are relatively new concepts, however, the
literature on self-authorship and promoting self-authorship in college students is scarce
(e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2003, 2004a, 2004c; Baxter Magolda & King, 2004; Homak
& Ortiz, 2004; King & Baxter Magolda, 2004). At present all research on self-authorship
development in college students is based on Baxter Magolda’s descriptions of self-
authorship in White graduates of a selective, Midwestern college. Additionally there is no
generally agreed upon measure of self-authorship. And finally, while there is preliminary
evidence to suggest the Learning Partnerships Model (LPM) may promote change in
students’ thinking, whether this is actually a shift toward self-authorship is unclear. This
lack of clarity appears to arise from the absence of appropriate assessment tools and the
still developing conceptual understanding of self-authorship.

For example, Homak (2003) (see also Homak & Ortiz (2004)) demonstrated that
implementation of the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) Multicultural Education Framework and
the LPM in a one semester community college diversity course helped students question
and reconstruct their cultural assumptions. This finding implies that the LPM, at least in
conjunction with the Multicultural Education Framework, can create a provocative
moment for students, where a provocative moment is described as a situation where
students find themselves so disequilibrized they return to and reflect on their previous
held beliefs, conception(s) of self, and way(s) of knowing. Interestingly, Homak did not

find statistically significant changes in pre- and post-assessments of the Helms’ (1990)

Racial Identity and Attitude Scale. Although this measure was not designed to assess self-
authorship, since pre-assessments suggested low levels of complexity in understanding of
culture, significant change should have been present if students were making large
enough changes to the ways in which they cognitively organize information to qualify as
developing self-authorship. This lack of statistically significant change may be due to the
short time frame. One semester of a single class may not be sufficient time for students to
change the way they cognitively organize information. Another likely reason for the
absence of statistically significant change may rest in the still developing understanding
of self-authorship and lack of appropriately sensitive measures (see Homak, 2003 for a
discussion of the mismatch between her multiethnic sample and Helms’s (1990) Scale).
Summary of the Problem

In summary, because self-authorship is such a new construct there are a number
of areas where additional research would significantly improve collective understanding
of the construct and process of self-authorship and help institutions of higher education
better support self-authorship development in students. Through the implementation of
increasingly more effective supports, desired student outcomes outlined in both SLI and
institutional general education goals may be achieved at higher rates.

These areas for additional research include the following. (a) Description of self-
authorship in college students: Presently we know college graduates can self-author. Can
college students self-author? If so, what does self-authorship look like in college
students? (b) Self-authorship assessment: How do we measure self-authorship? (c) The
process of self-authorship: What specific skills are involved in developing self-

authorship? And how are these skills related to adoption of the orientation of self-

authorship? (d) Data-driven practices: What might specific practices consistent with the
LPM need to entail to facilitate self-authorship development?
Purpose of the Dissertation

Given these areas for research, the guiding questions of this dissertation are: (a)
what does self-authorship look like in college students? And (b) what affects
development and expression of self-authorship in college students? I investigate these
broad questions by way of four related studies.

Through interviews with 35 institutionally identified high-risk students, Study 1
investigates whether these students may develop self-authorship prior to college
graduation, and how and why they develop self-authorship. Findings suggest these
students self-authored around their decision to become college students because their
commitment to this possible self (see Markus & Nurius, 1986 for a discussion of possible
selves) set them apart in aspirations from their peers in their home community. Through
their construction of a hoped-for college student possible self, and their work to achieve
this possible self, these students developed a strong internally defined sense of self and
goals, and appropriate formulas for success they used to guide their knowledge and
identity construction processes. A model of self-authorship development is proposed.

Using the findings from Study 1 about what self-authorship looks like in college
students, Study 2 constructs a measure of self-authorship. This 29-item assessment tool is
a Likert-type scale that was found to have good to excellent internal consistency, test-
retest reliability, and convergent validity. These findings also speak to demographic
differences found in Study 1 by pointing out that cognitive ability to self-author is a

necessary but insufficient condition for self-authorship. This finding suggests students

must experience situations that challenge their conceptions of self and push them to
develop and use volitional strategies to achieve their hoped for possible selves. This
possibility implies that the timing of self-authorship development may be closely
connected to when students experience such situations.

The final two studies investigate specific pieces of the model from Study 1. Study
3 concentrates on the experiential conditions that prompt students to experience moments
as provocative and move toward internalizing and committing to particular hoped-for
possible selves. Study 4 focuses on the second part of the model from Study l—the skills
and processes involved in developing self-authorship. Study 4 then shifts into the
practical realm to speculate on how these findings are related to the guiding principles of
the Learning Partnerships Model (LPM), and what types of practices might be most likely
to help students develop and effectively integrate the skills involved in self-authorship so
they can orient themselves toward provocative moments in a self-authored way.

Statement of Significance

Together these studies are important for three main reasons. First, since self—
authorship has thus far only been studied in college graduates and adults (Baxter
Magolda, 2001, 2003; Kegan, 1994), nothing is known about what self-authorship might
look like in college students. Although there is an emerging discussion of practices to
promote self-authorship development in college students (e.g., Egart & Healy, 2004;
Homak & Ortiz, 2004; Piper & Buckley, 2004) as of yet there are not studies of what
self-authorship looks like or how it develops in college students. Such knowledge seems
important to identifying when students are self-authoring, and knowing more about why

self-authorship emerges. Second, this study should be helpful in determining what types

of experiences can provoke self-authorship and what types of processes allow students to
self-author. Development of this knowledge may be able to guide institutions of higher
education in constructing increasingly more effective, research-based programs and
support systems in which students can develop self-authorship. Finally, construction of a
measure of self-authorship will allow for larger scale studying of the effectiveness of
programs and interventions designed to promote self-authorship development—either as
an outcome of participation in a specific program or classroom, or as a way of knowing

arising from general, liberal education.

10

CHAPTER TWO
BECOMING A COLLEGE STUDENT: CON STRUCT ING A MODEL FOR
SELF-AUTHORSHIP DEVELOPMENT

What ways of knowing are typical of entering high-risk college students? How
can investigation into their collegiate experiences develop theoretical understanding of
self-authorship? When students come to college they bring with them methods for
meaning making and assumptions about the nature of knowledge. According to college
student development research, students’ initial ways of knowing are typically dualistic
(Perry, 1968), received (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986/1997), and
absolute (Baxter Magolda, 1992). Many students enter college believing there is a single
right answer authorities should tell them. These students see the world in binaries of
right-wrong and good-bad. As students progress through college, their ways of knowing
become increasingly more relativistic (Perry, 1968), constructed (Belenky et al.,
1986/1997), and contextual (Baxter Magolda, 1992). They move away from thinking
there is always a single right answer, and begin to see that determining what is right
requires analysis of relevant evidence in light of the context (Baxter Magolda, 1992;
Belenky et al., 1986/1997; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; King & Kitchener, 1994;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Perry, 1968).

This claim of progress does not mean development is complete upon college
graduation or that all students develop contextual ways of knowing by graduation. In
Baxter Magolda’s (1992) study, for example, only two students in her 101-person sample
moved from absolute to contextual knowing during college. Following her participants

beyond graduation, however, Baxter Magolda (2001) discovered a sharp rise in

11

contextual knowing. But as her participants entered work, committed relationships and
graduate study, they often felt unsatisfied because while their contextual ways of
knowing let them consider context when interpreting situations, this way of knowing did
not include consideration of their own values and needs. Contextual knowers could
effectively interact with others and construct knowledge, but their interactions and
knowledge construction were not driven by internal foundations—an internally defined
sense of self that balanced their understanding of the contextual nature of knowledge with
their own perspectives and goals. Baxter Magolda used the term self-authorship to
describe her participants’ struggle to develop internal foundations.

According to Baxter Magolda (2001), self-authorship development involves three
distinct phases: The Crossroads, Becoming the Author of One ’s Own Life, and Internal
Foundations. As students move along the self-authorship continuum, they move from
feeling unsatisfied and in need of self-definition (The Crossroads), through actively
working to develop internal perspectives and self-definition (Becoming the Author of
One’s Own Life), to actually having a set of internally defined perspectives that one uses
to guide action and knowledge construction (Internal Foundations). In short, the final
form of self-authorship is defined here as a relatively enduring way of understanding and
orienting oneself to provocative situations in a way that (a) recognizes the contextual
nature of knowledge and (b) balances this understanding with the development of one’s
own internally defined goals and sense of self.

In Baxter Magolda’s (2001) illustrations, self-authorship was catalyzed by one of
two kinds of experiences: (a) participants had to make a decision for which there was no

formula for success, or (b) they realized they were sufficiently unhappy in their present

12

situations to start making changes, but they had to figure out what sorts of changes could
be made and how to make them on their own. Based on this data, Baxter Magolda (2001)
suggested college students were likely not developing self-authorship, because
institutions of higher education did not provide sufficiently provocative experiences—
experiences that disrupted students’ equilibrium such that they felt compelled to consider
and begin to construct new conceptions of self. According to Baxter Magolda, colleges
and universities too readily supplied students with formulas for success, so students did
not have to develop self-authored ways of knowing.

These findings have been important for developing theoretical and practical
knowledge. However, Baxter Magolda’s sample included only students from a single
selective, public, Midwestern school. And by the time self-authorship emerged, only 39
students remained in the sample, and all were White. Despite Baxter Magolda’s regular
cautionary notes regarding the generalizability of her findings due to her sample,
exploration of self-authorship or even general epistemological development in a more
diverse sample of students has not been undertaken. Without such investigation,
effectively guiding called for programmatic and pedagogical changes to promote self-
authorship and other complex, reflective ways of knowing (ACPA, 1996; Astin, 1993;
1996; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, 1996) will be challenging.

High-Risk Students

Although there has been little formal investigation of epistemological
development in traditionally marginalized college student populations, there is a large
body of research on retention of and persistence in high-risk college students. The term

“high-risk” is used here rather than “at-risk,” because high-risk suggests risk for

13

withdrawal or failure is a gradient scale, rather than a quality a student unequivocally has
or does not have. Thus the term “high-risk” allows for students to be considered hi gh-risk
for withdrawal or failure, but still be a high-achiever. At present, researchers
conceptualize hi gh-risk college students as students whose academic background
(academic preparation), prior performance (low high school grade point average (GPA),
or first semester college GPA), or personal characteristics may make them candidates for
academic failure of early withdrawal from college (Choy, 2002; Yeh, 2002). Here,
personal characteristics are those things that place the student in a population without a
long or necessarily successful history in higher education (e.g., first generation students
or low socioeconomic (SES) students).

Given the characteristics of hi gh-risk college students, it is clear they often enter
college with more potential constraints to achievement than their lower-risk peers. In
spite of these potential constraints, in even becoming college students these students
demonstrated their commitment to a particular possible self. Markus and Nurius (1986)
defined possible selves as “the cognitive manifestation of enduring goals, aspirations,
motives, fears and threats” related to what we would like to become, what we could
become, and what we are afraid of becoming (p. 954). Possible selves compel students to
act in ways that will either keep them from becoming particularly feared selves or on the
road toward becoming particularly desired selves. Research suggests successful
achievement of possible selves is based on the degree to which students possess schemas
for their possible selves. Cross and Markus (1994) demonstrated that schemas, which

they defined as rich and connected networks of information about how to effectively

14

move toward achievement of possible selves, strongly affected achievement of ideal
possible selves.

In the case of hi gh-risk college students then, becoming college students is a
particularly important part of their possible self achievement process. Examination of
their schema construction process for becoming college students may provide insight into
self-authorship development, because their schema development may require them to
construct and work from internally defined goals as they devise formulas for success.

The research on high-risk college students, however, has focused on developing a
deficit model of understanding hi gh-risk students. Studies suggest (a) high-risk college
students often face peer-ridicule for valuing academic success in middle and high school
(Lopez, Ehly, & Garcia Vazquez, 2002; Milner, 2002; Ogbu, 1991), (b) high-risk college
students’ families typically are not able to provide necessary financial and procedural
support in either the college application process or upon matriculation (Choy, 2002; Horn
& Chen, 1998; Terenzini, Cabrera, & Bemal, 2001; Yeh, 2002), (c) high-risk college
students are often less prepared academically than their low-risk peers (Choy, 2002; Horn
& Chen, 1998; Terenzini et al., 2001; Yeh, 2002), and (d) high-risk college students are
often lacking in the type of cultural capital (e.g., styles of discourse and cultural
knowledge) valued in school systems (Choy, 2002; Lopez et al, 2002; Ogbu, 1991; Yeh,
2002). Research on the epistemological development of hi gh-risk students is noticeably
absent. This is interesting given that the existing research implies that in becoming
college students, high-risk college students had to overcome obstacles with the potential

for facilitating self-authorship development.

15

Why High-Risk Students may Possess Self-Authoring Ways of Knowing

The notion that students might self-author prior to college may seem strange, in
that Baxter Magolda (2001) and Kegan (1994) suggested self-authorship is unlikely to
emerge before adulthood. Consistent with this notion, much of the adolescent
development literature has shown adolescents regulate their behaviors not to work toward
a particular internally defined goal, but rather to fit in with peers (e.g., Grotevant, 1998;
Kiesner, Cadinu, Poulin, & Bucci, 2002; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998).

This desire to fit in, while important, may be overridden by other desires (e. g.,
becoming a college student) amongst those adolescents who may eventually become
high-risk college students (e.g., Manaster, Chan & Safady, 1992; Milner, 2002). In
communities where academic excellence is uncommon, college student possible selves in
the youth may be rare (Hess & D’Amato, 1996). Consequently, high-risk college students
may have had to act in ways that made them stand out from their peers (Pizzolato, in
press).

Experiences that May Provoke Self-Authorship

When these students’ college aspirations become public knowledge in their home
communities, they may face ridicule and/or social isolation, even if they have familial
support for their aspirations. Milner (2002), for example, explained that hi gh-achieving
Black students are often ridiculed and ostracized for “acting White.” In carving out
college student possible selves, these students may need to develop strong internal
foundations that keep them working toward their goals, and protect them from suffering
excessively from not fitting in with their peers or community at large (e.g., Ford, 1996;

Lopez et al., 2002; Milner, 2002). And if these students choose to work toward fulfilling

l6

their college aspirations, they will likely have to devise and follow their own formula for
getting into and paying for college (e.g., Choy, 2002; Lang, 1992; Terenzini et al., 2001).
The process of navigating the college decision process may thus catalyze self-authorship,
because they may be forced to develop their own formulas for becoming successful—for
becoming college students. Consistent with the self-authorship literature (Baxter
Magolda, 2001; Kegan, 1994), these experiences imply that high-risk college students
may experience pre-collegiate situations with the potential to provoke self-authorship.

As self-authorship is a relatively new concept this study aims to better understand
how hi gh-risk students who may self-author prior to college develop self-authorship by
asking two questions. (a) To what extent do high-risk students possess self-authoring
ways of knowing? (b) What types of pre-collegiate experiences are associated with
students’ development of self-authorship?

Method

This was an exploratory qualitative study of self-authorship development in hi gh-
risk college students. Since the goal of this study was to assess whether high-risk college
students possessed self-authoring ways of knowing, grounded theory seemed a
particularly appropriate methodology. Through the use of grounded theory I could move
beyond description of the students’ individual stories toward generation of a theory
rooted in data that brought together the voices of the participants with my interpretations
of their collective experiences, as developed through constant comparative analyses
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

In order to ensure that all participants were identified as high-risk by the same

criteria, purposeful sampling techniques were employed (Patton, 1990; Miles &

17

Huberman, 1994). Participants were recruited from support programs for high-risk
students at a large Midwestern university. These programs were designed to help
identified high-risk students transition to university life and study. I attended meetings of
these programs in the fall of 2002 to explain this study, and interested students
volunteered to participate. Initially 26 students volunteered to participate, but as patterns
and themes related to group membership in certain subgroups of hi gh-risk students
emerged from the data, I recruited more students from specific subgroups, such as high-
achieving, hi gh-risk female students, and high-risk revenue sport athletes (See Charmaz,
1983 for a discussion on theoretical sampling in grounded theory). Nine more students
volunteered, so the final sample consisted of 35 high-risk college students.

Almost half of the sample was female (n=16). The sample was largely non-White:
Black or African American=l6, Asian=1, Hispanic or Latino/a=8. An additional 3
students identified as more than one race or ethnicity category. Twenty-seven of the
participants were first-year students; the others were at various stages in their college
career. All participants will be referred to by the pseudonymthey chose.

Data were collected via interview. Each student participated in a one-hour, semi-
structured interview. All questions were piloted on two students in order to assess the
comprehensibility of the questions. These two students were invited to be pilot student-
participants because they were hi gh-risk, first-year students with whom I was acquainted,
and who therefore would not be participants in this study. The pilot interviews were both
tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Piloting the interview protocol with these
students helped me revise questions to enhance comprehensibility and to preview the

types of responses hi gh-risk students might give to the interview questions. Additionally,

18

these pilot interviews allowed me an opportunity to speak with the students following the
interview to ask how they felt when I probed into their stories. Although their reactions
may have been affected by our pre-existing acquaintanceship, I believe these process-
analysis conversations helped me be more sensitive to students’ stories and their
associated emotions. These conversations also made me more thoughtfully aware of the
ways in which my power and privilege as a low-risk, high-privilege, Asian, graduate-
student researcher may affect the ways my participants chose to interact with me.

The hour long-interview was semi-structured to ensure all students were asked the
same main questions, but flexibility was allowed so students’ individual experiences
could be explored in sufficient depth (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Seidman, 1991). The
interview focused on students’ pre-collegiate and early collegiate experiences and
conceptions of self. The goal was to understand the types of experiences these students
had prior to college (e. g., “I’d like you to tell me a story about an important experience in
your life before college”), with probes about the ways in which they processed these
experiences and solved problems (i.e., “How did you make that decision?” and “How did
this experience affect you/make you feel?”), and how this seemed related to the way they
were currently processing experiences in college (e.g., “Now that you think about the
situation, would you make the same decision now?”). The interview centered around
students’ stories about experiences and decisions they identified as important.

This method of asking students to describe in detail important experiences and
how they processed them was recommended by Baxter Magolda (personal
communication, 2002) as a way to examine students’ epistemological orientations and

detect exhibitions of self-authorship. By asking students to share important experiences,

19

how they processed them, and why they thought these experiences were important,
students’ ways of knowing could be examined along cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal dimensions—all of which together comprise self-authorship according to
Baxter Magolda (2001). Additionally, the interview questions and probes were guided by
the risk factors identified in the literature that may affect hi gh-risk students’ aspirations,
achievement, and sense of self (e. g., “I’d like you to take a moment to think about your
life before college. How did you come to be a college student?” (question) and “Did your
family play a role in your college application and decision process?” (probe). Following
the interview, demographic information was collected via questionnaire.

All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Patterns, themes, and
ultimately codes were constructed through constant comparative analyses of the interview
transcripts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Constant comparative analyses seemed appropriate
for code building (Boyatzis, 1998) because self-authorship has not been studied or
described in college students, so pre-existing codes did not exist. Paying attention to
patterns and themes in the types of early experiences associated with students’ displays of
self-authoring ways of knowing, and the behaviors and cognitive processes associated
with such displays also seemed important. Constant comparative analyses yielded a large
set of codes that were then used to code the interviews. Some of the codes related to risk
factors, such as how high-risk students learned about college, and perceived barriers to
college attendance were anticipated based on the literature on hi gh-risk students, but
other codes, such as initiation of the college application process and codes related to the

level of disequilibrium in provocative experiences were surprising codes.

20

In order to check the trustworthiness of my interpretations two colleagues coded
three interviews each. These coders were both first-generation college graduates who
were classified as high-risk students during their college years. Their coding of the
interviews largely agreed with my own coding, and the only difference in coding was due
to a single consistent difference in interpretations of a particular code—types of support
students received in becoming college students. Following the initial disagreement in
coding, the coding scheme was revised, and then later trustworthiness checks yielded no
major differences in code interpretation.

The coded data suggested self-authorship emerged from provocative experiences
related to the college decision-making process. So finally the participants’ shared patterns
in developing self-authorship via provocative experiences were captured in the theory
constructed from the data.

Findings

Many of the student-participants possessed self-authoring ways of knowing prior
to college, but the degree to which these ways of knowing were developed varied. Two
main themes regarding the differential deveIOpment of self-authorship in hi gh-risk
college students emerged from the data: (a) disequilibrium in the provocation of self-
authorship, and (b) college admissions privilege. Both themes became important in
understanding why some participants were more likely to have the opportunity to more
fully develop self-authored ways of knowing. In the following sections I will discuss each
of these themes and their implications for understanding self-authorship.

Disequilibrium and Provocative Experiences

21

Initial movement toward self-authorship seemed associated with provocative
experiences—experiences that challenged students’ current ways of knowing and
conceptions of self. Inherent in all provocative experiences was a sense of disequilibrium.
Students spoke about feeling unsure of what they were doing or the soundness of the
decisions they were making. Students chose to deal with provocative experiences—
experiences that disrupted their equilibrium such that they felt compelled to revise their
goals and conceptions of self —in one of two distinct ways: (a) considering making
changes, or (b) committing to new goals and/or values, each of which led to a different
form of self-authorship. The level of disequilibrium students experienced affected the
degree to which they self-authored.

The various degrees to which students self-authored map onto Baxter Magolda’s
(2001) three phases of self-authorship. Students at The Crossroads felt uncomfortable
after a semi-provocative experience but could not necessarily commit to anything. For
these students, The Crossroads were moments when they experienced moderate levels of
disequilibrium because they were following external formulas and feeling uncomfortable
doing it. Experiences were coded as semi-provocative if they provoked moderate levels
of disequilibrium—levels of disequilibrium that pushed the student to rethink behaviors
and goals, and consider, but not fully commit to new goals either because the student was
still considering whether she or he wanted to commit to a new goals or because the
student did not have the tools to fully commit to new goals. Many times experiences
coded as semi-provocative were major, and sometimes traumatic, events in the students’

lives, and so here semi-provocative refers not to the emotional trauma caused or level of

22

catastrophe represented by the experience, but rather the degree to which self-authoring
ways of knowing were provoked by the shared experience.

For example, Taz described a traumatic event that was moderately
disequilibrizing, and so epistemologically semi-provocative when he talked about his
own conflicting thoughts and actions after a rival gang member killed his brother,

It made me realize that the streets weren’t for me. ...It wasn’t really

instantaneous. I still did dirt But when I did it, I was thinking in my mind,

‘My brother died doing this and I’m out here doing the same thing, I gotta

get my act together and be something.’

Taz’s story shows how dissatisfaction arose for students at The Crossroads when they
experienced moderate levels of disequilibrium. Here Taz saw his choices were not right
for him, and he wanted to commit to something to get away from the streets, but he was
neither sure how, nor entirely committed to, changing. Consequently, Taz was acting one
way but was seriously thinking about both why he was behaving as he was, and how to
change his behavior pattern.

As students experienced higher levels of disequilibrium they felt compelled to
alleviate the intense dissonance by committing to new goals. Experiences coded as
provocative led to levels of disequilibrium that provoked students toward action and
commitment to internally defined goals. For example, Hollis, a student-athlete,
considered college an option when recruiters showed interest in him, but he, like Taz and
other students at The Crossroads, did not initially commit. Instead he continued “to make
crack rocks in the garage” while toying with the idea of college. Getting arrested,
however, served as a sufficiently provocative experience to catalyze internalization of
and commitment to new goals. Hollis was strongly affected when he saw how his friends’

reactions to being arrested differed from his own.

23

A lot of my friends didn’t look at it [getting arrested] like I did, because I

had something to give up, to lose. They didn’t They might be out the

game for awhile, but soon as they out [of jail], they right back at it. . .but as

soon as you get put with all this stuff, that’ll prevent you from getting a

scholarship altogether. That was the turning point in saying, ‘you know

I’m going to get serious about this shit.’

In this experience the power of optimal levels of disequilibrium became apparent.
Moderate levels of disequilibrium induced by interest from college recruiters led Hollis to
reconsider making changes. Intemalization and commitment to personally defined goals,
however, arose only after he experienced high levels of disequilibrium. As he said, “It
[going to jail] really showed me....I thought maybe I could do something with my life
better than this by going to college.”

Hollis’s story is representative of the general pattern surrounding the facilitation
of self-authorship in all the participants. Students went through at least one Crossroad
experience before committing to internally defined goals (Becoming the Author of One ’s
Life). For example, Cristina and Alex both talked about different teachers who started to
encourage them to go to college in middle school. While they thought such attention was
“nice” or “interesting,” and made them “consider college as an option,” they did not
seriously consider college until they began to see their high school friends get involved
with drugs, or becoming pregnant. For example, Alex discussed how seeing his friends
made his want to “figure out what the whole college thing was about,” so he could see if
it was something that could help him “become something.”

These students cycled through experiences before committing to an internalized
goal. The experiences preceding the provocative experience (i.e., The Crossroad

experiences) often helped students contemplate alternative possible selves, but it took

jarring disequilibrium to propel them forward. Through this internalization and

24

commitment, they became the authors of their own lives, because they began to develop
and commit to internally defined possible selves.
College Admissions Privilege

Although all the participants exhibited the beginnings of self-authorship prior to
college, the degree to which they developed internal foundations before they arrived at
college varied. College admissions privilege appeared to be a major factor in the
inhibition or facilitation of internal foundations in the student-participants. Although all
the students in this sample were hi gh-risk, the data suggested they fell into two broad
categories of college admissions privilege—high privilege and low privilege. Here
college admissions privilege refers to the unasked for benefits of not having to figure out
how to apply to or pay for college. High college admissions privilege students (n=13)
possessed these benefits, while low college admissions privilege students (n=22) did not

In this study, high admissions privilege students were almost exclusively college
students on full athletic scholarships for revenue sports teams (n=11). Many of these
students had not considered college before someone spoke to them directly about their
athletic potential. Through the interest and actions of high school coaches and college
recruiters, high privilege students were inducted into higher education without much
effort on their part For example, Joe first learned of college when his coach asked if he
would like to play at the college level. With Joe’s permission, his coach sent videos to
college recruiters, and once then, “The letters and phone calls from recruiters came in like
crazy. My coach and my guidance counselor helped me fill out the forms and all I really

had to do was visit the schools and see which one I liked best.”

25

Joe’s experience was common among students with college admissions privilege.
These students’ coaches brought them to the attention of colleges, and once colleges
showed interest, the application process took care of itself. Without having to worry
about how to apply to or pay for college, these students were insulated from many of the
challenges their low privilege peers experienced. Taz summed up the experience of high
privilege students well when he said; “When you on scholarship, you don’t really have to
do too much like a regular student All you have to do is accept the scholarship money
and someone else, they’ll fill out all the forms and stuff, you just have to sign.”

As a result of their admissions privilege, such students often achieved their goals
but were unprepared for the role they were expected to play in order to maintain their
possible self. Taz spoke about his own difficulties adjusting to college life, and more
specifically in mixing his “street mentality” with the “schoolboy mentality.” According to
Taz, he was trying to be a schoolboy, but he often slipped into unacceptable street
mentality ways, “I was fighting with people....I was very disrespectful. I mean I was just
being my old self, and I didn’t really like it, but I didn’t know anything else....it’s hard to
mix the street mentality and the schoolboy mentality.” Although admissions privilege
allowed Taz to easily achieve his goal of coming to college, the privilege caused him
trouble. Because he had others to figure out all the steps along the college application
journey, he did not have interactions with others that helped him develop the skills
necessary to make the transition from his “old self,” to being a “schoolboy.” He had
developed internally defined goals—going to college—but he lacked internal foundations
from which to work once he was in college. His self-authorship development was cut

short by admissions privileges given to him.

26

Tye’s story of fitting into his college environment builds on Taz’s and shows how
college admissions privilege inhibited construction of a solid sense of self and skills for
success in college. Tye’s coach helped him gain the attention of many large universities,
but he was not prepared to be a college student. Tye did well at his prep school, but
quickly found himself unsure of who he was in his college classes. “In my [Composition]
class people’s always talking about stuff that I had no idea existed. . .English is kind of
like my subject or something like that, but I’m like damn I never heard of that kind of
stuff!” His confidence in his ability to be a college student was quickly shattered, “I never
even heard of these people or these things, and people are just talking about them so
fluently, I feel so left out. And I’m not stupid, but I’ve felt that way a lot in class. I wasn’t
sure I should ever have been let in [to college].” Tye’s classroom experiences called into
question his competence in an area in which he previously felt high levels of competence.
Admissions privilege allowed him to be admitted, but once in college, Tye realized he
lacked the appropriate schemas for maintenance of his college student possible self.

As Joe, Taz, Tye, and other high admissions privilege students encountered their
university’s expectations of them, they saw a need to commit themselves to more work
than they expected, and than their peers needed to do in order to meet expectations. They
were affected by external realities, but because they had already begun to self-author,
they used internally defined goals to try to develop appropriate schemas for maintaining
their college student possible self, and develop internal foundations. As Tye said,

I’m pretty sure that there’s something that I know that other kids don’t

know, but not academic stuff. They kinda got the upper hand there, but

you know it just means that I gotta get in there and learn too. I got skills
too, they just not as good as other kids’ yet.

27

This sense of potential competence coupled with his belief that he just needed to develop
his skills, suggests Tye was aware of his situation—he lacked skills and knowledge that
other students had—and he saw he needed to work to maintain his college student
possible self. He made these decisions based on his own desire to succeed. He wanted to
be successful by developing skills. This desire implies that Tye saw (a) what it meant to
be a college student, and (b) that he was under prepared, and (c) that he could succeed by
developing appropriate skills.

Taz’s struggle between schoolboy mentality and street mentality illustrates the
ways these students worked to develop internal foundations once in college.

In the street you gotta read between the lines and draw conclusions. You

gotta figure out what people really mean. And the schoolboy

mentality. . . you gotta read between the lines with your books and with

your teachers, to figure out what’s really going on. You gotta read

between the lines and draw conclusions in school. I think the schoolboy

mentality, it goes along with the street mentality—but it’s a little bit

different I’m still not sure how you mix them, but I’m on the verge of

doing it.
Taz’s desire to mix competing social identities to fully achieve his desired possible self,
T ye’s belief that he had skills that were just underdeveloped, and other students’
statements that they were trying to bridge who they were with who they were supposed to
be, suggests that in the early stages of college, high admissions privilege, high-risk
students may be engaged in a struggle to construct appropriate procedural schemas for
their new college student identity in two ways. They are developing procedural schemas
for becoming successful in the classroom, and they are developing conceptual schemas

for their newly achieved college student possible self. They are not blindly conforming to

expectations, or discarding their entering identities, but rather actively attempting to

28

construct appropriate schemas that merge their past social identities with their newly
achieved possible self, in an attempt to maintain their college student possible self.

Low admissions privilege students, however, often developed internal foundations
prior to college. In constructing plans to achieve their college student possible selves,
these students developed internal foundations because there were no readily accessible
formulas for success by which they could achieve their college student possible selves.
Even if students had encouraging family members or friends, they still often lacked
models and procedural support in their college application and decision process.

April, Ana, and Morgan, amongst others, all spoke about the moment when their
mothers could no longer advise them. All three of these women had mothers who
encouraged college aspirations and worked hard to provide opportunities throughout their
childhood and adolescence for them to learn about college, but when these women began
to ask more specific procedural questions, they found their mothers could not support
them effectively in the application process. As April said,

There came a point when my mom just didn’t have the answers, and I’m

like, ‘How do I get in this school?’ And [she said], ‘I don’t know. You’ll

have to find out. I’ll help you once you find out, but I don’t know.’ So it’s

kinda like I had to figure these things out.

When their mothers could not help them, these women were thrust into self-authorship if
they wanted to achieve their goals. There were no easily accessible formulas for success
available. They had to figure out how to be successful on their own.

If students not only lacked college admissions privilege, but also parental
encouragement, they often had opportunities to begin the self-authoring process at even

earlier ages than their low privilege peers who had parental encouragement. Makayla,

Jordan, and Chris talked about how their precociousness set them apart from their peers

29

and siblings at an early age. Their parents “weren’t into school, and didn’t really
encourage it” (Chris), but their teachers made them feel special by allowing them to teach
other students and by telling them they were smart As early as elementary school, these
students wrestled with how to make sense of these different value systems. When they
made the decision to apply to college, they were self-authoring. As Makayla said, she
balanced “what I could be according to my teachers, “ and “what I could be when I
looked at my family,” with “what I wanted to be for myself, my teachers, and my
family.” And Jordan said:

When I did do the good things that I did, a lot of times my family would

say, “Oh that’s good,” but I felt that, not to be needy, but I feel like they

should have been more like, “Oh that’s great!” and be more supportive.

But in all honesty they never really did anything like that. My mom, she

never attended the things that I did. . .they didn’t really pay attention to the

things that I did. Did it bother me? Yes, but I knew that I had to keep

going on, because this was gonna help me in my future.

While low admissions privilege students with parental encouragement had to create their
own formulas for success in the college application process, these students without
parental encouragement, also had to develop a strong and internally defined sense of self.
They learned early about the contextual nature of reality, and they established an
internally defined value system that preceded their decision to apply to college.

Jordan articulated well the steps involved in developing and acting upon her
internal foundations. Achievement of her collegiate goals required her to establish
procedural, conceptual and relational schemas. Procedurally she knew she had to get
good grades, but finding out more about becoming a college student required her to “seek

outside sources to learn more, because [her] high school wasn’t giving her enough.”

Conceptually, she struggled to decide what it meant for her to be a college student and

30

what the implications would be for her family. “In my family everybody’s always
depended on me for money, everything. . .making the decision to either stay at home with
my sister and brothers and provide for them, or actually break away was bar .”
Relationally she worked to figure out how to maintain important relationships and satisfy
both the expectations she had for herself as an individual and in relation to her family.

Thinking about how I could get a degree and really help my family, I

decided I had to go to college. If I was to stay at home, and knowing what

it’s like, I knew what I would become—most of my friends are pregnant

or have kids. . .so I chose to come to college and try to help my family

from here.

Through her resourcefulness in finding others who could help her achieve her goals, and
her reflections on how to balance her various expectations of herself with the external
realities of her situation, Jordan developed internal foundations. She constructed a
formula for success in multiple domains (family and school) that did not exist before. She
moved beyond developing internally defined values and goals to allowing them to guide
her knowledge construction process across domains.

Jordan’s story, and those of other low privilege students, suggest development of
increasingly more advanced degrees of self-authorship (internal foundations) requires: (a)
scaffolding from others, and (b) cognitive capabilities on the part of the student to
process and not succumb to external realities and/or inter and intrapersonal conflicts.
Internal foundations arose out of students’ processing of experiences interacting with
others who helped them create appropriate procedural, conceptual, and relational schemas
for fully achieving their college student possible self.

Thus, students’ self-authorship development seemed affected by admissions

privilege. Lack of this privilege placed students in a situation where achievement of their

31

possible self often required them to self-author by creating their own formulas for
success. Higher levels of privilege worked in just the opposite way. High privilege
students had excessive support. These students were protected from having to figure out
how to apply to or pay for college, or consider the implications of their going to college
on their sense of self. Consequently, high admissions privilege students were kept from
opportunities where they could have more fully developed self-authoring abilities.
Summary of Findings

By clarifying the nature of the provocative experience, the findings from this
study expand on Baxter Magolda’s (2001) findings that self-authorship develops through
student processing of experiences. Here provocative experiences began with individual
experiences, but self-authorship developed in the context of a series of events combined
with student work creating appropriately supportive relationships and making sense of
what happened in and as a result of these relationships. Additionally these findings
suggest self-authorship is a process that can be temporarily shut down by admissions
privilege. Thus development of self-authorship requires provocative experiences and
student willingness to cognitively engage in the self-authoring process, along with
appropriate scaffolding from others, as opposed to high levels of admissions privilege.

The findings presented here are represented in Figure 1. This figure attempts to
show how student processing of experiences and college admissions privilege affects
self-authorship development in students’ achievement of college student possible selves.
Figure 1 shows the three different ways students may process experiences based on the
amount of disequilibrium they feel as a result of their experiences. It also illustrates the

two ways students can move from internalization and commitment, to achievement of

32

possible selves: (a) by developing appropriate schemas, presumably through a

combination of strong scaffolding relationships, student processing of events and self-

initiated interactions with others, or (b) by way of high levels of privilege.

 

Phases of Self-Authorship Development (Baxter Magolda, 2001)

 

The Crossroads

Becoming the Author of One’s Life 0 Internal Foundations

 

 

    

of New

i“ Po

Consideration N

ssrble Self J

 

   

 

 

Low Privilege

 

 

 

  
    

lnternalization 8. Construction Achievement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commitment to of of New
New Possible Appropriate Possible Self
L Self Schemas
1
No Impact on Achievement of
Possible New Possible
Selves J Self Label
High Privilege

 

 

 

 

 

Becoming a College Student

 

 

 

Figurel: Becoming a College Student: A Proposed Model of Self-Authorship

Development

This model suggests student development of self-authorship is a process requiring

both external influence and internal processing. Interactions with others are important in

both the initiation of the self-authoring process by engaging students in potentially

provocative experiences, and in the schema construction stage, as others are helpful

guides as students establish procedural, conceptual, and relational schemas related to

33

their goal achievement. While others are important to the self-authorship process as
provocateurs and supporters, ultimately self-authorship arises from students’ abilities to
construct and guide these relationships, as well as making meaning of the experiences
they have in relationship with others.

Limitations and Areas for Future Research

There are some important limitations in this study. First, the sample size was
relatively small, only 35 students, and these students were split into 2 subgroups based on
privilege. Additionally, the sample was drawn from a single four-year university, and the
majority of the students came from mono-racial home communities. The latter point is
particularly important, as I originally conjectured that self-authorship through racism
(individual or institutional) might be a theme amongst the participants. I did not find this
to be true of these participants. These students often did not experience themselves as
“minority students” until college, nor were they particularly aware of issues of
institutional racism until they were in college (see Pizzolato, 2004 for a discussion).
Similar studies with a larger sample of students drawn from a variety of institutions and
from multiracial communities would help examine whether similar processes occur in
other student subgroups, and if epistemological development differs depending on the
types or quantity of provocative experiences students are confronted with.

The method of the study is also potentially problematic in that the study is
retrospective. Asking students to recall events may not be the most reliable way of
collecting data (see Pasupathi, 2001 for a discussion of how recounting of events changes
over time). Real time study of hi gh-risk students working through the college application

process would likely provide helpful insight into self-authorship development.

34

The duration of the study is also a limitation. As the majority of the students in
the sample were first-year students, interviews during only the first semester do not allow
for examination into the degree to which students are able to maintain self-authoring
ways of knowing. However, this is the first phase in a longitudinal study that will
examine maintenance of self-authored ways of knowing (see Pizzolato, 2004), as well as
how college admissions privilege (or lack thereof) interacts with more traditional
privilege—race and class privilege. Further examination of self-authorship in hi gh-risk
college students should help in the design of programs, services, and policies that will
likely not only reduce these students’ rate of attrition, but also may shed light on ways to
facilitate self-authorship in lower-risk students, by better understanding the types of
services and interactions that seem to promote self-authorship in hi gh-risk students.

Implications for Practice

The findings from this study have multiple important implications for educational
practice in secondary and higher education institutions. In secondary education, these
students’ stories suggest that information about higher education is not necessarily easily
accessible, and that students have vastly different experiences around college application
and choice depending on their levels of privilege. Thus it seems more emphasis should be
placed on college application and choice processes in secondary schools that serve high-
risk communities, and such emphasis should not come only by way of announcements,
fiyers, brochures, or books. Whenever possible, scaffolding relationships between
counselors and/or teachers, and students should be developed, so students can construct
the necessary procedural and conceptual schemas for achieving their college student

possible selves. Additionally, counselors of highly recruited student-athletes should be

35

careful to include and make the student responsible for aspects of the college application
and decision process so the student does not arrive at college unsure of what it means to
be a college student and possibly without the skills necessary to be successful.

When hi gh-risk students enter higher education, it is important to have programs
that help students transition into college culture. The stories the student participants
shared here imply that these programs should recognize the skills students bring with
them, and help them understand and begin to merge their entering ways of knowing and
being with the ways of knowing and being expected by the institution. By engaging in
such practices, high-risk students will be more likely to retain beliefs in their own global
competence in spite of their lack of particular skills or knowledge.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of this study, the findings here are important. Theoretically
this study is significant because it begins to examine what the development process of
self-authorship looks like in high-risk pre-college and college students. This study also
begins to examine the role of privilege in self-authorship. Practically, the findings
demonstrate that it is important for teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, and student
affairs professionals to do more than just encourage students to go to college, or to be
successful once they arrive. The stories the student-participants shared imply that the
most helpful relationships are ones where the students are actively engaged in thinking
through not only how to achieve their possible selves, but also the implications of
achieving these possible selves. Future research on both high school and college students

should increase the collective understanding of not only how these students develop self-

36

authorship and the specific cognitive and intrapersonal processes underlying self-

authorship, but also how to better support it.

37

CHAPTER THREE
THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A
SELF-AUTHORSHIP SCALE

Baxter Magolda’s (2001) recent introduction of empirical evidence for self-
authorship and presentation of her Learning Partnerships Model provided a new
framework for reforming higher education to enhance student outcomes. Here self-
authorship is defined as a relatively enduring way of understanding and orienting oneself
to provocative, disequilibrizing situations that recognizes the contextual nature of
knowledge and balances this knowledge with one’s own internally defined goals, beliefs,
values, and sense of self (Pizzolato, 2003; see also Baxter Magolda, 2001; Kegan, 1994).
Based on her data on self-authorship emergence in college graduates, Baxter Magolda
(2001, 2003) claimed that if appropriate changes are made within higher education,
students may self-author prior to graduation. In spite of these claims and the emergence
of descriptions of reforms and practices designed to promote self-authorship development
(Baxter Magolda & King, 2004), as of yet there is not a measure of self-authorship that
can be administered to a large group of students. Thus investigating whether self-
authorship might arise from specific practices or from a seamless curriculum (Kuh, 1996)
is rather impossible. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate such a measure
of self-authorship for college students.
Self-Authorship

The literature suggests self-authorship is comprised of three dimensions:
cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal (Baxter Magolda, 1999, 2001, 2003; Kegan,

1994). The cognitive dimension is focused around epistemic assumptions. According to

38

Baxter Magolda (2001), development along this dimension centers on two main questions
(a) how do students acquire knowledge? And (b) how do students analyze
knowledge/how do students make decisions and decide what to believe? Self-authoring
students recognize the contextual nature of knowledge and balance this understanding
with internally defined needs, expectations, and values.

Assessment of students’ epistemological orientation is not new, but such
assessment tended to measure epistemological assumptions by asking about classroom
based knowing (e.g., Belenky et al., 1986/ 1997; Baxter Magolda, 1992; Perry,
1968/1999), or moral development (e. g., King & Kitchener, 1994). Although such
assessment is important and much of the focus of college, in Baxter Magolda’s (2001)
examples, the problems securing to promote self-authorship were largely not academic,
but rather problems requiring the acquisition and analysis of non-domain specific
knowledge. Sometimes moral decisions were part of the process, but morality was not the
dominant feature of situations propelling students toward self-authorship. Thus problem
solving seems to be the underlying construct of cognitive dimension.

How we view ourselves is the focus of the intrapersonal dimension (Baxter
Magolda, 2001). On the surface, how we view ourselves seems like it could encompass
an infinite number of constructs, but in relation to self-authorship, intrapersonal
development seems tied to two characteristics: (a) volitional efficacy and (b) autonomy. I
contend that the intrapersonal dimension can be collapsed into these two groups because
they collectively speak to whether students view themselves as capable, and the degree to
which their choices to pursue relationships and goals are driven by internally defined

goals (Livengood, 1992). Since much of the intrapersonal dimension of self-authorship

39

focuses on developing a strong internal sense of self such that students can maintain a
consistent identity publicly and privately across contexts, these two characteristics are
proposed to be the main components of the intrapersonal dimension. An actual identity
component is not included because I suggest here that volitional efficacy and autonomy
are prerequisites to development of a consistent, internally defined identity.

Here volitional efficacy is not tied to the classroom, but refers instead to abilities
to self-regulate in the face of obstacles in non-domain specific situations. Autonomy here
refers to emotional independence from others. This type of autonomy is important
because self-authorship requires the ability to separate from others enough to effectively
evaluate situations and make appropriate decisions. Self-authoring students should
possess high levels of volitional efficacy and autonomy.

The interpersonal dimension seems to work in tandem with the cognitive
dimension in developing and applying knowledge acquisition and analysis skills.
Students learn methods of knowledge acquisition and analysis from observation and
explicit teaching from others; development of cognitive tools happens in and through
social interactions. Additionally, through interpersonal relationships, students experience
conflict and tension, and these experiences allow students to test their own problem
solving skills. In order for students to progress along this dimension, it is important that
they develop healthy mutual relationships (Baxter Magolda, 2001) where they are able to
question and disagree, as well as revise their ideas and develop knowledge construction
skills. They must develop interdependent relationships (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

Although Baxter Magolda (2001) and Kegan (1994) contend that the interpersonal

dimension is an integral component of self-authorship, their discussions of this dimension

suggest it provides students two important developmental services. First, provocative
experiences with the potential to catalyze self-authorship seem to occur in the
interpersonal domain. Through interactions with others, students may discover a possible
self (Markus & Nurius, 1986) they never before imagined. Then through further
interactions, students may receive guidance and support in developing the cognitive and
emotional tools for realizing possible selves. Thus the second service the interpersonal
domain provides is appropriate scaffolding so students can move toward self-authorship.
In Baxter Magolda’s (2001) language, the “good company” students need for their
journey toward self-authorship occurs along the interpersonal dimension. Because the
interpersonal arena provides students with experiences through which they may or may
not self-author, the interpersonal dimension, at least for college students, is not actually a
dimension of, but rather a mechanism for, self-authorship.

Self-authorship requires an understanding of the contextual nature of knowledge
balanced with internal foundations. The cognitive dimension is thus a dimension of self-
authorship because such a complex understanding of knowledge is a cognitive skill. And
the intrapersonal dimension is a dimension of self-authorship because it gives rise to
students’ abilities to cognitively function in complex ways by (a) freeing them from
excessive control and influence from others and (b) providing them with the drive toward
self-defined goals by way of competence and motivation. The interpersonal dimension
seems to be where students can gain and exhibit skills related to self-authorship. So
student behavior on this dimension may be indicative of progress toward self-authorship,
but since this dimension is the arena in which students develop and display self-

authorship, I argue here that the interpersonal dimension is of great importance to

41

developing self-authorship, but is not self-authorship itself. In sum then, there appear to
be two dimensions of self-authorship—cognitive and intrapersonal—and one important
mechanism or arena for self-authorship development—the interpersonal domain.

To date there are no quantitative measures of self—authorship. Through the
creation of such a measure, large-scale assessment of college students can occur,
allowing for investigation into group differences in self-authorship development,
correlates and outcomes of self-authorship, and construction and assessment of
intervention strategies designed to promote self-authorship. Thus the purpose of this
study is to develop a quantitative measure of self-authorship by developing items
reflecting the construct of self-authorship as operationalized here, and to investigate the
factor structure of those items. This study was conducted in two parts: (a) scale
development, and (b) scale validation. Method and results are therefore discussed
separately for each part of the study.

Scale Development Method
Review of Existing Items

Scale development began with a review of the literature and existing scales. Five
scales were referenced: The Measure of Epistemological Reflection (Baxter Magolda &
Porterfield, 1985), The Scale of Intellectual Development (Erwin, 1983), The Developing
Autonomy Inventory, and The Developing Competence Inventory (Hood & Jackson,
1985), and The General Causality Orientation Scale (Deci & Ryan, 1985). While the four
hypothesized dimensions were not conceptualized as entirely independent from one
another, they were considered distinct dimensions of self-authorship and therefore they

served as reference points in item generation.

42

Expert Review

An original pool of 41 items was generated and examined for construct validity.
First, items were shared with scholars familiar with self-authorship. These participants
were provided with definitions of self-authorship and the hypothesized subscales. They
were then asked to sort through the 41 items to determine (a) if the items fit exclusively
onto one of the four hypothesized subscales, and (b) if these subscales and generated
items actually appeared to measure self-authorship.

Four graduate students also participated in a separate validity check. The graduate
students selected to participate in this part of the study were all doctoral candidates in
education programs, but were unfamiliar with self-authorship and the study. These
students were presented with a randomized list of the generated items, and were
instructed to (1) decide what the survey was assessing, (2) examine the items for possible
subscales, and (3) identify anomalous items. There was unanimous agreement that the
survey was measuring how college students make decisions, and that this was being
assessed by asking questions about motivation, self-regulation, independence, and
reflective abilities. This exercise thus appeared to provide preliminary evidence for
construct validity. After these reviews for conceptual soundness, 4 were dropped and
multiple items were revised, resulting in a final pool of 37 items.

Pilot Testing of Items

In pilot testing of the scale exploratory factor analyses of the scale and reliability
measures of the subscales were performed to identify items for revision or removal from
the scale. Principal components analyses with promax (oblique) rotations were performed

to estimate the number of components. Promax rotations were selected because many of

43

the items were at least moderately correlated with each other, and such rotations relax the
orthogonality constraint such that the degree to which factors are allowed to correlate is
small (Dunteman, 2003; Stevens, 1996; Thurston, 1947). Eigenvalues of at least 1.0
indicated the number of components to be extracted (Kaiser, 1958). Then items with
factor loadings >.40 on the first factor were retained if they did not load more strongly on
later factors. Items were also examined through reliability analyses of the subscales.
Items decreasing scale reliability to <.65 were excluded. Items were also excluded if they
strongly correlated with items on more than one subscale (r > .6, p = .05). Following
these analyses, retained items were checked for conceptual soundness.
Data Collection: Participants

The 37-item scale was then piloted on 469 undergraduates from a variety of
academic areas at a large Midwestern University. Participants were recruited from classes
in which they were enrolled. Following an explanation of the study interested students
completed the survey and demographic questionnaire. A little over half of the sample was
female (58%). Males accounted for 42% of the sample, and one participant was
categorized as transgendered’. Participants were broken into the following racial and
ethnic categories based on their responses regarding racial and ethnic identity on the
demographic questionnaire: African American/Black = 9.8%, Asian = 5.5%, American
Indian or Alaskan Native = .4%, More than 1 Category = 2.1%, Latino or Latina = 3.0%,
White/Not Hispanic or Latino/a = 72.7%, and Other = 4.5%. An additional 1.9% of
participants chose not to provide racial or ethnic identification information. Here the
Other category consists of students who reported information not consistent with federal

racial and ethnic categories (e.g., Jewish).

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Prior to the factor analysis, three other analyses were performed. First, participant
responses were screened for multiple missing items, extreme responses (i.e., responding
only with “1” or “5”), and identical responses throughout the survey (i.e., a student
responding with a “3” to all items). Based on this screening, 48 sets of responses were
excluded. Secondly, skewness and kurtosis of individual items were examined. Items
with skewness of kurtosis greater than 2.0 were dropped, and so 2 items were dropped
from the scale, leaving a new total of 36 items. Finally the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were calculated. An
acceptable KMO of .75 suggested the data set was factorable (Kaiser, 1970), and an
acceptable Bartlett’s test of sphericity ()8: 951.11, p = .000) allowed for rejection of the
null hypothesis that the variables were uncorrelated.

Because many of the items were at least moderately correlated with each other a
principal components analysis with promax rotation was performed (Dunteman, 2003;
Stevens, 1996; Thurston, 1947). Component extraction was determined by both
examination of Eigenvalues above 1.0 (Kaiser, 1958) and Cattell’s scree test (Cattell,
1966). Cattell’s scree test was employed because the Kaiser method can result in an
excess number of factors.

Internal Consistency Analyses
I conducted internal consistency analyses at the subscale level of analysis using

Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha to determine subscale internal consistency.

45

Test-Retest Reliability

Test-retest reliability was determined to examine the reliability of the scale. The
self-authorship survey was administered to participants twice. A two-week time span
separated the administrations. Correlation coefficients for participant scores from the
original to second administration were used to estimate test-retest reliability.

Scale Development Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The scree plot suggested retaining one to five components. After performing
principal components analyses with promax rotations, specifying one-, two-, three-, four-,
and five-factor solutions, and examining the amount of total variance explained by one to
five factors (5% to 51%), the four factor solution was chosen for both its conceptual
soundness and factor structure. Items with single-factor loadings of less than .3 were
deleted. The first component (10 items) accounted for 25% of the total variance
(eigenvalue = 6.41), the second (6 items), third (4 items), and fourth (5 items), accounted
for 9%, 8%, and 6% of the total variance respectively (eigenvalues = 2.26, 2.21, and
1.45). These factors were later named: Capacity for Autonomous Action (CAA),
Perceptions of Volitional Competence (PVC), Problem Solving Orientation (P80), and
Self-Regulation in Challenging Situations (SRC), respectively. Together these factors
accounted for 48% of the variance.
Internal Consistency Analyses

Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency estimates for the scale and the four factors
were satisfactory at: .87, .84, .82, .68, and .64 respectively. Table 1 summarizes this

information.

 

Factor (1 Level

Eigenvalue % Variance Explained

 

CAA .84
PVC .82
P50 .68
SRC .64

6.41

2.26

2.21

1.45

25%

9%

8%

6%

Table 1: Pilot Four-Factor Solution ((1 = .87)

Test—Retest Reliability

Test-retest reliability was found to be strong. The correlation coefficients for

participant scores on the survey from the original (N = 116) to second (N = 94)

administration are located in Table 2. The strong correlation coefficients suggest the self-

authorship survey (SAS) may be able to yield similar results over time.

 

 

 

Factor Retest Reliability
CAA .91"
PVC .82"
PSO .92"
SRC .84"
Total SAS .87"
"* p < .01

Table 2: Test-Retest Reliability

Naming of the Factors

The four emergent factors were named based on the dominant characteristic or

quality of self-authorship they tapped. The first factor was named: Capacity for

Autonomous Action. This subscale assesses students’ emotional and behavioral

47

independence. High scores on this subscale suggest an ability to act independently of
others, even those one admires and respects (e.g., friends, mentors, adults). Sample items
from this subscale are: “I tend to make decisions based on what people I admire think is
best, even if it isn’t always what I think is best.” (reverse scored) And “If my friends are
doing something I don’t want to do, I often do my own thing without them.”

The second factor was named: Perceptions of Volitional Competence. Volition
refers to the motivational (cognitive and behavioral) work done between goal setting and
achievement (Como, 1989, 1993; Eccles, Wigfield & Schiefele, 1998; Gollwitzer, 1999;
Kuhl, 1987), so volitional competence specifically assesses students’ beliefs in their
abilities to engage in goal-directed behavior. Items from this subscale include: “When I
set a goal for myself, I come up with a specific plan of how I’m going to achieve it;” and
“I would describe myself as a self-starter.”

The third factor was named: Problem Solving Orientation. This subscale assesses
students’ commitment to and engagement in reflection on their beliefs. As self-authorship
requires work from internally defined goals and conceptions .of self (Baxter Magolda,
2001; Kegan, 1994), this subscale is important because it addresses whether students
have begun to develop such internal foundations. Sample items from this subscale are:
“When I think about my principals and morals, I know I’ve spent a lot of time figuring
out why I believe these things.” And “I often do things without thinking too much about
whether what I’m doing fits with my principals and goals” (reverse scored).

The final factor was named Self-Regulation in Challenging Situations. This
subscale addresses students’ abilities to regulate their behaviors in the face of obstacles.

Sample items from this subscale include, “When I run into setbacks, I have trouble

48

believing that I can actually be successful on my own.” And “I am confident I can deal
efficiently with unexpected events.”

Scale Validation Method
Sample

The final 29-item scale was then tested on a larger, more diverse sample. To
ensure sample diversity, participants were recruited during undergraduate courses with
different target populations (e.g., remedial courses, introductory courses, honors courses,
and specialized courses for advanced students). Following an explanation of this study
interested students volunteered to participate by completing surveys. The response rate
for this study was 98.1%.

The sample consisted of 991 undergraduates. Participants ranged in age from 18
to 46 (M = 19.87), with 97% of the participants between the ages of 18 and 23. Of the
97 % of participants providing information on their sex, 69.9% were female, 29.9% were
males and transgendered3 students comprised the remaining .2% of the population.
Participants were fairly evenly distributed across class years (94% response rate): first
year students = 27.2%, sophomores = 19.6%, juniors = 25.4%, seniors = 22.1%, and fifth
year seniors = 4.6%. In terms of race and ethnicity categories (88% response rate), the
sample was predominantly White (70.2%), with students of color accounting for 24.1%
(African American/Black = 15.0%, American Indian/Alaskan Native = .3%, Asian =
5.8%, and Latino or Latina = 3.0%). An additional 3.7% of the population indicated they
were more than 1 race or ethnicity category, and 1.9% was classified as Other, because
the racial and ethnic information they provided did not definitively place them one of the

federally recognized racial or ethnic categories. There were a surprising number of

49

transfer students in the population (12.1%). Within the transfer group, 59.8% transferred

from community colleges, and 40.2% from other 4—year institutions. There was also a

sizable high-risk group (14.3%). Risk level for attrition was determined based on the

demographic information students provided (91% response rate). Table 3 summarizes

sample demographics.

 

 

Age Sex Race & Ethnicity Class Year Risk
l8=27.3% Female = 69.9% African American/Black=15% First Yeam27.2% Low=85.7%
19=19.6% Male=29.9% American lndian/Native=.3% Sophomores=l9.6% High=14.3%
20=24.5% Trans-gender=.2% Asian = 5.8% Juniors=25.4%
21=15.6% Latino or Latina=3.0% Seniors=22.l%
22=7.3% More than 1 Category=3.7% 5'” sz=4.6%
23=2.7% Other = 1.9%

White=70.2%

 

Table 3: Sample Demographics

Participants came from 91 majors, and 42 double major combinations, including

11.8% of students listing their academic major as undeclared at the time of the survey

administration. The breakdown of represented academic areas is represented in Table 4.

50

 

Academic Percentage of Academic Major Percentage of

 

Major Participants Participants
Arts 2.3 Interdisciplinary Studies & Incongruous 2.8
Business 13.1 Double Majors
Education 4.7 Math & Science 12.2
Engineering 9.1 Pre-Professional 1 1.8
Humanities 4.8 Social Science 30.6

 

Table 4: Academic Majors Represented in Sample
Procedures

Students participated in two rounds of data collection approximately 1 week apart
in late August. Each assessment period was approximately 20 minutes long. The

administration of assessments is summarized in Table 5.

 

 

Round One—August 2003 Round Two—September 2003
Demographic Survey Experience Survey
&
Self-Authorship Survey

 

Table 5: Data Collection Summary Table
Measures

The demographic questionnaire asked students to provide information about their
race, sex, age, class year, major, family demographics, college entrance exam scores,

method of payment for college, and both high school and college grade point averages.

51

All questions were open-ended; a blank line was provided were the student could supply
her or his information. Students were also asked if they were ever invited to participate in
any university programs for students identified as high-risk, by listing the university
programs and asking students to indicate if they were invited to join any of them.

The Self-Authorship Survey is a 29-item, Likert-scale survey. Items were listed in
a random order, and participants were asked to rate them on a five-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Seventeen items were negatively directed to
offset potential response bias (e.g., “I often can’t do things if people I admire think I
shouldn’t”). Survey scores were calculated by determining students’ mean scores across
subscales. Higher scores indicated greater possession of self-authoring ways of knowing.

The Experience Survey investigated participants’ epistemological orientation by
asking them to describe an important decision they made. A series of questions about
each decision helped students describe the situation (e.g., "Why did you have to make
this decision?” “What were your options?”), the way they worked through it (e.g., “How
did you decide what to do?/What was your decision making process?”), and whether they
would make the same decision today (e.g., “Would you make the same decision now? —
Why or why not?”). These questions were based on those M. Baxter Magolda (personal
communication, 2002) recommended I use to assess self-authorship.

Participants’ responses to this questionnaire were analyzed for self-authorship
based on a coding scheme developed through pilot interview and survey work. Inter-rater
reliability for the coding scheme was .76. Responses were coded on a 1-5 scale based on

their decision-making methods.

52

C onfirmatory Analysis

Prior to factor analysis, participant responses were screened for an excessive
number of missing items, eXU'eme responses (i.e. responding only with strongly agree or
strongly disagree) and identical responses throughout the survey (i.e. a student
responding with a “3” to all items). A total of 238 sets of participant responses were
excluded based on this screening. Secondly skewness and kurtosis of individual items
were examined. No items had a skewness or kurtosis greater than 2.0. Finally, the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were
calculated. An acceptable KMO of .89 suggested the data set was factorable (Kaiser,
1970), and an acceptable Bartlett’s test of sphericity (x2: 6746.52, p = .000) allowed for
rejection of the null hypothesis that the variables were uncorrelated.

Confirmatory principal components analyses with promax rotation were
performed using non-excluded participant responses. Again, a promax rotation was
selected because of item correlation.

Internal Consistency, Normative Information, and Correlational Analyses

Internal consistency analyses were performed at the subscale level of analysis
using Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha. Means and standard deviations for the total
scale and the four factors were also calculated to examine variability in participant
responses. Correlational analyses were run to determine the degree of relation between
the four factors and specifically whether they were interrelated but still distinct.

Validity Estimate
Finally student scores on the self-authorship survey and the experience survey

were examined to determine whether the self-authorship survey may be able to accurately

53

measure self-authorship in college students. Because the experience survey approximates
existing qualitative measures of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001), a positive
relation between the two scores should suggest the self-authorship survey may be able to
measure self-authorship in college students.
Scale Validation Results

C onfirmatory Analyses

This analysis confirmed that the four-factor solution was most structurally sound.
These four factors explained 46.92 percent of the total variance. The first component,
Capacity for Autonomous Action, (9 items) accounted for 24.27% of the total variance
(eigenvalue = 7.04). The second component, Problem Solving Orientation (6 items),
third, Perceptions of Volitional Competence (6 items), and fourth, Self-Regulation in
Challenging Situations (6 items), accounted for 9.56%, 7.60%, and 5.49% of the total
variance respectively (eigenvalues = 2.77, 2.20, 1.59). This information is summarized in
Table 6. Factor loadings, communalities, item-total correlations, means and standard

deviations are presented by subscale in Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10.

 

Factor or Level Eigenvalue % Variance Explained

 

CAA .81 7.04 24.3%
P80 .80 2.77 9.6%
PVC .81 2.20 7.6%
SRC .73 1.59 5.5%

 

Table 6: Four-factor Solution ((1 = .88)

54

 

 

Item Factor h2 Item-Total M SD
Loading Correlation
Subscale (a = .81)

3. I tend to make decisions based on what .57 .41 .51 3.53 1.00
people I admire think is best, even if it
isn’t always what I think is best.

4. If my friends are doing something I don’t .46 .34 .36 3.88 .92
want to do, I often do my own thing
without them.

8. I am easily influenced by others. .63 .52 .58 3.81 .99

13. I would describe myself as someone who .61 .50 .53 4.14 .83
tends to just do what my friends are
doing.

18. I would describe myself as someone who .63 .57 .59 4.12 .85
follows the crowd.

20. I’m concerned with what others think of .83 .60 .60 3.14 1.09
me.

23. I often can’t do things if people I admire .49 .34 .43 3.39 .97
think I shouldn’t.

25. I have trouble making decisions that go .45 .33 .42 3.06 1.04
against what people expect of me.

22. I’m not concerned with what others think .79 .53 .55 3.09 1.14

of me.

 

Table 7: Capacity for Autonomous Action Subscale

55

Item Factor h2 Item-Total M SD
Loading Correlation
Subscale (a = .80)
1. I am the kind of person who thinks a lot .77 .56 .58 3.91 .91
about what they believe and why they
believe it.
6. When I think about my principals and .82 .61 .60 3.65 1.02
morals, I know I’ve spent a lot of time
figuring out why I believe these things.
11. [think it’s important to spend time .80 .61 .65 3.76 .97
figuring out what I believe about things.
12. When I’m making decisions I spend time .55 .49 .54 3.71 .85
thinking about how my decision fits with
my goals and principals.
24. I often do things without thinking too .41 .31 .42 3.65 .94
much about whether what I’m doing fits
with my principals and goals.
26. I don’t really think about why I believe .78 .58 .59 3.74 1.08

certain things, I just believe them.

 

Table 8: Problem Solving Orientation Subscale

56

 

 

Item Factor h2 Item-Total M so
Loading Correlation
Subscale (a = .81)
9. When I set a goal for myself, I come up .75 .51 .53 3.60 .98
with a specific plan of how I’m going to
achieve it.
16. I would describe myself as very self- .79 .60 .64 3.79 .96
motivated.
17. When I set a goal for myself, I’m pretty .61 .53 .59 3.93 .81
sure I’m going to be able to achieve it
19. I can make good plans for reaching my .45 .42 .47 3.41 .97
goals, but I often have trouble sticking
with these plans.
21. When things start going wrong, I often .44 .53 .55 3.93 .81
give up on my plans.
30. I would describe myself as a self-starter. .75 .57 .62 3.67 .92

 

Table 9: Perceptions of Volitional Competence Subscale

57

 

Item Factor I:2 Item-Total M SD

 

Loading Correlation
Subscale (a = .73)
2. When I run into setbacks, I have trouble .56 .44 .33 3.69 1.05
believing that] can actually be successful
on my own.
14. I am confident] can deal efficiently with .51 .35 .46 3.86 .87
unexpected events.
15. When things start getting hard, I often .59 .44 .45 3.50 .95
have trouble sticking with my plans.
27. I tend to get emotional when things start .70 .47 .37 2.82 1.23
going wrong.
28. I often have trouble breaking real life .65 .52 .54 3.58 .94
problems down into smaller parts.
29. I often envision myself failing. .49 .42 .50 3.98 1.12

 

Table 10: Self-Regulation in Challenging Situations Subscale
Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency estimates for the scale and four factors
were satisfactory at: .88, .81, .80, .81, and .73 respectively.
Normative Information

The means and standard deviations for the total self-authorship survey and the
four factors are as follows: Survey total: M = 3.66, SD = .47; CAA: M = 3.58, SD = .62;
P80: M = 3.73, SD = .69; PVC: M = 3.73, SD = .64; SRC: M = 3.58, SD = .67. These
standard deviations show there was some variability in participant survey responses

(Table 11).

58

 

Factor Mean SD

 

CAA (745) 3.58 .62
P80 (753) 3.73 .69
PVC (753) 3.73 .64
SRC (753) 3.59 .67
Total Scale (706) 3.66 .47

 

Table 11: Normative Information for the self-authorship survey

Correlational Analyses

The factor inter-correlations suggest the four factors are interrelated but still
distinct constructs. The factor-total correlations demonstrate that the four factors are all
moderately to strongly correlated with the total score on the self-authorship survey
(SAS). Table 12 presents these correlations.

1 2 3 4 5

1. CAA - .28“ .39” .43” .72”
2. P50 - - .35” .22" .64"
3. PVC - - - .52” .77"
4. SRC - - - - .75”
5. SAS
"p < .01

Table 12: Factor-Total Correlations

Validity Estimate
A Spearman’s rho was calculated between student scores on the self-authorship

and experience surveys. Students’ scores on these two measures were moderately

59

correlated with each other (p = .51, p = .01), suggesting the self-authorship survey may
accurately measure self-authorship in college students. The correlation between the two
measures increased to .70, p = .01 when students’ scores were dropped from this analysis
for the following reasons: (1) their experience survey response regarded non-decisions,
(2) their response simply stated they had not made any important decisions, (3) they
indicated they would go through a different decision making process today, or (4) their
responses focused on accepting Christ or becoming Christian.

Here non-decisions were defined as decisions where the student did not have a
real choice to make. For example, one student wrote about her decision to stop riding her
horse because her father sold her horse without consulting her. In cases such as this
students did not have options from which to choose, and so their decision-making
processes could not be adequately assessed. Student responses of “I have not made any
important decisions” were dropped from this analysis, because students may not feel their
decisions are important, or feel as if they made decisions, but in responding to the self-
authorship survey they imply they have made decisions in their lives. Since this
implication negates the students’ statement on the experience survey, their responses
were dropped from this analysis. Students responding that they would make their
decision differently today were excluded because the decision making methods they
described on the experience survey would certainly conflict with their current decision
making methods, as represented by their self-authorship survey. Finally, students’
responding to the experience survey with descriptions of their decision to accept Christ or
become Christian were excluded, because the language with which these students wrote

about their decision made it difficult to determine if students were blindly following G-d

or being reflective about their decision to accept Christ, and then see how their own will
could work within G-d’s will for them (e.g., “ Emotionally and spiritually I went through
changes, and the Lord spoke to me and told me that he would always take care of me.”).
This challenge, coupled with the word choice typical of born again experiences (e. g.,
“surrendering,” “following”) led to the exclusion of these responses, because the word
choice biases one to consider such students unreflective when they may in fact be quite
reflective about their decision (see Fowler, 1994 for a spiritual development discussion).
Discussion

This paper describes the development of a 29-item measure of self-authorship.
Following a review of the literature, validity checks, and pilot testing of items, the 29-
item instrument was administered to a sizable, diverse group of undergraduate students at
a large Midwestern university. The self-authorship survey, comprised of four
components: Capacity for Autonomous Action, Problem Solving Orientation, Perceptions
of Volitional Competence, and Self-Regulation in Challenging Situations—was found to
have good to excellent internal consistency, test-retest reliability and convergent validity.

In terms of understanding self-authorship, the findings of this study suggest while
the cognitive ability (Problem Solving Orientation, PSO) to reason in self-authoring ways
is important, it does not alone signify the presence or absence of self-authorship. In fact,
out of all four components, Perceptions of Volitional Competence (PVC) and Self-
Regulation in Challenging Situations (SRC) were most strongly related to self-
authorship. PVC measures students’ abilities to plan for obstacles and move from setting
to achieving goals, and SRC focuses on students’ abilities to engage in goal directed

behavior in the face of challenges. Thus students who have the cognitive capacity to self-

61

author may not engage in self-authorship if they are not also able to plan for and self-
regulate in challenging situations. Furthermore, since PVC, SRC, and Capacity for
Autonomous Action (CAA) were all more strongly correlated with self-authorship than
PSO, this suggests that cognitive ability is a necessary but insufficient condition for self-
authorship. This finding is particularly interesting, because college student development
has traditionally focused on the ways students think, as opposed to whether students’
cognitive abilities actually translate into parallel actions.

This finding thus supports Baxter Magolda’s (2001) claim that self-authorship
may be hindered when students are readily supplied with formulas for success by their
college or university. If students had to overcome obstacles on their own, then perhaps
self-authorship would emerge prior to post-collegiate life. Given this possibility multiple
important implications emerge. First, this finding lends support to the notions that
students who face challenges may be more likely to, or have greater opportunity to, self-
author than their less challenged peers. Consequently, research on traditionally
marginalized student groups (e.g., students of color, students from non-Christian
religions, international students, and first generation students), could provide needed
insight into self-authorship development. Secondly, this finding gestures toward the
importance of research on interventions designed to promote self-authorship.

More practically, this finding suggests it is important for faculty, student affairs
professionals, and counselors to help students develop strong perceptions of competence
and skills for working through challenges. As the findings here imply that students may
have the cognitive capacity to self-author, but not have the pre-requisite confidence in

their abilities when they confront challenges, providing spaces where students are

62

encouraged to engage in rich problem solving and are supported in their efforts to
practice self-authorship may prove useful in promoting self-authorship development
Limitations

There are multiple important limitations to note. First, although the sample was
more diverse than previous samples in which self-authorship was explored (e.g., Baxter
Magolda, 2001), it was still predominantly White. The sample was also predominantly
female, and all participants came from the same university in the Midwest. Testing the
self-authorship survey on a larger, more diverse sample would be helpful.

Secondly construct validity should be examined further. In this study there were
no administered measures by which discriminant validity could be assessed, and only one
measure was used to establish convergent validity, and this measure, the experience
survey, was designed to assess the same, as opposed to related, construct. Future studies
testing the construct validity of the self-authorship survey should be undertaken.

Related to the experience survey, the correlation between participant scores on
this measure and on the self-authorship survey was only moderately positive. This
moderate, rather than strong correlation may be due to the fact the emphasis the self-
authorship survey placed on whether students had reflected on morals and principals.
Many students who wrote about accepting Christ or following G-d, showed commitment
to particular morals and religious principals, but they did not necessarily show reflection
or self-authorship. In future tests of the self-authorship survey, rewording items that
mention morals and principals may be helpful in ascertaining whether students are

blindly following a faith or reflectively incorporating it into their lives.

63

Fourth, while this study provides preliminary evidence for the reliability and
validity of the self-authorship survey, as yet there is no empirical evidence to suggest
self-authorship is related to desired behavioral or performance indicators in college. The
lack of such evidence leads to questions regarding why self-authorship should be
promoted in college students. Thus it seems important for future research to investigate
the correlates and outcomes of self-authorship in college students.

Conclusion

In sum, the self-authorship survey appears to be a psychometrically sound, short,
quantitative measure of college students’ self—authoring abilities. The survey appears to
differentiate well between students who can and cannot self-author, with the exception of
Christian fundamentalist students. More information is needed regarding the survey’s
discriminant validity, sensitivity, and validity toward this student population. In spite of
these limitations, the self-authorship survey appears to be potentially useful in practical
and research applications, especially in the construction of evidence-based interventions

designed to promote epistemological development in college students.

CHAPTER FOUR
CREATING CROSSROADS FOR SELF-AUTHORSHIP: INVESTIGATING THE
PROVOCATIVE MOMENT

Efforts to more effectively promote student learning and development often seek
ways of operationalizing epistemological positions and constructing contexts to
sufficiently challenge and support (Sanford, 1960) student development (e. g., ACPA,
1996; Baxter Magolda, 1999; CAS, 2004). A new push for reform focused on improving
college student outcomes emerged from Baxter Magolda’s (2001) introduction of
empirical evidence for self-authorship, a way of knowing originally described by Kegan
(1994). Here self—authorship is defined as a relatively enduring way of orienting oneself
toward provocative situations that recognizes the contextual nature of knowledge, and
balances this understanding with one’s own internally defined beliefs, goals, and sense of
self (Pizzolato, 2003; see also Baxter Magolda, 2001; Kegan, 1994).

Evidence for self-authorship came when participants in Baxter Magolda’s (2001)
longitudinal study of ways of knowing were in their late twenties and early thirties. Self-
authored participants used internally defined sense of self and goals to direct their
decision-making and knowledge construction. These methods of problem solving and
knowledge construction appear to be ideal ways of knowing to foster in college students.
The ability to assess competing ideas and generate new ideas, coupled with the
development of a coherent, consistent sense of self speak to existing calls for ways of
supporting student development of reflection skills, problem solving skills, and a
coherent identity (e. g., ACPA, 1996; Astin, 1996; Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2003; King &

Baxter Magolda, 1996; Kuh, 1996). Additionally, self-authorship should allow students

65

to move from developing these skills to integrating their identity development with more
cognitive skills, thus helping them better prepare to cope with the demands of a
democratic multicultural society after college (see Baxter Magolda, 2001).

From her examination of how her participants developed self-authorship through
work, school, and relationship experiences, Baxter Magolda (2001, 2004c) claimed self-
authorship could be facilitated in college students through implementation of her
Learning Partnerships Model (LPM). The LPM situates learning in students’ experiences
and positions them as co-constructors of knowledge, and in so doing shows them
knowledge construction is a complex, socially constructed process.

As self-authorship is a relatively new concept, however, the literature on
promoting self-authorship in college students is scarce (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001,
2003, 2004c; Baxter Magolda & King, 2004; Homak & Ortiz, 2004; King & Baxter
Magolda, 2004). Although there is preliminary qualitative evidence to suggest the LPM
may promote change in students’ thinking, whether this change is actually a shift toward
self-authorship is unclear. This lack of clarity appears to arise from the absence of
appropriate assessment tools, and the still developing understanding of self-authorship.

For example, Homak (2003; see also Homak & Ortiz, 2004) demonstrated that
implementation of the Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) Multicultural Education Framework and
the LPM in a one—semester community college diversity course helped students question
and reconstruct their cultural assumptions. This finding implies that the LPM, at least in
conjunction with the Multicultural Education Framework, can create a provocative
moment for students. A provocative moment is described as a situation where students

find themselves so disequilibrized they return to and reflect on their previously held

beliefs, conception(s) of self, and way(s) of knowing. Such provocation or disequilibrium
is a common precursor to self-authorship, but not self-authorship itself (Baxter Magolda,
2001; Pizzolato, 2004).

Interestingly, Homak did not find statistically significant changes in pre- and
post-assessments of Helms’s (1990) Racial Identity Attitude Scale, which should have
been present if students were making a significant enough changes to the ways in which
they cognitively organize information and figure themselves into the knowledge
construction process to qualify as developing self-authorship. Although the Helms’s scale
was not designed to measure self-authorship, but rather changes in complexity of
understanding of racial identity, because participants scored so low on the pre-assessment
of Helms’s scale, if they developed self-authorship capabilities during the course there
likely should have been correlative changes in scores on the Helms’s scale. This lack of
statistically significant change may be due to the short time frame. One semester of a
single class may not be sufficient time for students to change the way they cognitively
organize information. Homak also offers explanation for the lack of statistically
significant change, citing the fact that Helms’ scale was designed to measure attitude
toward Blacks, and the course under investigation was multi-ethnic. Another likely
reason for the absence of statistically significant change, however, may rest in the still
developing conceptual understanding of self-authorship and lack of appropriately
sensitive measures.

Because self-authorship is such a new construct there is little work on its
constitution. For example, although self-authorship has been described in adults (Kegan,

1994), and identified in college graduates (Baxter Magolda, 2001), the specific

67

components of and skills associated with self-authorship have not been identified. An
additional challenge to studying self-authorship then is that there is not a shared
understanding of exactly how self-authorship develops—from the conditions likely to
promote self-authorship, to the processing methods involved in moving from the
possibility of self-authorship development to actually developing self-authorship. More
specifically, Baxter Magolda (2001) showed that self-authorship emerged through her
participants’ encounters with “The Crossroads,” when her participants “recognized that
their dissatisfaction stemmed from ignoring their own internal needs and perspectives and
that they needed to look inward for self-definition” (p. xviii). This description is helpful
because it identifies what happens when students begin to self-author, but it does not
speak to what situation or student characteristics come together to create Crossroad
moments. If self-authorship is a desired outcome of student participation in higher
education, further investigation into The Crossroads seems important to clarifying the
components that must come together to produce Crossroad moments for students.
Purpose and Research Questions I

The broad goal of this study is to begin to develop a theoretical base from which
reforms and interventions to promote self-authorship can be built By investigating the
conditions and processes that give rise to The Crossroads (Baxter Magolda, 2001), I aim
to clarify the student and situation characteristics typically associated with provocation
and ultimately self-authorship. Clarification of these characteristics serves to deepen
shared understanding of how The Crossroads emerge, that can then be used to construct

increasingly more effective reforms and interventions to promote self-authorship.

68

This study investigates the components of moments that are The Crossroads for
students. Because this study does not have pre- and post-assessment of self-authorship,
characteristics and processing style associations with provocation and displays of self-
authorship, rather than development, are examined here.

Method
Participants

The sample consisted of 613 undergraduates at a large, public, midwestem
university. Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses from a variety of
colleges at the university (e.g., social sciences, arts and letters, natural sciences,
engineering). Additionally, I sampled courses with different target populations (e.g.,
remedial courses, honors courses, introductory courses, and advanced courses). This
sample allowed for study of self-authorship in a more diverse group of students than
previous studies (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001; Egart & Healy, 2004; Homak & Ortiz,
2004).

The majority of the participants (69.5%) were female. Most participants were
White (69.8%), with participants of color representing 27.8% of the sample (African
American/Black = 15.1%, American Indian/Native = .2%, Asian = 6.4%, Hispanic/Latino
or Latina = 2.8%, More than 1 Category = 3.3%). An additional 2.4% of participants
were classified as Other, because the racial and ethnic identity information they provided
did not definitively fall into a federally recognized category (e. g., Palestinian). The racial
and ethnic distribution of participants is slightly more diverse than the distribution in the
university population (79.2% White). Participants ranged from first through seventh year

students, with 95.2% of participants distributed across the first four years (first years =

69

29%, sophomores = 22.6%, juniors = 25%, and seniors = 18.6%). Ages ranged from 18 to
46, with 97.6% of participants between the ages of 18-23 (M = 19.7, SD = 2.7).
The Experience Survey

Participants completed The Experience Survey during a 20-minute, in-class
assessment period in the first three weeks of the Fall 2003 semester. This survey asked
students to describe two important decisions they made. First, students described the most
important decision they made other than their decision to apply to college. Then students
described their decision to apply to college. For both decisions, students were prompted
to discuss: (a) what the decision was, (b) when they made the decision, and (c) why they
made the decision. Students were also prompted to describe their decision-making
process by describing: (a) their options, (b) their decision, (c) how they made their
decision, and (d) whether and why they were pleased with their decision. These prompts
were modified from those recommended by M. Baxter Magolda (personal
communication, Fall 2002) for assessment of self-authoring abilities. The findings from
this study are based exclusively on data from the first decision, which could include
deciding to attend college, but not their decision to apply to college.

By asking students to describe their most important decision, this survey aimed to
capture students’ ways of knowing when faced with a decision-making situation most
likely to call on their most complex ways of knowing. As decision-making requires
students to assess a situation, its expectations, and their desires, either through active
engagement of these perspectives or avoidance of multiple perspectives, it seems an
appropriate way to investigate self-authorship. Additionally, since students described the

moment they considered most important, their decision likely had real meaning or

70

consequence for them, and so it seemed probable that their most complex way of
knowing would be called upon. Said otherwise, by asking students to describe a
personally important decision as opposed to describing either their typical problem-
solving processes or how they would respond to a particular problem, this survey aimed
to capture students’ optimal, as opposed to typical, ways of knowing. Students who self-
author through their decision-making should consider multiple perspectives, reflect on
their goals, and work from these internally defined goals and perspectives (e.g., Baxter
Magolda, 2001; Kegan, 1994). A separate pilot test of this survey (N = 110) suggested it
could elicit rich narratives of students’ ways of knowing.
Data Analysis Procedures

Grounded theory was used to analyze the student and situation characteristics, and
processing styles associated with self-authorship. Patterns, themes, and ultimately codes
were constructed from students’ responses to The Experience Survey using constant
comparative analyses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Constant comparative analyses seemed
appropriate for code building (Boyatzis, 1998) because the conditions and processing
styles associated with self-authorship have not been studied or described in college
students, so pre-existing codes did not exist. Constant comparative analyses (N = 110)
from the pilot of The Experience Survey yielded a set of codes focused on student and
situation characteristics associated with the provocative moment, and the possible
outcomes of student decision-making other than self-authorship.

The first 126 narratives from this study were then analyzed using constant
comparative analyses to see if the pilot study codes accurately captured a more diverse

group of students’ decision-making processes. Analysis of these narratives suggested the

71

pilot codes worked, and pointed toward the inclusion of additional specific sub-codes

regarding situation and student characteristics. This final set of codes was then used to

code all student responses. The overview of the codes is summarized in Table 13.

 

 

Coding Category Selected Codes or Sub-codes

Salience of Volitional Low Perception of Volitional Efficacy; High, not

Efficacy Salient Perception of Volitional Efficacy; High,
Salient Perception Volition Efficacy

Primary Source of Others; External Sources; G-d; Self; No Apparent

Behavior Regulation

Catalyst

Decision-Making

Purpose

Provocation

Outcome

Source of Behavior Regulation

Internal Catalyst; External Catalyst

To respond to an immediate situation; To create or
plan for future possible selves; To alleviate relational
tensions; To alleviate epistemological dissonance; To
alleviate embtional distress; To be amused or
satisfied; Default/Lack of Purpose; To uphold a set
of values

Provocative; Not Sufficiently Provocative

Avoidance Equilibrium; Adjusted Equilibrium;
Reconstructed Equilibrium; Self-Authored

Equilibrium

 

Table 13: Summary of Codes

Following these qualitative analyses the proposed relations between

characteristics and the emergence of The Crossroads was investigated statistically via

72

hierarchical regression analysis. This analysis allowed for step-wise assessment of each
independent variable’s relation to the dependent variable while controlling for previously
assessed variables (e.g., Tabachnick & Fiddell, 1996). Further details regarding this
analysis are presented with the report of results in the findings section.
Findings

Two main themes related to the conditions and processes associated with self-
authorship emerged from these codes. (1) Provocation was related to situation and
student characteristics, but seemed most connected to students’ decision-making purpose,
which arose from situation and student characteristics. (2) All decisions ended with the
emergence of some form of equilibrium, the type of which appeared related to whether

students experienced provocation. Figure 2 illustrates these themes and their relations.

 

 

 

EXPERIENCE PHASE I
Student Characteristics Situation Characteristic onssr
Volitional Efficacy Catalyst CHARACTERISTICS
Primary Source of
Behavior Regulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision-Making
Purpose

PROVOCATION
Provocative Moment Non-Provocative Moment

+ A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self-Authorship Change in Cognitive No Change in PHASE 2
Organization, but no Cognitive
Self-Authorship Organization OUTCOMES
Self-Authored Reconstructed Avoidance or
Equilibrium Equilibrium Adjusted
Equilibrium

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F1 gure 2: Phases of Crossroad (Baxter Magolda,2001) Emergence

73

The following discussion qualitatively and quantitatively explores each theme. After
presenting all qualitative findings and the emergent model, I describe the results of the
statistical investigation of the proposed model.
Theme I : Provocation in the Decision-Making Process

Because a sense of disequilibrium or provocation is hypothesized to be a
precursor to self-authorship and a characteristic of The Crossroads (e. g., Baxter Magolda,
2001; Pizzolato, 2003), consideration of the characteristics inducing provocation is a
necessary part of understanding how to promote self-authorship. Whether students
perceived their decision-making situation as provocative seemed related to characteristics
of them as decision-makers and characteristics of the situation, as well as their purpose in
decision—making. It is important to note here that provocation coding was based on the
degree of provocation the student experienced. Situations with the potential to be
provocative, or situations where students initially felt disequilibrized, but did not then
actively reconsider their goals or conception of self were not coded as provocative.
Coding of provocation was reserved for situations where students experienced levels of
disequilibrium propelling them to reconsider their goals and/or conception of self with
the intention of possibly acting on their reflections. The following student’s statement
illustrates a provocative moment

After the acceptance letters from various colleges came home prior to

freshman year I had to make this decision, [whether to come to college]

because as a member of my family you MUST work for the family, like

my father and his father. I had to choose. My options were to go to school

or carry out the business. . .I thought about myself and ...I became more

confident in the fact that I am independent of my family’s business and
will become my own entity unassociated with the business.

74

This student actively considered the implications of attending college and whether he
wanted to and could define himself separate from his family. The disequilibrium arising
from this situation, coupled with his reflection on what he wanted and what he felt he
could do led to his experience of provocation.

Student characteristics.

Looking more closely at this student’s decision to attend college rather than work
in the family business, it istclear provocation is connected to specific student
characteristics. His decision to come to college was grounded in his ability to see himself
as in control of his sense of identity, to see himself as able to become “independent of my
family’s business.” When the student received acceptance letters from colleges he
initially questioned his ability to decide to go to college. This questioning came less from
not knowing what he wanted, and more from wondering if he could make and carry out
his decision in the face of perceived obstacles such as family expectation of him to work
in the business instead of attend college. Could he make a decision in this situation? How
could he balance what he wanted with what he knew his family expected? Through
reflection, however, he discovered he could stay committed to his goal of attending
college in spite of challenges. This process shows signs of high, salient volitional
efficacy—a belief in one’s ability to persist in goal-directed behavior in the face of
challenges (e.g., Como, 1989, 1993; Gollwitzer, 1999; Kuhl, 1987). If students’
responses showed evidence of such thought processes they were coded as high salient
volitional efficacy, as opposed to either low volitional efficacy, or high, but not salient

volitional efficacy.

75

Across participants, high salient volitional efficacy appeared strongly associated
with provocation. For example, one student initially wavered in her decision to move out
of her father’s house after his wife began stealing to support her drug addiction.
Ultimately she moved out because her reflections on what was best for her helped her
recognize her potential for volitional efficacy in her situation.

I decided even though I love my father and have been with him almost all

my life I would lose my respect for him and it wouldn’t be good for me or

us if I stayed in a house or a home that allowed people to steal and hurt the

ones I loved.

Another student wrote about her difficulty breaking up with her boyfriend. Initially she
was able to assess her situation, “My options were to stay with him and miss out on ME
time, or break up, suck it up and move on,” but was unable to actually “walk away.” She
sought advice, reflected on her situation, and with time discovered high salient volitional
efficacy that allowed her to “stay strong and actually walk away.” Her volitional efficacy
seemed connected to her reflections on what was best and what she wanted for herself.
Her volitional efficacy appeared tied to her experience of her situation as provocative.

In addition to volitional efficacy, students’ primary source of behavior regulation
influenced whether they experienced their situation as provocative. The data suggested
five primary sources of behavior regulation: (1) others (e. g., parents, peers), (2) external
circumstances (e.g., institutional requirements), (3) G-d, or (4) self. There was also a
group of students who did not show signs of any apparent behavior regulation.

Student responses were coded for primary source of behavior regulation by
examining the most influential source in their regulation of their decision-making

behaviors. For example, if behavior was mostly governed by the directions and demands

of parents or peers, behavior regulation source was coded as other.

76

Although self-regulation did not necessarily lead to self-authorship, provocative
moments certainly appeared connected to an ability to self-regulate. Students coded as
self-regulating assessed their situation, determined, and carried out a plan of action. The
student who eventually “walked away” from her boyfriend was able to do so because she
possessed high salient levels of volitional efficacy and she self-regulated. As she said, “I
wasn’t happy with my decision at the time, because it wasn’t what] wanted to do, it was
what I needed to do.” She knew walking away was in her best interest, and stuck to her
decision in the face of her immediate desire to be with her boyfriend, because of her
ability to enact her volitional efficacy via self-regulation. In short, high salient volitional
efficacy was necessary to help students believe they could work through challenging
situations, and then self-regulation allowed them to enact their volitional beliefs.

It could be argued that it is unclear whether behavior regulation or ability to self-
author precedes the other, but pattern analysis suggests self-regulation is a necessary but
insufficient condition of self-authorship. Students who displayed self-authorship self-
regulated, but students who self-regulated did not necessarily display self-authorship. For
example, one student showed signs of self-regulation when she wrote, “setting goals had
to become a priority to have a positive long-term outcome. . .I set my goals and became
determined right away.” Although she self-regulated, this student did not self-author, in
fact one of her goals was to “just ignore my personal feelings and problems.” Thus self-
regulation appears a necessary but insufficient condition for displays of self-authorship.

If behavior regulation was not apparent, or controlled by others or G-d, students
also tended to exhibit low or high but not salient volitional efficacy in their decision-

making and not experience their situation as provocative. One student explained her

77

inability to follow her own desires or feel competent as a decision-maker when her ex-
boyfriend asked her out. “When he asked me out again I was too weak to explain I might
want time to think about it, so I just said, “‘yes,’ even though I’d thought about saying no
before.” And another student’s decision to return to the same institution for a second year
illustrates how the use of others for behavior regulation may stifle provocation.

I got accepted as a transfer student to an HBC [Historically Black College]

so I could come back. . .or go to an HBC in the south, where] eventually

want to live and become part of the majgrifi again. My parents made the

decision. . .I came back.
Although this student revisited her goals, because her parents were her primary source of
behavior regulation, she was unable to engage the provocative potential of the situation.

These examples show the provocative moment is associated with student
characteristics of volitional efficacy and behavior regulation. If students lack high salient
volitional efficacy, they tend to allow others to regulate their behaviors—either because
their low levels of volitional efficacy do not allow them to cope effectively with
challenges to their goals, or because despite their confidence in their ability to make a
decision, the lack of salience regarding volitional efficacy beliefs does not push them to
construct self-regulated plans for achieving their goals. Regardless of the reason, the lack
of high salient volitional efficacy seems to preclude or short-circuit students’ experience
of their situation as sufficiently provocative to compel serious reconsideration of their
goals, way(s) of knowing, or conception of self.

Situation characteristics.

The aforementioned student characteristics were activated within the context of

specific decision-making situations. And these situations also appeared to influence

whether students were more likely to experience their situations as provocative if they

78

were internally catalyzed— situations where the student independently determined a
decision needed to be made, others or social factors did not require a decision. The
following student’s narrative illustrates the relation between catalyst and provocation.

I [decided] to pierce my lip...My options were to pierce my lip and in so

doing go against my father’s wishes and not return home, or stay living at

home, but cut myself and hide the evidence. I decided to pierce my lip. I

recalled previous parental advice and asked veiled questions to my

parents, and I thought about it a long time until I came to believe that I am

an individual and no matter how much I want to make my father proud,

my pride in myself must come first.

The urgency this student felt was internally catalyzed, and through her creation of
decision-making options, she experienced intense disequilibrium over whether her sense
of self was or should be defined by important others in her life.

Such provocation was often absent in externally catalyzed situations—situations
where students made decisions because of an emerging, externally created situation. For
example, one student chose between returning to college or continuing as a nanny in
Tennessee. If she stayed the family would pay for her schooling in Tennessee. If she
returned to her college, she had to pay tuition, but she would be with her friends. Since
her friends were not in Tennessee, she returned home. Other examples of externally
catalyzed situations included decisions about one’s major. Such decisions typically were
not provocative. For example, one student described her major selection this way, “The
advisor sits you down and asks what major you want, and I just said, “Psychology!” That
was that.” And other students unquestioningly agreed to the majors their parents expected
them to declare. In these and other externally catalyzed decisions, students rarely

experienced the high level of disequilibrium associated with the provocative moment.

Students typically responded to externally catalyzed situations by following formulas or

79

making decisions without sufficient reflection to induce a level of disequilibrium that
would facilitate provocation (see also Baxter Magolda, 1992; Kegan, 1994; Perry, 1968).

Decision-making purpose and provocation.

Further examination of student responses suggested an additional variable in the
creation of provocative moments—decision-making purpose. Decision-making purpose,
or the reason the student engaged in decision-making, arose from an interaction between
situation characteristics (i.e., catalyst) and student characteristics (i.e., volitional efficacy
and behavior regulation). Eight purposes captured the multitude of reasons why students
made decisions. As students’ considered why they had to make a decision, and their own
decision-making characteristics (e.g., Did they feel efficacious? Who got to decide what
they should do?), purpose emerged. These eight purposes arose from analysis of themes
in the reasons why students engaged in decision-making. Decision-making purposes,

their frequencies, and examples are displayed in Table 14.

80

 

Category

Narrative Example

 

To respond to an
immediate situation
(n = 287)

To create or plan
for future possible
selves

(n = 80)

To alleviate

relational tensions
(n = 52)

To alleviate
epistemological
dissonance

(n = 18)

To alleviate
emotional distress
(n = 37)

To be amused or
satisfied
(n = 80)

Default/Lack of

purpose
(n = 29)

To uphold a set of
values
(n = 30).

The most important decision I’ve made was when I was involved

in a car jack. I decided to cooperate with the robbers and let them

take my car after they put a gun on me, because I thought material
things aren’t important if your life is on the borderline.

The most important decision I’ve made was the decision to change
my major. I made this decision last year/Spring 2002 semester,
because I had to decide what was going to make me happy in life,
and also what was going to get me where I wanted to be.

The most important decision I’ve made was to give up a once-
wonderful friendship that became toxic. . ..my options were
allowing her bad nature to affect me, or shutting it out.

The most important decision I’ve made was to stop accepting what
other people fed me (intellectually); to choose to find my own
belief system. . ..because much of what is spoken about is false, or
half-truths, or just one side of a multi-faceted realm. My options
were to conform and hate myself, or learn to live as I see fit

The most important decision I’ve made was coming out as gay. I
made this decision in my junior year of high school. I was hiding a
part of myself. That was making me feel unhappy and unable to
feel comfortable around people.

The most important decision I’ve ever made was having
unprotected sex in a bank parking lot. I made this decision later at
night after lots of drinking. I really liked the girl I was with and
wanted to have sex with her.

The most important decision I’ve made was changing my major in
my sophomore year. . .I went from a criminal justice major to an
advertising major. There wasn’t really a process, it just happened.

The most important decision I’ve made was to remain a virgin
until marriage....Self-denial is healthy when related to many
things. I made this decision because of morals and logic.

 

Table 14: Categories and Examples of Decision-Making Purposes

81

If decisions were externally catalyzed, and students focused only on situation
characteristics (i.e., why they had to make this decision), they often ignored their
volitional efficacy and did not self-regulate. For example, one student’s doctor threatened
to hospitalize her if she continued to restrict her eating, so the student “felt forced into it
[ending her eating disorder].” She said, “I didn’t want to be hospitalized, so I had to
stop.” Her decision was primarily to respond to an immediate situation—to avoid being
hospitalized. In looking only at the immediate, externally imposed nature of her situation
she allowed others to regulate her behavior. In this case, the external catalyst induced
healthy changes, but did not lead to provocation. This example of inducing change
without creating even the precursor to self-authorship is suggestive of the possibility
students can change, even dramatically, without actually self-authoring.

If students considered volitional efficacy or self-regulated when making
externally catalyzed decisions, their decision-making purpose often facilitated
provocation. One student’s decision to continue in college after a change in her financial
situation left her without a way to pay tuition illustrates this possibility. Because she
focused on her situation and her decision-making abilities, her purpose was not merely to
respond to an immediate situation, but rather to plan for a future possible self (see
Markus & Nurius, 1986 for a discussion of possible selves), “I had goals... to discover a
creative way to make a living that paid well so I could finish my degree.” This purpose
allowed for provocation. She considered what she wanted, and she sought “a solution that
met all aspects of my goals.” Through reflection on her goals and the situation’s external
constraints, she said, “I took risks when I accumulated enough information,” and “I feel

like I took control of my life—financially and educationally. It was a turning point” Her

82

recognition of her competence coupled with her ability to self-regulate pushed her into a
provocative moment—to reflect on and work from internally defined goals.

This student’s experience was not unique. Other students described provocative
moments arising from externally catalyzed or socially-defined decisions (e.g., choosing a
major by an institutionally determined time, or deciding to accept a marriage proposal).
Provocation seemed to arise because the students oriented themselves toward their
situation with a purpose that allowed them to see a variety of options in need of
evaluation. While student and situation characteristics influenced provocation, students’
decision-making purposes also appeared to influence the emergence of provocation.
Theme 2: Reaching Self-Authorship and Other Decision-Making Outcomes

At present, research suggests provocative or disequilibrizing experiences and self-
authorship are related (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001; Pizzolato, 2003, 2004), but whether
provocation is a sufficient or only a necessary condition remains unclear. The nature of
the relation between provocation and self-authorship, however, was investigated in this
study. The findings from the qualitative analyses gestured toward a relation between
provocation and self-authorship, where provocation was a necessary but insufficient
condition for self-authorship. The disequilibrium of provocative moments pushed
students to reflect and make plans to work toward or better define their goals. College
was the first time one student’s parents were not directing his religious beliefs. The
provocative disequilibrium led him to, “make my faith on my own” and “make a
conscious effort to understand what and why I believe.” As one student coped with her

friend’s new hedonistic behaviors she began to consider multiple perspectives and try to

83

do “what I believed was best in my head AND my heart, not just one or the other.” And

another student wrote:

I realized that my “master plan,” my major and life I had picked for

myself weren’t what] really wanted. I could keep working at “the plan”

and try to be as happy as possible or risk everything by totally starting

over. I started over, changed my major and broke up with my boyfriend of

four years. I thought about it constantly, talked to friends and family,

thought and thought, wrote down some of my thoughts too. It was scary

and painful, but] knew it was right
The outcome of this student’s decision, and of others following similar patterns, led to
self-authored equilibrium. Their equilibrium arose from their use of internally defined
goals and sense of self to guide their actions.

While self-authorship was a possible outcome, not all students reached self-
authored equilibrium. Three distinct forms of equilibrium captured the remaining
outcomes: avoidance, adjusted, and reconstructed equilibrium (see Ruble & Seidman,
1996 for a discussion of adjusted and reconstructed equilibrium). In each of these three

outcomes students reached equilibrium, but it did not come through internally defined

goals, principles or identity roles. Table 15 presents these other possible outcomes.

84

 

Category

Definition

Narrative Example

 

Avoidance
Equilibrium

Adjusted
Equilibrium

Reconstructed
Equilibrium

Decisions made and a
sense of equilibrium
established by
avoiding reflection
entirely

Re-establishment of
the same patterns and
ideas. Reflection on
goals and sense of
self broached and
shut down by finding
others to support an
absence of change in
goals and/or
conceptions of self

Development of new
types and patterns of
relationship and
reconstruction of
conceptions of self,
as influenced by
others and potentially
a desire to reach a
level of self-
fulfillment such that
the person can realize
potential, but does
not develop or work
from internally
defined goals arising
from internally
developed principles
and conceptions of
self

The most important decision I’ve made was to
get engaged. I never really made the decision; I
just decided to so I could decide.

The most important decision I’ve made was to
leave [name of university] and move home. I
made this decision 2 years ago, because my
personal beliefs were being threatened. I was
expected to change and I saw no way out. I had
two options: to stay and be alone or move back
home. I decided to move back home. . .I talked
to my parents and we decided I should leave
and come home.

The most important decision I’ve made was to
accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I
made this decision because everyone must
choose to accept or reject Christ I could reject
Christ and live for myself, or accept Him and
live a life that pleases Him. I accepted. First]
had to realize that I was a sinner. I had to
understand that my sin separated me from God
and that I could not do anything to save myself.
I had to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God and that he died to pay for my sins.
I had to accept his gift of forgiveness. I was
relieved and happy with my decision. I now
have real peace and joy. I only have to make the
decision once. God’s forgiveness lasts forever.
It is the most important decision in anyone’s
life, and I’m incredibly happy that I did it

 

Table 15: Non-Self-Authored Outcome Categories: Definitions and Narrative Examples

Summary of Thematic, Qualitative Findings

The qualitative findings from this study build on the existing self-authorship

literature by beginning to clarify the characteristics associated with the emergence of

85

moments indicative of what Baxter Magolda (2001) described as The Crossroads. Across
all participants, decision-making followed the same sequence of events, (a) recognition of
a decision-making situation and reaction through self- and/or situation assessment (Onset
and Potential Provocation), and ultimately (b) equilibrium establishment (Outcome). In
the Onset and Provocation phase, students’ assessments of themselves and their situations
led to a decision-making purpose, which influenced whether the students experienced
their situations as provocative. These findings are illustrated in the proposed model of
Crossroad emergence (see Figure 3). This experience of provocation then seemed to

influence whether students reached self-authored equilibrium.

Situation Volitional Decision- Provocation
Catalyst Efficacy Making
Purpose

Behavior
Regulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Proposed Model of Crossroad (Baxter Magolda, 2001) Emergence
Quantitatively Investigating the Model

Prior to investigating the proposed model in Figure 3 exploration of the relation
between provocation and self-authored equilibrium is required. Because Baxter Magolda
(2001) describes The Crossroads as the necessary precursor to self-authorship, there
should be a strong relation between experience of provocative moments and self-authored
equilibrium if provocation is actually a possible antecedent self-authorship. A t-test

supported these findings (t = 14.24, p<.000). Students who experienced their situations as

86

provocative more frequently reached self-authored equilibrium than students who
experienced their situations as non-provocative.

Given the relation between provocation and self-authored equilibrium, the next
analysis used hierarchical regression analysis to investigate whether student
characteristics of: salience of volitional efficacy, behavior regulation, and decision-
making purpose improved prediction of provocation beyond that afforded by differences
in situation catalyst. The behavior regulation and decision-making purpose variables were
transformed. Behavior regulation was recoded into three categories: no apparent behavior
regulation, externally regulated behavior, and internally regulated behavior. Decision-
making purpose was recoded into three levels related to the degree to which students
considered more than the immediate situation in their construction of a decision-making
purpose. In all analyses cases were excluded list-wise. Means and standard deviations for
each variable are presented in Table 16. Bivariate correlations between the variables are

presented in Table 17.

 

 

Variable M SD
Situation Catalyst .55 .50
Volitional Efficacy 2.08 .50
Behavior Regulation 1.25 .77
Decision-Making Purpose .57 .83
Provocation .31 .49

 

Note. Means are based on a five-point scale.
Table 16: Means and Standard Deviations

87

 

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

 

1. SituationCatalyst .13** .10* .38** .19**

2. Volitional Efficacy - - .23** .14** .22**

3. Behavior Regulation - - — .24** ,40**

4. Decision-Making Purpose .31**

5. Provocation

 

Note. *p<.05, **p<.001.
Table 17: Correlations between Variables

Following recoding all independent variables were entered step-wise. The
standardized beta coefficients from each step of the analysis are presented in Table 18. At
Step 1, situation catalyst was entered and found to be a significant predictor of
provocation (B = .10, p<.05). Within catalyst groups students are similar with regard to
their experience of provocation. With the introduction of volitional efficacy at Step 2, the
analysis showed the relation between students’ experience of provocation and catalyst
type differed by level and salience of volitional efficacy (B = .11, p <.01). Then Step 3
added a term for primary source of behavior regulation and demonstrated that the relation
students’ experience of provocation, catalyst type, and level and salience of volitional
efficacy differed by primary source of behavior regulation (B = .32, p<.001). Finally the
fourth step showed the relation between provocation and catalyst, volitional efficacy,
behavior regulation, and purpose differed by decision-making purpose (B = .20, p <.001).
Combined, the model explains 24.3% of the total variance. An ANOVA indicated that the

model as a whole is significant (F (4, 539) = 43.25, p <.001).

88

 

Variable [3 R Square Change

 

Catalyst .10* .05
Volitional Efficacy . 1 1** .04
Behavior Regulation .32*** .13
Decision-Making Purpose .20*** .03

 

Note. Values represent the standardized regression coefficients from hierarchical
regression analyses predicting provocation from student and situation characteristics
*p<.05, **p<01, ***p<.001.

Table 18: Predicting Provocation from Student and Situation Characteristics

The quantitative findings support the proposed model (Figure 3). The emergence
of provocation sufficient to qualify as a Crossroads (Baxter Magolda, 2001) moment
appears to be related to student processing of internally catalyzed situations in a way that
recognizes and develops volitional efficacy. Hi gh-salient levels of volitional efficacy then
seem related to engagement in self-regulated behaviors that allow students to cope with
decision-making situations by constructing purposes that consider both the immediate
situation and future implications of their actions/options. Such purposes then facilitate
provocation.

The fact the model explains only 24.3% of the total variance is not particularly
problematic, because it suggests that although Crossroads may be more likely to emerge
from internally catalyzed situations where students process in particular ways, this is not
the only way to provoke Crossroad emergence. In fact, given the calls for external
induction of self-authorship via implementation of the Learning Partnerships Model

(LPM) (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2004c; King & Baxter Magolda, 2004), the 24.3%

variance explained by the model provides support for this idea. Furthermore, the high

89

beta coefficient for behavior regulation point outs the importance of this skill in
Crossroad emergence, thus identifying a particular skill on which practitioners could
focus in their attempt to foster self-authorship development.
Discussion and Implications for Practice

The findings of this study build on Baxter Magolda’s (2001) foundational work
on self-authorship by demonstrating the relation between sufficient provocation and self-
authorship outcomes, and begin to clarify what conditions promote the level of
provocation necessary to induce a crossroad moment. Together, the qualitative and
quantitative findings of this study demonstrate that situations provocative enough to
qualify as Crossroads (Baxter Magolda, 2001) were associated with: internal catalysts,
high salient volitional efficacy, self-regulation and decision-making purposes related to
alleviating epistemological or emotional distress, or planning for possible selves.
Practically this study suggests it may be possible to induce self-authorship, and that
college students often find themselves in potentially provocative situations, and so may
be particularly well positioned for self-authorship interventions.

The findings of the study support the underlying premises of Baxter Magolda’s
(2001, 2003, 2004c; Baxter Magolda & King, 2004) Learning Partnership Model (LPM).
Interestingly no students mentioned classroom experiences in their narratives which
suggests instructors may not be fully exploiting their potential in self-authorship
development. This finding also suggests that although classrooms may not provoke self-
authorship, but may be able to by better understanding the processes and student
characteristics involved in self-authorship, institutions may be able to implement the

LPM in local ways that may help develop student characteristics and processing styles

associated with self-authorship. Classrooms should, as she suggests, “validate learners’
capacity to know,” and they can do this by constructing tasks and activities that will focus
on and build students’ volitional efficacy in problem-solving. By helping students feel
more efficacious when coping with challenges in the particular domain or field in which
the class is located, instructors can validate students’ capacity to construct and evaluate
knowledge in that particular field. This possibility then specifies what it means to situate
learning in leamer’s experience. Such situation does not mean all classroom learning
must be related to students’ personal lives or lived experiences outside of the classroom.
Rather the findings of this study imply that by situating learning in learners’ experiences
of activities within the domain in which they are working may be able to facilitate
students' abilities to see themselves as capable of constructing knowledge.

Related to Baxter Magolda’s (2001) encouragement of “situating learning in
learners’ experience,” advising relationships may have tremendous potential to help
students self-author. Many students named their choice or change of major (n = 90) as
their most important decision. Because students are in the midst of making decisions
about what they enjoy and want to become, academic advisors should ensure their
advising focuses on students’ identity development, and not merely on course
requirements, grades, or career placement test scores. Conversations about the reasons
behind students’ interests, the implications of choosing particular majors, and clarifying
students’ understandings of who they are, want to become, and how to get from one to
the other may prove particularly helpful in creating provocative moments. As students

reflect on their goals, and their implications, advisors may then help students develop

91

richer networks of information about their choices, and support students’ construction of
increasingly more complex ways of decision-making.

Students’ narratives also suggest residence hall advisors may be in a position to
create provocative, Crossroad moments. Living arrangement decisions were common
important decisions (n = 22), but during these decisions most students focused on the
financial piece of the decision, or what was easiest. As students begin to make plans for
the following school year, programs on important considerations when making living
plans might help students balance considerations of money and fun, with their own needs
and what will make them happiest given their schedule in the upcoming year.

Choosing whether to drink and/or use illegal drugs (n = 32), and decisions about
relationships with significant others (n = 63) were also frequently cited as important.
Programs to help students identify and evaluate multiple perspectives in these decisions
may facilitate provocation and help students develop their ability to balance competing
ideas, long-term benefits and consequences, and their own desires and principles.

Limitations and Areas for Future Research

There are multiple limitations to note. All participants came from the same
university. Inclusion of students from a variety of institutional types may emphasize
decision-making methods not represented in this study. Also, since the sample was
predominantly White and female, study of demographic differences would be helpful in
investigating demographic differences in self-authorship development. Finally, the study
examined provocation and processing in college students only. Investigating self-

authorship development in adults who did not participate in higher education, and in non-

 

college bound emerging adults would contribute to a greater understanding of ways to
promote self-authorship in higher education.

Statistically there are limitations. Sampling groups were purposefully, rather than
randomly selected. While this method ensured some diversity in the sample, it relied on
instructors agreeing to allot time to participant recruitment and assessment, and on
students being present during these sessions.

Finally, because this study relies on a single narrative response where students
recollect a decision—making experience. Asking students to recall events may not be the
most reliable way of collecting data. Real time study of decision—making, or studies that
involve multiple narrative responses would provide helpful insight into the decision-
making process and self-authorship development.

Conclusion

Current work on self-authorship suggests it arises from student processing of
provocative moments or situations (The Crossroads) and that self-authorship can be
facilitated through pedagogical, curricular and programmatic reforms to higher education
(e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2003, 2004a, 2004c; Baxter Magolda & King, 2004; Homak
& Ortiz, 2004; King & Baxter Magolda, 2004). Construction of such reforms and
interventions, and assessment of their effectiveness is made difficult by the still
developing clarity regarding the construct and process of self-authorship. The findings of
this study begin to clarify the process of self-authorship development by focusing on the
characteristics and components of the provocative moment—the Crossroads. Findings
suggest the Crossroads may be externally induced through programming, interventions,

and reforms related to important decisions common among college students.

93

CHAPTER FIVE
IN DUCING SELF-AUTHORSHIP IN COLLEGE STUDENTS: EXPLORING
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH EXTERNALLY INDUCED
PROVOCATIVE MOMENTS

College presents students with a wide array of decision-making situations.
Students are expected to choose a major and make living arrangement decisions. Choices
regarding alcohol consumption, drug use, sexual activity and other hedonistic behaviors
also abound (e. g., Kuh, 1996; Strange, 1994). These decision-making situations and
students’ experiences in and out of the classroom all play roles in their cognitive, social,
and personal development, but the degree to which students are affected by their
experiences varies from student to student (e. g., Berzonsky, 1992; Berzonsky & Sullivan,
2000; Boyd, Hunt, Kandell, & Lucas, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). This diversity
in development coupled with the positive correlates and outcomes (e. g., adaptive coping,
persistence, school satisfaction, epistemological development) of more reflective,
contextual decision-making abilities (e.g., Berzonsky, 1992; Berzonsky & Sullivan,
2000; Boyd et al., 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) has led to consideration of how
institutions of higher education can facilitate student development of complex decision-
making and problem solving skills (e.g., ACPA, 1996; Astin, 1996; Baxter Magolda,
2001; King & Baxter Magolda, 2004, Kuh, 1996).

Baxter Magolda’s (2001) recent introduction of her Learning Partnerships Model
(LPM) provided a new framework and student development outcome to consider in the
push to facilitate increasingly more complex decision-making and problem solving skills

in students. The LPM is designed to promote student development of self-authorship.

Self-authorship was first described by Kegan (1994), and further clarified by Baxter
Magolda (2001). Self-authorship is a complex epistemological orientation through which
a person combines cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal skills such that she or he
can make decisions and act in ways consistent with her or his internally defined sense of
self while also recognizing the contextual nature of knowledge and constraints of the
situation (Baxter Magolda, 2001). In short, self-authorship integrates goal orientation and
identity development with decision-making and problem solving skills. Students who are
able to self-author can do more than logically solve problems. They can effectively
consider multiple competing perspectives and balance their understanding of the context,
their own values and beliefs, and logic when making decisions. Because higher education
is attempting to facilitate student development of a coherent identity, clearly and
internally defined goals, and complex, contextual ways of knowing (i.e., decision-making
and problem solving skills) (e. g., ACPA, 1996; Astin, 1996; Baxter Magolda, 2001,
2003; Kuh, 1996), self-authorship seems a particularly desirable outcome of participation
in higher education.

The LPM emerged from Baxter Magolda’s (2001) careful study of how her
participants, then college graduates, developed self-authorship through work, graduate
school, and relationship experiences. The LPM is grounded in three principles, which if
followed, should promote student development of self-authorship. (a) Validate learners as
knowers. (b) Situate learning in learners’ experiences. And (c) define learning as
mutually constructing meaning (Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2003). In practice these
principles mean instructors and student affairs professionals should present a variety of

perspectives for understanding and interpreting situations, problems, and/or texts, and

95

then support students’ use of varied perspectives to “develop and defend” their own
understandings. By pushing students to develop their own beliefs, teachers and student
affairs professionals can help students see that they are as capable of making sense of
complexity, that their experience, and the self more generally, is important to knowledge
construction, and that knowledge is socially constructed (Baxter Magolda, 2001).

Since both the LPM and self-authorship have only recently been described, there
is little empirical evidence related to the effectiveness of the LPM in self-authorship
promotion (for examples see: Baxter Magolda & King, 2004; Homak & Ortiz, 2004).
Studies of constructivist pedagogical techniques and student-centered instructional
practices similar to the LPM demonstrated their effectiveness in terms of student ability
to solve complex problems, become more deeply invested in learning, and develop
deeper understandings of content, as well as student employment of behaviors suggestive
of an increase in students’ ability to engage in goal directed behavior (e.g., Assor,
Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Cobb & Yackel, 1996; Hay & Barab, 2001; Pressley, Harris &
Marks, 1992; Turner, Meyer, Cox, Logan, DiCinitio, & Thomas, 1998).

Early research on the LPM suggests it may have the ability to facilitate self-
authorship in college students. For example, Piper and Buckley (2004) demonstrated that
implementation of the Community Standards Model (CSM) in the University of
Nevada— Las Vegas residence halls pushed students to reflect on their problem solving
abilities in ways that considered their own needs and expectations as well as others.
Through a study of fifteen students, they found that some students moved from seeing
community standards as rules they needed to follow and their resident assistant (RA) as

an authority, to seeing themselves, their peers, and their RA as socially constructing and

maintaining community standards. These findings imply that the LPM, at least in
conjunction with the CSM, can create a provocative moment for students, where a
provocative moment is described as a situation where students find themselves so
disequilibrized they return to and reflect on their previously held beliefs, conception(s) of
self, and/or ways of knowing. In this case, students were pushed to reconsider their
problem solving skills in ways that recognized the implications for context, self, and
others. Whether this provocation leads to self-authorship is unclear. In fact, Piper and
Buckley even caution against the assumption of self-authorship emergence via the CSM,
stating that although participants’ stories “demonstrate that the CSM provides students
with the guidance and empowerment they need to take steps along the bridge between
adolescent development and adult responsibility,” (p. 212), the type of cognitive maturity
associated with self-authorship may take longer than an academic year. The lack of
change may also rest in the still developing conceptual understanding of self-authorship
and ways to measure it. In summary this study is particularly important to understanding
student development of self-authorship through externally created situations, because it
demonstrates that provocation can be externally induced, but without appropriately
sensitive measures and/or a deeper understanding of the micro-processes and phases of
self-authorship, whether self-authorship can actually emerge from externally induced
provocative moments remains unclear.
Research Questions and Purpose

Given that it is unclear whether implementation of the LPM leads to self-
authorship and that student developmental outcomes vary by student, rather than by

experience, this study steps back from investigating specific interventions designed to

produce self-authorship, such as the LPM, and asks two questions. (1)Can externally
induced provocative moments lead to self-authorship? And (2) if externally induced
provocative moments can lead to self-authorship, how do students move from the
externally induced provocative moment toward self-authorship? Investigation of these
two questions may be able to demonstrate whether and how likely it is that self-
authorship emerges from externally induced provocative experiences, as well as what
separates those students who move from provocation to self-authorship from those who
do not self-author through an externally induced provocative experience.
Method

This was an exploratory study investigating externally induced provocative
moments. Data were collected via questionnaire. Participants completed a demographic
questionnaire and The Experience Survey. The Experience Survey was a two-page
questionnaire asking students to describe two decisions they made. First, students
described the most important decision they made other than their decision to apply to
college (this decision could include their college choice, but not application). Then
students described their decision to apply to college. For both decisions, students were
prompted to discuss: (a) what the decision was, (b) when they made the decision, and (0)
why they made the decision. Students were also prompted to describe their decision-
making process by describing: (a) their options, (b) their decision, (c) how they made
their decision, and (d) whether and why they were pleased with their decision. These
prompts were modified from those recommended by M. Baxter Magolda (personal
communication, Fall 2002) for assessment of self-authoring abilities. The findings from

this study are based exclusively on data from the first decision students described.

98

By asking students to describe their most important decision, this survey aimed to
capture students’ ways of knowing when faced with a decision-making situation most
likely to call on their most complex way of knowing. As decision-making requires
students to assess a situation, its expectations, and their desires—either through active
engagement of these perspectives or avoidance of multiple perspectives—it seems an
appropriate way to investigate self-authorship. Students self-authoring through their
decision-making should consider multiple perspectives, reflect on their goals and work
from these internally defined goals and perspectives. A pilot test (N = 110) of the survey
suggested it could elicit rich narratives of students’ ways of knowing.

Participants

The initial sample consisted of 613 undergraduate students at a large, public,
Midwestern university. Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses in a
variety of disciplines. Student-participants completed a demographic questionnaire and
The Experience Survey. All recruitment and assessment took place during class time in
the first three weeks of the Fall 2003 semester.

The initial sample was fairly representative of the university’s population. The
sample was predominantly female (69.5%). The majority of the sample was White
(69.8%), with participants of color representing 27 .8% of the sample (African
American/Black = 15.1%, American Indian/Native = .2%, Asian = 6.4%, Hispanic/Latino
or Latina = 2.8%, More than 1 Race = 3.3%). An additional 2.4% of participants were
classified as Other because the information they provided did not definitely fall into one
of the federally recognized race or ethnicity categories (e.g., Palestinian). Participants

ranged from first through seventh year students, with 95.1% of participants distributed

across the first four years (first years = 29%, sophomores = 22.6%, juniors = 25%, and

seniors = 18.6%). The participants came from diverse academic majors and represented
all the university’s colleges. Ages ranged from 18 to 46, with 97.6% of the participants
between the ages of 18-23 (M = 19.7 , SD = 2.7).

Because this study focused exclusively on externally induced provocative
moments, all participant responses to The Experience Survey were coded for
provocation, and external induction. These coding categories were nominal; they were
identified as either present or absent in the students’ response. Provocation was defined
as present if the student described feeling uncomfortable levels of disequilibrium such
that the student felt compelled to revisit goals and/or conceptions of self. Two coders
reliably differentiated provocative moments from non—provocative moments (K = .87).
External induction was defined as present if the student described her or his decision-
making situation as arising because of a situation created by someone other than her or
himself (e. g., an institutional requirement, a significant other or authority figure, or a
culturally timed change such as choosing whether to attend college or choosing a high
school in a schools of choice district). Again two coders reliably differentiated between
externally and internally induced decision-making situations (K: 1.00).

Following coding of student responses for provocation and external induction, the
sample was limited to only those participants describing externally induced, provocative
moments. Consequently the sample was reduced to 93 students. These participants
ranged in age from 18-33, with a mean age of 19.61 years (SD = 2.08). The majority of
the students were female (78%). Most participants were White (65.6%), with students of

color representing 23.6% of the sample (African American/Black = 13.4%, Asian =

100

3.2%, Hispanic/Latino or Latina = 4.3%, More than 1 Category = 2.2%), with an
additional 3 students categorized as Other. A noteworthy 30% of the participants were
first generation college students. All participants will be referred to using pseudonyms.
Data Analysis Procedures

Patterns, themes, and ultimately codes were constructed through constant
comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of transcribed student responses to The
Experience Survey. Constant comparative analyses seemed appropriate for code building
(Boyatzis, 1998) because the micro-processes involved in self-authorship have not been
described in college students, and more generally, there is little description of self-
authorship development in college students. Constant comparative analyses yielded a
large set of codes regarding students’ decision-making methods, their orientation to the
decision-making situation, degrees of experienced isolation, role of goals, degree of
engagement in internally defining goals and sense of self, and epistemological outcomes
of decision-making. Three main themes related to student movement from provocation to
self-authorship emerged from these codes. (3) Students’ perceptions of their situation
affects movement toward self-authorship. (b) Students’ ability to self-author through
externally induced provocative moments is related to the nature of their belief systems.
(c) Students’ experiences of isolation appear to be an important phase in students’ .
entrance into new communities and relationships they believe will support their
achievement of internally defined goals, and help them clarify their sense of self and
principles. These shared patterns in self-authored decision-making were finally captured

in a theory grounded in the data.

101

Findings

Externally Induced Provocative Moments and Self-Authorship

Although the majority of the participants (n = 73) did not self-author through their
externally induced provocative moment, the findings suggest it is possible for externally
induced provocative moments to lead to self-authorship. Twenty students (21.5% of
participants) showed signs of self-authorship in their decision-making process. Here self-
authorship is defined as a way of orienting oneself to provocative situations that
recognizes the contextual nature of knowledge, and balances this knowledge with the
development of internally defined goals and sense of self (see also Baxter Magolda,
2001; Kegan, 1994). For example, Holly’s orientation to her decision to remain in college
clearly illustrates self-authorship. She recognized the contextual nature of knowledge
when she recognized she had “a lot of possible options,” but saw that her situation
determined which was right—her lack of financial resources and parental support
Ultimately, Holly assessed all of these possible options by turning inward, and creating
“a solution that met all aspects of my life.” As she said, “I had goals and when it became
clear I couldn’t juggle two full time jobs and full time school, I had to discover a creative
way to make a living that paid well so I could finish my degree.” Reflection on her goals
helped Holly balance what she wanted—continuing in college—with the constraints of
her situation—her financial and time needs—with her contextual understanding of
knowledge—what counts as right in this situation depends on situational determinants.
F acilitative Interpretations of Decision-Making Situations

Closer examination of how Holly and students like her (n = 20) moved from

provocation to self-authorship suggests there were four key components to student

102

responses to provocative moments that facilitated self-authorship: (a) options, (b)
perception of decision-making possibility, (c) understanding of the implications of
possible options, and ((1) goals.

Options.

External induction of provocation seemed to begin with student perception of a
decision-making situation where they had more than one option regarding response to the
decision-making situation. Then in order for externally induced provocation to lead to
self-authorship, it appeared necessary for students to believe more than one of their
options was viable. If students only saw one of their options as viable, they tended to
make statements such as, “I had no actual options;” or “I only had one Leg] option.” In
these cases (n = 3), students did not self-author, but instead acted based on the one viable
option they perceived. For example, when Alisha found herself pregnant two months
before the start of her first semester, she knew she had two options: continue or abort the
pregnancy, but she only saw the former as viable. “I had noactual options. I needed to do
this [have the baby].” And when Natalie was put on academic probation she had to decide
whether she wanted to stay in school and try to improve her grades. She said, “I had no
options. My mom was in charge and she made me stay in school.” These students’
consideration of only one option as viable inhibited movement toward self-authorship
because they acted in response to a perception of viability without considering either
option fully.

Students who perceived multiple viable options in their decision-making situation
were more likely to self-author. For example, at the end of her sophomore year, Jessica

had to declare a major. She felt she had “many options,” and that some of the possibilities

103

were options because “they made me happy,” and others were options because “they
could get me where I wanted to be.” Because she had multiple viable options, she moved
toward self-authorship; “I had many options, and so I had to decide what was going to
make me happy in life and also was going to get me where I wanted to be.” Her
consideration of multiple perspectives and evaluation of them based on her goals for
herself helped her move toward self-authorship.

Decision-Making Possibility

While it might seem that if students perceived multiple viable options in their
decision-making situation they would also see decision-making as a real possibility, this
was not always the case. The two—options and decision-making possibility—are
separated here to indicate a difference in students who could perceive possible options
but did not feel able to act autonomously, and students who saw only a single option. In
fact 11 of the 93 participants saw options but did not feel decision-making was a real
possibility. This feeling typically arose because students felt they lacked sufficient power
to make a decision. For example, when Bree was accepted to an Historically Black
College (HBC) as a transfer student, she knew she could return to the Predominantly
White University she attended for her first year or she could go to the HBC. She saw both
as viable, “I could come back and be a mentor [Resident Assistant] or go to an HBC in
the South where I eventually want to live and become part of the LII—81m again.”
Ultimately, however, she had no power in the decision-making process, “My parents
made the decision.” Bree’s lack of decision-making power kept her from seeing decision-
making as a possibility, and ultimately kept her from appearing to move toward self-

authorship. Similarly, Eric carefully considered three high school options, but in the end

104

his parents made the decision, “They told me I was going to Catholic.” In both of these
examples, students’ self-authorship development looked impaired by their perception of
others as in control of decision-making.

If, on the other hand, students saw decision-making as a real possibility they were
more likely to move toward self-authorship, even when important authority figures
disagreed with their decisions. Tia’s decision not to run track clearly illustrates this point

The most important decision I’ve made was whether or not to run track in

college. I made this decision this year because my parents really wanted

me to run, but I didn’t want to. I hate track, but I am really good at it My

options were either to run or not run. I decided not to run. I decided if I

was going to run it would be for myself. All the other years I did it for my

parents, but this year I decided not to run.

The decision whether to run track was not unfamiliar to Tia. Both running and not
running were viable options—one would please her parents and the other would allow
her to do what she wanted—not run. Because both were viable options and she felt she
could make a decision in this situation, she was able to examine what she wanted and
choose not to run. Her perceptions of decision-making as a real possibility pushed her
toward self-authoring through her decision-making.

Implications of options.

In addition to recognizing more than one viable option, self-authoring students
also recognized the implications of their options. Here implications are considered
positive and negative consequences of their options on: students’ relationships with
others, goals for themselves, currently held beliefs and principles, and/or conception of

self. Megan’s decision not to go to a fraternity party shows she understood the

implications of her options.

105

My options were either to go the party after the fireworks or go watch a

movie, or go home, but that would be boring. I decided to go to my

friend’s house and watch a movie. I envisioned the trouble I could get into

with not knowing any of the guys at the party and who knows what they

would do to get me drunk and use me.

By knowing the implications of her options—one would be boring, another could get her
hurt, and another would avoid both of those outcomes—she was able to evaluate
effectively her options as she made her decision.

Merely being aware of the implications of one’s options, however, was not
enough to facilitate self-authorship. Ian recognized the possible implications of having
sex with his girlfriend, “I thought about having kids, taking a big step in the relationship
and got scared by both.” In spite of his consideration and dislike of the possible
implications, he “decided to do it because my older girlfriend wanted to.” So knowledge
of the implications seems to be a necessary but insufficient condition for self-authorship.

Goals.

Consideration of one’s goals in relation to the possible outcomes appeared to
separate self-authoring students acting based on the implications of their options, and
students who were aware of the implications of their options, but did not allow them to
guide their actions. Where Ian was not able to act based on his assessment of the
implications of his options, when Joe was presented with “the opportunity to get all the
answers,” to a final exam he considered and acted on the implications of his options. “I
weighed my options—I could take the cheat sheet or go in the exam on my own. I
thought, ‘What could happen if I use it’ I thought about being caught. . ..and that it would

be an easy A.” Ultimately he chose not to cheat, because one of his goals for himself was

to “live by a standard of morals,” and these morals would not allow him to cheat.

106

Lauren made her decision to marry her boyfriend of seven years based on her
assessment of her options and their implications. Her decision was catalyzed by two
different sources—her boyfriend proposing and a church job offer. About the former she
said, “We both knew we wanted to marry each other but our income wasn’t stable.” She
knew she wanted to get married, but she did not rush into this decision, and chose instead
to evaluate the decision’s practicality. The church job offer increased her disequilibrium
because although she and her boyfriend had been living together, she knew that if they
wanted the church job, they would be expected to “set the right example, trust God in our
finances, and get married.” It is important to note here that Lauren did not immediately
act based on what her religious community expected of her, but instead actively
considered two other options: “to keep living together and wait for another job
opportunity. . .and live apart and worry about supporting ourselves independently.” When
she finally decided to get married, she did so because after laying out all the implications
of each of her options, she considered her goals, which included: having “a leadership
position in the church,” having good benefits and health insurance, being with her
boyfriend, having a stable income, and getting married. Taking the church job best
satisfied all these goals. Her ability to assess her options and the impact of their
implications on her goals helped her make a decision that decreased her disequilibrium,
helped her reach her goals, and effectively balanced others’ expectations of her with her
own internally defined goals. Consideration and use of her goals in the decision-making

process helped Lauren move toward self-authorship.

107

Internally Defined Beliefs versus Acquired Beliefs

Lauren’s decision is important for two reasons. First it shows that self-authorship
can happen even when students make decisions popular with authorities. Self-authorship
often may involve autonomous actions separating students from important others,
community principles and expectations, and their own master plan. Or, as Lauren’s case
suggests, self-authorship can be present when students make decisions that fit with
other’s expectations of them if they use their own goals in assessment of their options.
Related to this idea, Lauren’s consideration of, but not reliance on either her faith in G-d
or her morals, points out an important distinction between using internally defined and
acquired beliefs in decision-making. Lauren and other students using internally defined
beliefs to guide their decision-making, typically considered their multiple and sometimes
competing goals, saw more than one right option, and relied heavily on intrapersonal and
cognitive decision-making strategies (e.g., attempts to balance competing perspectives,
reflection) when making decisions. Where students using internalized beliefs would
follow the expectations of their religious community, Lauren considered its expectations
and evaluated these expectations based on her intemally-defined goals and principles that
combined Christian beliefs, personal goals, and situational characteristics (e.g., income
and possible benefits); “I realized faith was important but there were at_l_e_as_t three good
options, not just the one church expected.”

Similarly, Kate (a White student) considered her parents’ expectations and
oppositional position to interracial dating when she found herself interested in a Black
man. She was raised to believe she “shouldn’t be interested in a Black guy” She said, “I

could listen to my parents and never speak to him again, or I could still be with him but

108

never speak to my parents again.” Rather than act in a way that fit with her parents’
expectations by internalizing their beliefs, Kate worked against these beliefs. In the
process, she constructed and worked from internally defined goals and beliefs.

I thought carefully about what my parents said and there really was no

virtuous reasoning behind their wishes. . .even though it’s caused m of

grief in my family I really believe dating should not be about the color of

people’s skin.
Kate’s ability to step back from what her parents expected of her and evaluate their
expectations based on her own internally defined beliefs helped her clarify her own
beliefs, enact them, and be able to articulate the rationale behind their actions. Her
decision, and the decisions of students working from internally defined beliefs are not
merely rebellious decisions, or decisions made because they feel right Rather they are
carefully constructed decisions grounded in the students’ internally defined beliefs.

Conversely, students holding acquired beliefs co-opted their beliefs from
important authority figures (e.g., parents, religious leaders) in their lives. As these
students made decisions, they relied heavily on external sources in decision-making,
appeared to work to undermine their own potential autonomy in decision-making, and
were not always satisfied with their final decision because it was not necessarily what
they most preferred to do. For example, against her own preferences, Nina agreed to lead
a Bible study in her residence hall because of her acquired belief in her “Christian
responsibility.” This decision came after “going to God every day in prayer and asking
Him what He wanted me to do. . .God really laid it on my heart to do it” Giving decision-

making control to G-d, Nina said “even though I wasn’t totally willing I knew that if] did

his will He would take care of the rest.” Like other students using internalized beliefs in

109

decision-making, Nina made decisions that best complemented her unquestioned beliefs
and principles without fully considering her own desires or goals.

Thus, through their ability to construct, defend, and work from internally defined
goals and/or principles, students using internalized beliefs were more able than students
working from acquired beliefs to: (a) act in ways consistent with their own desires, (b)
consider multiple options, (0) actively make their own decisions rather than relying on
directive advice from others, and ((1) move toward self-authorship through the
construction and use of internally defined goals, sense of self, and principles in their
decision-making processes.

Isolation and Connection in the Self-Authoring Process

Although self-authoring students were able to respond to externally induced
provocative moments in ways honoring their own goals, principles, and sense of self
(both currently held and desired), the movement from provocation to self-authorship was
often an isolating experience for the participants. Fourteen of the twenty students
showing signs of self-authorship described self-authorship as intensely isolating. For
example, Matt said his work to make his faith his own was “a hard road to travel with a
lot of opposition.” As he made his decision to come to college, Andrew knew his
decision would separate him from his family, because as a member of his family, “You
MUST work for the family like my father and his father.” Mailee’s self-authoring
decision to put her engagement “on probation” created a large gap between herself and
her fiance. And Cara’s decision to go away to college separated her more than physically
from her Chicago friends and community; “No one understood. It was like they wanted to

hold me back because they were afraid of what I was going to become just by going to

110

college.” As these students made decisions moving them toward self-authorship, they
seemed to self-author themselves out of their existing relationships and conceptions of
self — or at least externally imposed conceptions of self.

Students described the isolation they experienced as intense. The literal separation
from the majority or from an important other or group in their lives tended to physically
isolate students from previously important others or groups. The resulting isolation was
then compounded by ensuing emotional stress and developmental tension as the student
sought a way to make sense of the isolation and construct a sense of self separate from
the one internalized from or expected by others. For example, after September 11, 2001,
Zack “decide[d] to think for myself, stand up for myself, and. . .try not to let other people
get taken advantage of by the disgusting shows of nationalism and racism.” In deciding to
stand up for himself and the integrity of Arab Americans, Zack became a social outcast in
his high school, and this forced him to cope with the consequences of a decision that
made him feel like a “double minority,” because he was an ethnic minority who was
acting “un-American.”

Changes in students’ relationships with others appeared to mirror the cognitive
changes they were undergoing. As students cognitively made the subject-object shift
(Kegan, 1994)—from experiencing themselves and their situations as subject, to stepping
outside their experiences as they assessed the situation and purposefully directed their
actions and goals—they went from experiencing and receiving their identity from
relationships, to stepping outside of their relationships to assess their content and function
in their development toward their goals. In fact, students’ self-isolation practices often

appeared to be a prerequisite to the meta-cognitive capabilities necessary to self-

111

authorship. For Zack isolation was necessary so he could “evaluate what most people
thought and decide if it fit me, and if it didn’t, figure out what did.” Cara’s separation
from her home community and friends was important, “I wanted to come here because I
knew absolutely no one, and I wanted to see who I could be on my own, without people
telling me what to be, or what I can’t be.” And as Sam struggled to find his “true
interests,” he dropped out of school for a semester. He said he needed to be away from all
the noise to, “think about what I wanted to do, where I wanted to go.” In these and other
cases of self-isolation, isolation, while lonely and unpleasant, is not merely a retreat from
social interactions, but a step toward a better understanding and internal definition of
oneself, one’s goals, and sense of self.

Given this possible purpose for isolation then, it should not be surprising that
isolation was a step toward self-authorship. As students stepped away from past
relationships and possible understandings of themselves, they sought new communities
and new conceptions of themselves. In Cara’s case, she chose her university carefully.
She said she “wanted to go to a school with one of the highest minorities (Blacks) in
attendance,” because she was looking for a place where she could “see successful Black
students, and have Black friends who understood all the difficulties of being Black and
studious.” And Sam took time off from school to figure out which community to try to
become a part of. After one semester Sam returned to school and became a history major.
This switch from music to history helped Sam feel “challenged and fulfilled.” In other
words, what from one perspective appeared to be isolating behavior was actually often a
step toward new relationships or entrances into new communities where students could

try out new ways of being and knowing.

112

Discussion

By investigating how students respond to externally induced provocative
situations, this study builds on Baxter Magolda’s (2001) work on self-authorship
development, and her subsequent proposal of the Learning Partnerships Model. When
students experienced externally induced provocative moments, self-authorship was one of
the possible, but not typical outcomes. Approximately 22% of participants in this study
showed signs of self-authorship. Whether students moved from externally induced
provocative moments toward self-authorship seemed related to their ability to: (a)
perceive more than one viable response option to their situation, (b) possess appropriate
levels of power to actually make a decision, (c) assess the implications of their options,
and (d) use their internally defined goals to guide their assessment of their options. As
students moved toward self-authorship they often experienced intense levels of isolation.
And as students worked through this isolation they created situations where they had the
potential to further self-author, but on a more narrow, self-selected plane.

The findings of this study also specify particular areas where the LPM might be
helpful. While the majority of participants were able to see multiple viable response
options to their situation, feel able to make a decision, and assess the implications of their
options, most did not even mention their own goals, let alone use them to guide their
assessment of Options. Consequently, self-authorship was less frequent amongst these
participants, and students’ assessment of the implications of their options was adversely
affected. Without the ability to consider their goals, the only way students were able to
assess the implications of their options was through considering internalized moral codes

or religious beliefs, or by choosing what felt right without truly knowing why the feelings

113

were associated with the chosen Option. Decisions were often made based on immediate,
rather than long-term consequences. Thus it seems important for those using the LPM to
recognize that merely validating learners as knowers, situating learning in learner’s
experiences, and defining learning as a mutually constructive process, may not alone
produce self-authored students. For the LPM to be most effective, students need to
understand not just that they have the ability to know, but how to direct this ability, and
why this is important. Without such knowledge, students may be able to perform the
social construction of knowledge, but without internally defined goals and a sense of self,
the social construction will not involve the student’s own interests, goals and conception
of self. The student will remain isolated from the knowledge construction process.
Limitations and Areas for Future Research

There are multiple important limitations to note. First, the sample was small. Only
93 students, most of whom were White and female, described externally induced
provocative moments, and from this group, only 20 then moved toward self-authorship.
Although the fact that this group of 93 students emerged from a larger, and more
representative sample of .613 students suggests that perhaps White female students are
more likely than others to experience externally induced provocative moments, a larger
and more diverse sample would nonetheless be desirable in future studies so demographic
differences could be investigated. Additionally, with a larger sample, statistical testing of
the magnitude of relations could be performed. At present there were not enough cases
for such analyses.

Second, future studies of externally induced provocative moments in the

classroom seem important. It is interesting to note that not one student described a

114

classroom learning situation. Given that the LPM is in large part designed for use in the
classroom, investigation into whether and how externally induced provocative moments
can lead to self-authorship in the classroom seems a necessary next step.

Finally the conclusion that self-authorship can emerge from externally induced
provocative moments remains suspect. Although there is evidence that such moments can
push students to self-author, without a measure of self-authoring abilities prior to the
described situation, it is impossible to control for the student’s epistemological
orientation entering the situation. This is an important limitation because without such
control, it is not clear whether students self-authored because of externally induced
provocative moments, or whether students who showed signs of self-authorship were
more likely to move from provocation to self-authorship. In short, whether there is a
prerequisite level of epistemological development in order to self-author through
externally induced provocative moments remains to be determined.

Implications for Practice

The findings of this study have a variety of implications for practice both in and
out of the classroom. In the classroom, the findings suggest teachers should continue to
use constructivist teaching methods like the LPM, and should specifically help students
identify their own specific learning goals—both related to the content of specific classes,
and their broader learning goals—so they can better use their goals to guide their learning
processes and course choices. Furthermore, it seems important for instructors to teach
students to think metacognitively so they can direct and modify their learning processes
to better meet personal and classroom goals. Construction of such skills extends the LPM

beyond validating students as knowers and showing them knowledge is socially

115

constructed by helping them develop the tools necessary to first develop their own goals,
and then engage in goal-directed behavior.

Choosing a major by an institutionally determined time was the most common
externally induced provocative moment related directly to academics. Thus it seems that
academic advisors may be able to play an important role in helping students self-author
through externally induced provocative moments. By helping students more closely
consider their long term goals for themselves, and why they have these particular goals,
students may be able to move beyond considering the immediacy of the situation and the
immediate implications of their options (e.g., what classes they have to take). Helping
students synthesize all the implications of particular options may help students be less
overwhelmed by requirements, and instead see how their possible choices may play into
larger goals they have for themselves in the future.

Many students described decisions that focused on the question of who got to
determine what they did and who they became. For most students this tension centered
around their conflict between pleasing their parents or making a choice for themselves.
Such conflicts happened in academic decisions, but also in decisions regarding
participation in athletics, choice of significant others, and moral decisions. Thus it seems
important for student affairs professionals, advisors, and counselors to help students
develop decision-making skills. More specifically, while helping students lay out options
and consider the implications of their options it seems particularly important for students
to understand and construct goals for themselves, and to find a way to negotiate between
their goals and their parents’ goals for them when the two conflict. In short in any

advising or counseling situation, it may be helpful if the advisor or counselor helps the

116

students identify what they want and why. The latter is particularly important. If students
can identify what they want but do not know why, they are unlikely to work from their
own specific goals, but rather a desire to try something new, be rebellious, or do
something because it feels right. By helping students reflect on the reasoning and hopes
behind their desires and goals, they are more likely to engage in the type of reflective
thinking that will help them create increasingly more specific goals and desires, and use
them to guide their actions. Finally, as in classroom situations, helping students construct
and use metacognitive and self-regulatory abilities should help students direct their
behavior in ways that will facilitate their goal achievement.
Conclusion

The existing literature on self-authorship development focuses on such
development arising from student-defined Crossroads—moments when students
experiences intense disequilibrium because they realize they feel unsatisfied or
unfulfilled because they have been ignoring their own desires, needs, and/or goals. While
certainly important to the development of collective understanding of self-authorship,
such work cannot address questions such as whether if externally induced situations can
be effective Crossroads for students, or why some students experience situations as
Crossroads while others in the midst of the same situations do not. This study begins to
investigate these issues and the findings suggest externally induced situations can be
effective Crossroads for students if they respond to these situations with particular
orientations that not only allow them to make a decision between multiple viable options,
but also allow them to use their own goals to guide their decision-making. The findings

also begin to clarify the purpose of the isolation described by students here and in

117

existing studies of self-authorship (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001). Isolation may be the
beginning of students’ construction of a new community and testing out of a new sense of

self, an early step in self-authoring behavior.

118

CHAPTER SIX
EMERGING UNDERSTANDINGS OF SELF-AUTHORSHIP AND THE LEARNING
PARTNERSHIPS MODEL: A GENERAL DISCUSSION

Two general questions drove the research reported in this dissertation: (a) Can
college students self-author, and if so, what does self-authorship look like in college
students? And (b) what affects development and experience of self-authorship? Data
from this project suggest that despite the rather infrequent displays of self—authorship,
college students may possess the capacity to self-author, and occasionally enact this
capacity. When students display self-authoring behaviors, their behaviors appear to arise
in response to provocative moments, and out of their abilities to combine cognitive and
intrapersonal skills in coping with inter- and intrapersonal tensions. Furthermore, since
student displays of self-authorship seem linked to both an experience of provocative
moments and perceptions of environments supportive of self-authoring behavior, the
collective findings of this project suggest it may be possible to facilitate self-authorship
in college students. Analysis of participant stories specified ways in which students could
be scaffolded in their movement from provocation to self-authorship.

In this chapter I synthesize the findings from the four individual studies reported
in chapters two through five. Beginning with an exploration of theoretical implications
for understanding what self-authorship is, how it develops and publicly emerges, through
how to promote self-authorship, I will discuss the general findings of this dissertation

with respect to their implications for both theory and practice.

119

What is Self-Authorship?

Building on the work of Kegan (1994), Baxter Magolda (2001, 2004a, 2004b),
claimed self-authorship was the outcome of student integration of three lines of
development: cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Self-authoring students’
epistemological assumptions, sense of self, and social interactions were driven by
internally defined goals, values, and identities. According to Baxter Magolda (2004a),

Self-authorship is the capacity to internally define a coherent belief system and

identity that coordinates engagement in mutual relations with the larger world.

This internal foundation yields the capacity to actively listen to multiple

perspectives, critically interpret those perspectives in light of relevant evidence

and the internal foundation, and make judgments accordingly. (p. xxii)

Rather than subjugating themselves to others’ expectations, formulas, or logic, self-
authored knowers in Baxter Magolda’s (2001) study intertwined their understanding of
logic, complexity, and contextuality with their internal foundations, as they constructed
knowledge and made decisions. A return to Kegan’s theoretical work further clarifies
what self-authorship is. According to Kegan, self-authored knowers can logically make
decisions in a way that recognizes their own goals and needs, and those of others, and the
process of decision-making and knowledge construction reflect an understanding of
mutuality. No one position is privileged. Decision-making is not about solving a problem,
but about transformation of self as all involved in the decision-making discover more
about themselves.

This existing work on self-authorship described moments when knowers’
cognitive capacity to self-author was reflected in their actions (e.g., Baxter Magolda,

2001, 2003, 2004b; Kegan, 1994). Both Kegan’s theoretical work on and Baxter

Magolda’s empirical study of self-authorship development focus on moments when

120

knowing and acting are congruent; knowers’ actions reflect their integration of
epistemological assumptions and personal goals. The findings here, however, suggest
there are two forms of self-authorship: (a) self-authoring reasoning and (b) self-authoring
action. The ability to assess situations and construct knowledge in ways that acknowledge
the contextual nature of reality and one’s own internally defined goals, values, beliefs,
and sense of self is captured in self-authoring reasoning. Self-authoring action then
represents actions consistent with one’s reasoning abilities. It is important to note here
that because reasoning abilities encompass epistemic assumptions and depth of identity
development, reasoning is not purely cognitive, but rather both cognitive and
intrapersonal. Subsequent action then takes the ideas developed cognitively and
intrapersonally into the interpersonal arena. This split between reasoning and action is
similar to Kohlberg’s (1975) differentiation between moral reasoning and moral action.
Here the reasoning-action split reflects findings showing that although some students
may be able to reason in self-authored ways, their actual behaviors may or may not be
consistent with their reasoning. I

Bree’s decision to return to her Predominantly White Institution after being
accepted to an Historically Black College (HBC) (described in chapter 5, p. 99)
demonstrates the split between reasoning and action. Her processing of the situation
showed signs of self-authored reasoning. She considered her options, the benefits and
consequences of each option, and assessed the implications of these options based on her
own goals for herself, and what she thought would ultimately be best for her in the
situation. “I could come back and be a mentor [resident assistant] or go to an HBC in the

South where I eventually want to live and become part of the maigg'ty again.” Despite her

121

ability to reason in ways suggestive of self-authorship, Bree did not transfer to the HBC
because her parents decided she was going to stay where she was. This example implies
that whether students can act in self-authored ways may in part depend on whether the
situation they find themselves is supportive of self-authorship. Said otherwise, Bree could
reason in self-authored ways, but her decision, coupled with her statement that “My
parents made the decision,” do not seem self-authored. The inconsistency between her
reasoning and action may be due to her perception that her situation did not permit self-
authorship, or that the cost of self-authorship would be too great. If her parents decided
she was staying, it is certainly possible that if she chose to exert her self-authoring
abilities, she would have faced potentially serious repercussions from her parents.

Does this mean knowers can self-author without acting? No. In fact, Bree did take
action in this decision. She chose to follow her parents’ decision for her, rather than carry
out the decision in the way she initially preferred. On the surface this does not appear to
be a display of self-authorship. But if self-authored reasoning is separated from self-
authored action it has more potential to be viewed as self-authoring for two reasons. First,
there is evidence that Bree processed her decision-making situation in ways suggestive of
self-authored reasoning. Second, Kegan’s (1994) fifth order of consciousness“-self-
authorship—emphasizes that self-authorship does not mean such knowers always get
what they want, but privileges the embracing of complexity of situations and identities.
He said such knowers would approach conflict by saying:

The protracted nature of our conflict suggests not just that the other side will not

go away, but that it probably should not The conflict is a likely consequence of

one or both of us making prior, true, distinct, and whole our partial position. The
conflict is potentially a reminder of our tendency to pretend to completeness when

we are in fact incomplete. We may have this conflict because we need it to
recover our truer complexity. (p. 319)

122

Given that self-authored conflict resolution involves recognizing the importance of and
reasoning behind the opposing position, it seems possible that occasionally deciding not
to follow through with one’s original intentions, and to instead to follow the advice of
others, may not preclude the possibility that such action is in fact self-authored.
Furthermore, because decisions are made within the context of relationships, with the
limitation of time, and in the context of both immediate and long-term goals, it seems
appropriate to hypothesize that students who show signs of being able to reason in self-
authored ways but choose to act in ways seemingly inconsistent with their reasoning, may
in fact be making a decision that shows signs of self-authorship in an arena larger than
the immediate decision. Without more information, whether Bree’s decision to follow her
parents’ advice was an act of self-authorship remains unclear. Despite this lack of clarity,
this example pushes for the consideration that self-authorship may not always look like a
rejection of others’ advice or positions, and that sometimes self-authored reasoning may
not yield self-authored actions.

In sum then, self-authorship appears to be an orientation toward situations that
recognizes the contextual nature of reality, and balances this knowledge with internally
defined goals, values, beliefs, and sense of self. This self-authored orientation may take
the form of either reasoning or reasoning and action. The development of a self-authored
orientation, and factors affecting whether this self-authored reasoning can translate into
related action, are discussed in the following two sections.

How does Self-Authorship Devel0p?
Through analysis of 35 institutionally-identified high-risk students, chapter two

proposed a model of self-authorship development specific to these students and their

123

process of becoming college students (see model on pg. 34). Although specific to the
pursuit of college student possible selves in these 35 hi gh-risk students, taken out of the
context of achieving collegiate aspirations, the model suggests a general model of self-
authorship development. Experiences lead to provocation, and movement from
provocation to self-authorship is influenced by students’ schemata for making sense of
their provocative situation. Achievement of self-authorship arises from schema
development and action consistent with schema development. Figure 4 illustrates this
trajectory, and how movement along it is related to Baxter Magolda’s (2001) phases of

self-authorship development.

 

 

The Crossroads Becoming the Author of One’s Life & Internal

(Baxter Magolda, 2001) Foundations (Baxter Magolda, 2001)

Experience _, Potentially > Possible Self_> Enacting_., Goal
Provocative Outcome Schemas Achievement
Moment Schemas (Possibly Self-

Author d Action)

Construc 'ng & Assessing
Schemas
(Self-Authored Reasoning)

 

Figure 4: Decontextualized Proposed Model of Self-Authorship Development

Based on this model, self-authorship is directly linked to student construction and
assessment of goal-specific schemas. Such a linkage implies that although provocation is
important to the facilitation of self-authorship, it is not a sufficient condition for self-
authorship emergence or development Rather it is the process of becoming schematic for

goal achievement in the provocative situation that is hypothesized here to be most

124

strongly related to self-authorship. The following two subsections take a closer look at
both parts of this model: provocation and schematics.
Provocation

Chapter four statistically confirmed the importance of provocation in self-
authoring, and then described how provocation is influenced by student characteristics,
situation characteristics, and the driving purpose behind the students’ decision-making.
More specifically the findings of this project suggest self-authorship is most likely to
emerge when students approach new decisions with high levels of volitional efficacy in
spite of perceived obstacles, if self-regulation is their primary source of behavior
regulation, and the situation is internally catalyzed. In regards to decision-making
purpose, the purposes most strongly associated with experiences of provocation (i.e., to
plan for possible selves, to alleviate epistemological distress, or to alleviate emotional
distress) all dealt with challenges to students’ sense of self by calling into question how
they know or cope, and/or who they are. Thus it seems that experiences of situations as
provocative are related to students entering situations able to self-regulate, and with a
willingness to persist at problem-solving or sense-making in the face of obstacles. If this
is the case, and students can interpret their situations in a way that helps them identify the
root of their discomfort and/or problem (e.g., purposes such as to plan for a possible self,
or to alleviate epistemological dissonance), rather than only seeing a general purpose of
getting through the situation or having fun (e. g., to respond to an immediate situation, or
to be amused or satisfied), they may be more likely to experience provocative moments.
Coupling these findings relative to the provocative moment with the findings from

chapter two, figure 5 emerges.

125

 

 

The Crossroads (Baxter Magolda, 2001)

 

 

 

 

 

Salience of Volitional

Efficacy \

Primary Source of ___> Decision-Making Potentially Provocative
Behavior Regulation Purpose Moment '

/

Figure 5: Proposed Factors Affecting Provocation

Catalyst

 

 

 

Focusing solely on further detailing the first part of figure 4, this figure illustrates
the proposed factors affecting whether students experience situations as provocative. The
combination of student and situation characteristics influencing provocation suggests that
whether a student experiences a situation as provocative is only partially due to situation
characteristics. Thus if researchers seek to understand provocation, or practitioners desire
to create provocative moments, student characteristics must be considered in addition to
those of the situation. Until now, the defining quality of moments considered to be The
Crossroads, was student experience of disequilibrium relative to their current conception
of self, actions, and ways of knowing (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Clarification of the factors
affecting provocation points out not only potentially necessary components of Crossroad
moments, but also emphasizes the individuality of The Crossroads. Whether students are

likely to experience provocation intense enough to lead to classification of the moment as

126

The Crossroads, has at least as much to do with student characteristics likely to support
provocation, as the situation.
Schemas and Self-Authorship

Provocation, although important, did not always lead to self-authorship.
Movement from provocation to self-authorship is illustrated in the part of Figure 4
dealing with schemas. According to the findings across chapters, movement from
provocation to self-authorship was most common among students primarily using
cognitive and intrapersonal decision-making strategies. Such strategies included the
consideration of external circumstances, attempts to balance competing ideas, asking
oneself questions, and reflecting on long-term benefits and consequences of different
options. Through assessment of options based on what they wanted, and what others
expected, or situations required, students using cognitive and intrapersonal decision-
making strategies typically moved from provocation to self-authorship.

By focusing on schema development related to achievement of the college student
possible self, the findings from chapter two further clarify the types of cognitive and
intrapersonal strategies facilitative of self-authorship. Participants’ stories of becoming
college students supported the notion that institutionally identified hi gh-risk students of
color—typically face considerable challenges in becoming college students, and even
when they do develop college student possible selves, their sense of what this means and
how to achieve their goals remains vague (e.g., Brantlinger, 1993; Pizzolato, in press).
This gap between aspirations and knowledge of how to attain them, coupled with the lack
of resources they had, provided a prime opportunity for students to self-author, because

there was not a formula for them to follow, and they needed to be strongly committed to

127

their internally defined goals in the face of multiple threats. To move from aspiring to be
college students to actually becoming college students, these students needed to develop
schemas. The findings support the importance of procedural schemas (e.g., information
regarding important steps to becoming college students) (e.g., Cross & Markus, 1994),
but add an additional schema type—conceptual schemas. The addition of the conceptual
schema broadens schematas to include not only how to become a particular possible self,
but the intra- and interpersonal dimensions of possible self development. These
dimensions seemed particularly important to these students as they coped with both
internal and external challenges to and doubts concerning their achievement of their
college student possible selves, and it was through the construction and working through
of these schemas, that self-authorship emerged.

Chapter three’s findings relative to the importance of perceptions of volitional
capacity (PVC) and self-regulation in challenging situations (SRC) takes schemas out of
the specific context of hi gh-risk students achieving college student possible selves. The
strong correlation between PVC, SRC, and self-authorship, suggests that the ability to
commit to and work toward a particular goal in the face of obstacles is important to self-
authorship emergence. Beyond emphasizing the importance of effectively coping with
challenge, this finding from chapter three helps clarify the differential effect of enacting
schemas and constructing and assessing schemas on self-authorship development. If
students have readily accessible formulas to follow (i.e., procedural schemas), and
support for goal achievement, then they can merely enact procedural schemas to achieve
their particular goal(s). On the other hand, if students lack an understanding of how to

achieve their goals and there are no easily accessible procedural schemas, they are not

128

supported in their goal achievement process, or their particular goal is encouraged, but
adequate resources are not available, then these students need to construct and assess
schemas. They need to figure out how to achieve their goals, and what the implications of
choosing to work towards their goals will mean for them—personally and relationally.
Given the lack of adequate resources, these students will likely need high levels of
volition and self-regulation as they construct, assess, and ultimately enact schemas for
their particular goal(s).

In short, the finding in chapter two regarding the inhibitory effect of college
admissions privilege on self-authorship, is generalized here to the effect of schema
development on self-authorship. The more schematic students are for their particular
goal, the less likely they may be to self-author during the goal achievement process. Thus
it seems that movement from provocation to self-authorship is most likely if students
have the volitional capacity to achieve aspirations, but must construct their own formula
for success by way of procedural and conceptual schemas.

What Ajfects Expression of Self-Authorship?

Figure 4 presents the general proposed model of self-authorship development, but
does not speak to moments of inconsistency between reasoning and action. Chapters four
and five, however, suggest such incongruence may occur.

Students may reason in self-authored ways, but then act in ways that do not
appear consistent with such reasoning if they do not see their decision-making situation
as supportive of self-authored action. By this I mean that students’ actions may not seem
to match their reasoning if, in their assessment of options, they believe repercussions of

acting based on their initial internally defined goals would be too negative. As in Bree’s

129

college transfer decision described earlier, Eric’s decision to go to a Catholic high school
appeared to be made by following formulas. He said, “They [his parents] told me I was
going to Catholic.” Although his actions do not seem illustrative of self-authored action,
they are not the result of merely following his parents’ directions. Prior to choosing to
follow his parents’ wishes he considered two other high school options in addition to the
Catholic school. He evaluated each based on programs offered, caliber of academics,
graduation rates, where graduates went to college, and the impact of the distance of the
school on his local friendships and ability to participate in community activities. He
considered both what he wanted from his high school experience, and what he wanted in
his personal life when making his high school decision. In his process he displayed self-
authoring reasoning.

The mismatch between reasoning and action may then be interpreted as
underdeveloped self-authoring capabilities, or the absence of self-authorship altogether.
Given the power differential inherent in parent—child relationships, however, it seems
possible that adolescents and college students may sometimes find self-authored action
too risky to enact—especially if they are living in their parents’ house and/or are
financially dependent on their parents. In an attempt to balance both their own
development and goal achievement with the maintenance of healthy relationships with
their parents, adolescents and college students may make choices that appear to negate
their reasoning skills. Because self-authorship is distinguished from independent (Baxter
Magolda, 1992), subjective (Belenky et al., 1986), and multiplistic (Perry, 1968) ways of
knowing, where knowers make decisions exclusively based on their gut instinct and what

they think is right for them, self-authorship may be able to include decisions that do not

130

appear rooted in what the student initially thought was best Said otherwise, since self-
authorship balances internally defined goals with an understanding that what counts as
best or right depends on the context, such balancing may lead some to occasionally
determine that what is best in a particular situation, is to follow the other party’s advice.
This may be particularly true for students largely dependent on their parents/family
members by virtue of age.

Kegan (1994) claimed self-authorship was not a way of knowing consumed with
winning or governed purely by the principles of logic, but rather focused on
understanding opposing and new positions, and finding balance. And Baxter Magolda
(2001, 2004) stated that healthy mutual relationships are a cornerstone of self-authorship.
That said, balance and healthy mutual relationships cannot be attained by constantly
creating conflict, acting exclusively on what one wants, or rejection of the advice,
expectations, or desires of important others with whom one is in relation. Thus it seems
plausible that self-authored knowers will engage in options assessment in decision-
making situations, where assessment is driven by a balance between one’s relational, as
well as personal goals. This type of assessment may then lead to decisions that do not
appear self-authored on the surface. If it is possible for students to reason but not act in
self-authored ways, two important implications emerge: (a) self-authorship is a
situational orientation, and (b) identification of self-authorship via behavior/action only is
incomplete identification.

Self-Authorship as Situational
Because self-authorship has been considered the pinnacle of development arising

from a complete integration of cognitive/epistemic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal

131

development, self-authored action and self-authored reasoning have not been separated in
the existing literature (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2004; Kegan, 1994). The data from
this project, however, suggest self-authored reasoning may not always yield self-authored
action, if options assessment leads the student to believe self-authored action may not be
the best option in the given situation. Given the potential importance of options
assessment then, self-authorship may be best considered situational; whether students act
on self-authored reasoning may be related to the degree to which they perceive the
situation to be supportive of self-authorship. Here supportive means self-authored action
will not negatively impact students’ ability to maintain or reach other personal,
professional, or relational goals in excessive amounts.

The importance of options assessment in self-authored action suggests that while
self— authorship development may be linear, once a self-authored orientation has been
developed, actual public expression of self-authorship may be situational. This possibility

is depicted in Figure 6.

 

F

Developed Internal Foundations——->

Reasoning-Action
Congruence

A

 

Perception of Risk & Support
V for Self-Authored Action

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subsequent Provocative
Moments

 

 

 

Figure 6: Proposed Model of Self-Authorship Development & Expression

The idea of situational self-authorship leads to four potential expressions related

132

to self-authorship. These expressions of self-authorship are outlined in Table 19.

 

 

Self-Authored Action Non Self-Authored Action
Self-Authored Expression 1 : Action consistent Expression 2: Action
Reasoning with reasoning; both action and inconsistent with reasoning;
reasoning evidencing self- action appears non self-
authorship authored, but reasoning shows
signs of self-authorship
Non Self-Authored Expression 3: Action Expression 4: Action
Reasoning inconsistent with reasoning; consistent with reasoning;

action suggestive of self-
authorship, but underlying

reasoning ability not present.

neither action nor reasoning

indicative of self-authorship

 

Table 19: Self-Authorship Expression Matrix
Research Implications of the Reasoning-Action Split

Expression four is clearly not self-authored on any level, but the other three
expressions have the potential to be identified as self—authoring. Whether self-authorship
is assessed by behavior or by reasoning skills, students falling into expression one will be
identified as self-authoring, because both their reasoning and actions are consistent with
the self-authored orientation. Students falling into expression categories two and three,
however, may be mis-identified depending on the form of assessment used. Students

grouped in expression two are students like Eric and Bree, who may make decisions that

133

seem inconsistent with their reasoning because options assessment leads them to choose
options other than their initially preferred option.

With expression three, if self-authorship is assessed by behaviors, some students
may be classed as self-authoring, when in fact they cannot reason in self-authored ways.
Without the underlying ability to cognitively synthesize intrapersonal goals, sense of self,
and epistemic assumptions, action cannot be self-authored, because it is not being guided
by internal foundations, but rather by gut instinct, rebellious desires, or a desire for
satisfaction or amusement. For example, a student who makes a decision to reject her
parents’ desire for her to be a math major, and instead pursue a journalism major, may or
may not be self-authoring in this decision. If the student makes this decision because she
truly wants to be a journalist, has thought out the implications of this decision, and
following some reflection on the implications of this decision, has gone through the
process of switching majors, she may be self-authoring. If, however, the student makes
this decision purely to be rebellious, then it is not a self-authored decision. Without
knowledge about the motivation behind the decision, actions may be labeled self-
authoring, when they are not. In understanding motivation then, it is important to clarify
what students mean when they use words or phrases like “want,” or “best for me,”
because they can signify independent knowing or self-authored knowing. If a student
wants to do something because it feels right it is independent knowing. If a student wants
to do something because it is most consistent with internally defined goals, it is more
likely to be self-authoring.

In addition to misidentifying students based on reasoning-action incongruence, it

also seems important to emphasize the importance of assessing self-authorship by both

134

reasoning and action so that students who self-author through actions consistent with
others’ expectations are not misidentified. Although self-authorship typically may emerge
or be displayed through actions that separate students from the majority, important others,
or community principles, this may not always be the case. Lauren’s case, described in
chapter five, illustrated how a student could self-author while meeting the expectations of
her faith community. If Lauren’s ability to self-author was assessed by her actions only, it
would be easy for the self-authoring reasoning to go unnoticed, and so her actions would
seem indicative of formula following, rather than acting in ways consistent with her self-
authored reasoning. Though likely less frequent, students may act in self-authored ways
while still acting in ways consistent with community standards and expectations of
authority figures.
Reconsidering The Learning Partnerships Model

By clarifying what self-authorship looks like in college students, and the factors
affecting both its development and displays of self-authorship, these findings collectively
speak to The Learning Partnerships Model (LPM) (Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2004c). More
specifically, through description of underlying student characteristics influencing the
experience of provocation, and methods associated with movement from provocation to
self-authorship, the findings of this project allow for speculation on additional ways of
interpreting and enacting the core principles of the LPM. As the LPM is designed as a
way to facilitate self-authorship development in the context of higher education (Baxter
Magolda, 2001, 2004c; Baxter Magolda & King, 2004), bringing the findings of this

project to bear on the interpretation of the LPM seems an important step.

135

At the center of the LPM are three core assumptions: (a) portray knowledge as
complex and socially constructed, (b) self is central to knowledge construction, and (c)
share authority and expertise. According to Baxter Magolda (2001, 2004c), enacting
these assumptions will push students toward self-authorship. The three principles for
enacting the core assumptions are: (a) validate learners’ capacity to know, (b) situate
learning in learner’s experience, and (c) define learning as mutually constructing
meaning. While these principles together speak to constructivist teaching and learning
strategies, operationalizing these principles is challenging for two reasons. First, the
diversity of perspectives within constructivism—from cognitive psychology to socio-
cultural and situative perspectives—makes it difficult to interpret key terms to the LPM,
such as “learning,” and “situate learning.” Constructivist beliefs are diverse, and
depending on where a particular theory or scholar falls on this continuum, there are
different understandings of instructional goals, learning, assessment practices, and units
of analysis in research (e. g., Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996; Cobb & Bowers, 1999;
Cobb & Yackel, 1996; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Greeno, Pearson, &
Schoenfeld, 1997; Hay & Barab, 1999; Prawat & Floden, 1994).

The relative newness of the LPM compounds this definitional problem. Examples
of the guiding principles in action are few. The small number of examples makes it
challenging to determine where on the constructivist continuum the LPM falls. Lack of
clarity on this issue is problematic in that it leaves open interpretation and
operationalization of the principles. If the LPM is to produce a particular outcome—self-
authorship—consistency in interpretation and implementation seems important. By

coupling the implications of findings from this study with existing work on the LPM and

136

implementation of the LPM, the following sections aim to further clarify the principles
both in theory and in terms of practical application.
The Self in Self-Authorship

Since self-authorship involves the use of internally defined goals, values, beliefs,
and conceptions of self in negotiating the contextual nature of reality (e. g., Baxter
Magolda, 2001; Kegan, 1994), the self is necessarily important to the development and
employment of a self-authored orientation. Thus it is not surprising that existing literature
describing models of practice consistent with the LPM begin with self-discovery or self-
reflection. In Piper and Buckley’s (2004) description of the community standards model
in campus housing at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, residents’ experiences and
expectations drive and maintain community standards in residence halls. Egart and Healy
(2004) describe an internship program that begins by asking student-participants to write
about their calling in life, and scaffolds their development through the program via
journal writing that asks them to reflect on particular aspects of their experience. And a
major component of a diversity course involved student reflection on their own culture as
manifested in their family and their communities (Homak & Ortiz, 2004).

The centrality of personal experience is congruent with learning goals in each of
these examples, and recognition of this relation seems to enhance outcomes. When one is
part of the living community she or he is trying to create and maintain, personal
experience will necessarily play into conflict negotiation, standard development, and
issues of accountability to the community. Similarly, inclusion of personal writing
exercises and self-reflection during participation in an internship program seems

consistent with goals of helping students identify their expectations of their internships,

137

learn to interact effectively with others, and be successful at the internship site. Finally, in
the case of the diversity course, the authors argue for the necessity of locating learning in
students’ lived experiences for content learning to be most likely to happen.

When programs or training begin early with the topic of White privilege, students

resist and “tune-out,” often because groundwork has not been established to help

students ease into the topic of White privilege. The framework [Ortiz & Rhoads’s

(2000) Multicultural Education Framework] addresses this problem by beginning

with an examination of culture and one’s place in the evolution of culture. . ..this is

a more favorable, less threatening place to begin multicultural education. (Homak

& Ortiz, 2004, p. 92)

In these cases learning is situated in students’ lived experiences. Students are validated as
knowers by placing their experiences at the center of knowing process, which in turn
suggests they enter the classroom with valuable knowledge. And learning is defined as
mutually constructing meaning by inviting the students to work together—with peers
and/or the instructor—to make sense of their experiences.

Although the LPM seems to fit onto these contexts easily, the common theme of
connection to experiences in students’ personal lives initially seems to be an obstacle to
application of the LPM to contexts where such a connection is not as clear (e.g., a linear
algebra class or a physical chemistry class). In fact the only example of practices
consistent with the LPM in such a course comes from Baxter Magolda’s (1999) work on
constructive-developmental pedagogy and student development in a math course and a
biology course. In her analysis of these contexts, Baxter Magolda (1999, 2004c) claimed
they were successful at moving students toward self-authorship because they pushed
students to develop their own understandings of scientific or mathematical ideas, and see

that knowledge in these domains was not merely an accumulation of facts. The findings

from my dissertation serve to further specify the guiding LPM principles and associated

138

practices that may effectively facilitate self-authorship regardless of the degree to which
the context is connected to students’ personal lives.

The findings presented in chapters four and five contribute to understanding the
LPM. First chapter five provides evidence that provocation can be externally induced
(see chapter five). Then chapters three, four, and five together comment on the conditions
most likely to (a) induce provocation (e.g., self-regulatory abilities and volitional
efficacy), and (b) help students move from provocation to selflauthorship (e.g., options
assessment guided by internal foundations). These findings imply that there are
prerequisite skills and/or attitudes students must develop before provocation sufficient for
self-authorship can be induced. Thus it seems that when seeking to promote self-
authorship, implementation of the LPM must be concerned with such skill development,
or else students may experience disequilibrium but not provocation. Without the tools to
cope with the disequilibrium, students may find such experiences overwhelming and so
disengage, thus cutting off the potentially provocative moment. King and Baxter
Magolda (2004) touch on this idea in their statement that effective implementation of the
LPM requires a curriculum that recognizes learners’ entering abilities and supports their
movement from these entering abilities toward self-authorship. I argue here that in
addition to considering students’ prior content knowledge, underlying epistemic
assumptions, ways of seeing themselves, and ways of seeing themselves in relation to
others, consideration of students’ dominant form of behavior regulation and degree of

volitional efficacy are key.

139

Validating Learners’ Capacity to Know through Skill Development

Translating this idea into the language of the three principles, validating learners’
capacity to know means helping learners feel comfortable in their problem-solving
abilities in moments when they do not know what to do or what the answer is or should
be. In doing so, students’ volitional efficacy may be enhanced, and students may develop
and learn to rely on their self-regulatory abilities rather than revert to dependence on
formulas or gut instinct when they are faced with a challenging problem or situation.

The Meaning of Experience in “Situating Learning in Learners ’ Experience ”

Inclusion of these skills shifts understanding of what it means to situate learning
in learners’ experience. Experience need not be constrained to students’ personal lives or
even to students’ experiences with context relevant manipulatives (e.g., laboratory
equipment, or number blocks), but instead can be expanded to include student
experiences mentally grappling with concepts or ideas central to the context To situate
learning in leamer’s experience does not mean learning must endlessly involve hands—on
activities or connections to personal experience, but instead-means that learning should
involve students in actively making sense of major concepts and ideas in the context, and
pushing students to consider the implications of how they are constructing knowledge.
Such active sense-making means that direct experience or recounting of direct experience
may occur and be appropriate, but it also means that experience may not always be
activity-based. This clarification seems important for two reasons. First, it provides a
clearer sense of what it would mean to situate learning in learners’ experience in a
context like calculus or quantum mechanics, where the phenomena and concepts are

abstract and not easily connected to students’ personal life experiences. Secondly, this

140

broadening of experiences solves the practical problem of always having to provide
students with manipulatives and direct, first-hand experience with the phenomenon under
study.

Mutually Constructing Meaning, Learning-Centered Education.

Explicitly stating that experience may not always involve activities or be
connected to students’ personal lives emphasizes the importance of the experience of
learning over any particular type of learning experience. By this I mean that if situating
learning in leamer’s experience is about focusing on creating experiences that propel
students toward self-authorship, rather than trying to force connections to students’
personal lives or create activities merely for the sake of discovery-based learning, then it
is important to note that the LPM may actually be more leaming-centered than student-
centered. This notion does not appear to diverge drastically from King & Baxter
Magolda’s (2004) conception of the LPM, in that their discussion of the LPM
emphasized finding ways to facilitate self-authorship development by way of designing
“a well-designed ‘curriculum’ that offers a series of experiences that are close enough to
the learners’ current experience to be meaningful yet involve increasingly complex goals
as the learner moves through the curriculum” (p. 318). This focus on designing
experiences to scaffold student movement toward self-authorship is consistent with my
hypothesis that to be most effective, the focus of the LPM may best be placed in the
construction of appropriately disequilibrizing experiences, rather than waiting for
students to enter a Deweyan “teachable moment” which may or may not be aligned with
content learning goals, and will likely not happen at the same time for all students (see

also Prawat, 2000).

141

Under this interpretation then, mutual construction of meaning should involve
students working with other students and their instructor or other authority figure to
process experiences with the content, and content-related experiences. Authority figures
should invite students to share their ideas and opinions, and seek to understand their
origin. In this way, students’ experience with the content is central to learning, and
students can be validated as knowers (insofar as authorities seek out their ideas), while
also helping students understand how their ideas connect to the content at hand.

Through focus on student experience with the content, rather than more generally
on student experiences, students may begin to feel increasingly more competent as
knowers in that specific domain, and should simultaneously be developing skills in meta-
cognition (by being asked about the origin of their ideas), and volitional efficacy and self-
regulation (by acquiring problem-solving tools and confidence) that they can take with
them into new contexts.

It is important to recognize that a shift to focusing on content-specific experiences
is not a shift away from student development outcomes, but a deliberate move in an
attempt to enhance these outcomes. If it is relevant, inclusion of experiences from
students’ personal lives and hands-on activities are encouraged. I merely point out here
that such activities may not always be relevant, possible, or the most effective means by
which to achieve all the goals of a given context

Finally, the focus on the particular skills that I put forth here is largely motivated
by an interesting finding from my data. In order to learn about the micro-processes and
factors involved in self-authorship, I asked participants to write short narratives about

how they worked through an important decision or experience of their own selection. The

142

results in chapters four and five are based on this data. Of the 613 narratives analyzed in
chapters four and five, and an additional set of 604 narratives from the same participants,
a total of 1217 participant-selected important decisions or experiences were recounted.
Not one narrative was about a classroom learning experience. Although students
described decisions and experiences related to the academic arena when they wrote about
selecting or changing majors, decisions around issues of plagiarism, and about coping
with being placed on academic probation, students’ experiences in the classroom and
related to content area learning did not surface as areas in which self-authorship seemed
to be occurring, or have high potential for developing.

In addition to the narratives (from chapters four and five), when participants from
chapter two were asked directly about important or memorable experiences in the
classroom, they were not quick to respond. Multiple students said they had not had an
important or memorable classroom experience. And the common theme among students
who described classroom experiences was about feeling marginalized, alone, or less
capable than their peers. I

One explanation for the lack of data on self-authorship in the context of the
classroom may be that the question or prompt was not worded in a way to elicit responses
about potential self-authoring behavior or reasoning in the classroom. Another
interpretation is that self-authorship does not develop or appear in the classroom. While it
is possible that the prompt could have been improved, the complete absence of self-
authoring classroom experiences remains impressive. Thus, it seems there is significant
room for improvement in the ways instructors can engage students and work to facilitate

self-authorship, and it may be best facilitated by focusing on skill development and

143

attitude cultivation consistent with findings regarding the student characteristics
associated with provocation and methods of moving from provocation toward self-
authorship.

The LPM Outside of the Classroom

My data suggest there is great potential for self-authorship facilitation outside the
classroom. Although discussed in both chapters four and five, it bears repeating here that
provocative experiences may not even need to be induced in order to support self-
authorship development. Student narratives clearly showed that students are in the midst
of many different provocative moments in their personal lives. From roommate decisions,
maintaining or dissolving relations with significant others, choices regarding alcohol,
drugs, and sexual activity, to decisions about rushing fraternities or sororities, to
managing relationships with family members, to decisions about religiosity, students are
making decisions with the potential to heavily impact their lives. As they make these
decisions, many of these students are grappling with options they do not fully understand,
with implications they may or may not be aware of as they make these decisions.
Academic orientation, residence life, academic advising, and fraternity and sorority life
could use these common potentially provocative moments as points from which to begin
programming.

More specific recommendations appear in chapters four and five, but as in the
academic sphere, it is important that student affairs professionals remain focused on their
desired learning and development outcomes in shaping programs. Involving students in
experiential activities may be an effective pedagogical tactic sometimes, but if the

objectives can just as effectively be reached without such activities, and instead by

144

drawing on students’ mental struggles to make sense of content-relevant issues it may
prove fruitful to focus on the latter types of experiences. And again, as student affairs
professionals construct and implement programs, it is of utmost importance that attention
is paid to the development of sub-skills of self-regulation, volitional efficacy, and meta-
cognition that underlie broader learning and development objectives.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

Specific limitations of each of the four individual studies reported here appear in
the limitations sections of chapters two, three, four, and five, but there are some general
limitations to review here. First, although this project included both a larger number of
students and students from a more diverse sample than in previous studies of self-
authorship or epistemological development (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992, 1999, 2001;
Belenky et al., 1986/1997; Perry, 1968), it is nonetheless limited in its generalizability.
Participants in all four studies came from the same large, public, Midwestern university.
And the majority of the participants were low-risk, White, and/or female. Because the
findings from chapter two suggest self-authorship may develop earlier in students who
enter college institutionally identified as hi gh-risk for attrition, further study of self-
authorship development and assessment in more diverse groups of students seems in
order to understand any potential differences.

Related to the lack of studies on self-authorship in diverse groups, it also seems
important for future studies to focus on self-authorship development in pre-collegiate
populations. This is important because chapter two suggests adolescents sometimes may
self-author. Furthermore, study of self-authorship development in adolescents would

allow for additional investigation into the possibility of a reasoning-action split in self-

145

authorship, because adolescents typically live in a family context where they cannot
make all decisions, and where they are necessarily dependent on others for particular
necessities. As such, the reasoning—action split may be particularly pervasive. Following
students from adolescence through emergent adulthood would then be interesting in
terms of investigating the resolution or persistence of the reasoning-action split.

Future work examining the developmental processes proposed here should also be
undertaken. Ideally such work would be two-pronged, focusing both on modeling the
developmental process and on improving assessment practices such that they more
accurately can measure progress along the self-authorship continuum. Path analysis may
be a particularly useful technique in testing the developmental models proposed here.
And further work improving on the both the Likert-type self-authorship measure
proposed in chapter three, and the narrative measure of self-authorship used in chapters
four and five would be important contributions to the study of self-authorship.

In terms of facilitating self-authorship in college students, intervention studies of
programs specifically designed to support self-authorship via practices consistent with the
Learning Partnerships Model should be conducted. At present there are few studies of
interventions designed to support self-authorship, and the ideas presented in this chapter
have yet to be empirically tested. In addition to studying the programmatic effectiveness
of producing self-authorship in participants, study of the generalizability of self-authoring
skills developed through such programs should also be undertaken. If students develop
self-authoring skills but cannot apply them in new situations, further research will need to
be conducted to determine if and how generalizability can be promoted. Finally, it is

extremely important for self-authorship to be linked to other desired learning and

146

development outcomes. At present there is no empirical research suggesting self-
authorship is highly correlated with desirable outcomes such as grade point average,
persistence, or school satisfaction. Support for programs designed to facilitate self-
authorship development would likely be enhanced if such an orientation was linked to
other desirable outcomes.
Conclusion

The literature on self-authorship is in its early stages. Much about the construct of
self-authorship, its developmental process, and its correlates remains unknown. The four
studies presented here, however, together make a number of important contributions to
this emerging literature. Building on the foundational work of Kegan (1994) and Baxter
Magolda (2001), these studies suggest that a self-authored orientation may not always
translate into self-authored action. This gesture toward the potentially situational nature
of self-authorship forces acknowledgement that students move in and out of a number of
important relationships and contexts, and so development and assessment of self-
authorship that considers only one of these relationships or contexts may provide an
incomplete picture of self-authorship development and expression. Then through
clarifying factors affecting self-authorship development and expression from prior to the
provocative moment, through the development of a self-authored reasoning abilities,
these studies clarify micro-processes, skills, and attitudes affecting self-authorship
development and expression. These findings are important to both identifying future
areas for research, and to constructing practices and programs in the curriculum and co-
curriculum that could focus on development of these skills and attitudes in a way that

would more effectively promote self-authorship development. And through the proposal

147

of the measure of self-authorship in chapter three, this study begins to respond to the
question of assessment. Increasingly more conceptually sound tools are needed, but the
scale proposed in chapter three is a beginning point in constructing ways of measuring
self-authorship.

Finally, through its mix of analytical techniques, this dissertation highlighted both
the general patterns of self-authorship and individual student stories about their
movement toward self-authorship. As the study of self-authorship continues, it seems
important to pay attention to both general patterns and individual stories. Inclusion of the
stories of traditionally marginalized students is especially important in the continued
study of self-authorship specifically, and college student development more generally,
because these students’ stories are often not included in the construction of theory, and
consequently in the development of programs and assessment tools designed to support
and measure their development Although there are shared developmental patterns, the
individual stories students shared in written narratives and interviews serve as reminders
of the diversity within the college student population, and should encourage researchers
and scholars to consider the particular needs and experiences of subgroups within the
college student population when thinking about programming for and assessment of self-

authorship development.

148

END NOTES

lUniversity of Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Indiana, University of
Iowa, The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University,
University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota,
Northwestern University, University of Wisconsin-Madison

2Although I recognize that gender and sex are different, I chose to use the word
“transgendered” or “transgender” here because the information these students provided
did not allow for easy categorization into either female, male, or transsexual categories.
For example, one student wrote: “Male becoming female.” The term transgender seemed
to best honor the information these students provided.

3 Ibid.
4Although self-authorship first appears in Kegan’s (1994) fourth order of consciousness,
the fifth order is referenced here, because it is not until the fifth order of consciousness

that knowers are able to fully direct self-authoring abilities.

149

REFERENCES

American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1996). The student learning

imperative: Implications for student affairs. http://wwwacpa.nche.edu/sli/sli.htm.
Downloaded January 2002.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M, & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education.
Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.

Antonio, AL. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. The
Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 63-89.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:
Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’

engagement in school work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-
278.

Astin, A. W. (1996). What matters in college. Liberal Education, 79(4), 415.

Astin, A. W. (1993). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal
of College Student Development, 37(2), 123-134.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student development: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004a). Preface. M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds),
Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-
authorship (pp. xvii-xxvi). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004b). Self-authorship as the common goal of 21"-century
education. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds), Learning partnerships:
Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 1-36). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004c). Learning partnerships model: A framework for
promoting self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds),
Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-
authorship (pp. 37-61). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2003). Identity and learning: Student affairs’ role in transforming
higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 231-247.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming
higher education to promote self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing

150

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2000). Interpersonal maturity: Integrating agency and
communion. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 141- 156.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship:

Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University
Press.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related
patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. (Eds.), (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and
models of practice to education for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Porterfield, W. D. (1985). A new approach to assess
intellectual development on the Perry scheme. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 26(4), 343-350.

Brantlinger, E. (1993). Unmentionable futures: Postschool planning for low-income
teenagers. The School Counselor, 39 281-291.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986/1997).
Women ’3 ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York:
Basic Books.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 771-787.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Sullivan, C. (2000). Social-cognitive aspects of identity style: Need
for cognitions, experiential openness, and introspection. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 7, 140-155.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and
code development. New York: Sage.

Boyd, V. 8., Hunt, P. F., Kandell, J. J., & Lucas, M. S. (2003). Relationships between
identity processing style and academic success in undergraduate students. Journal
of College Student Development, 44(2), 155-167.

Cattell, J. L. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, I , 245-276.

Charmaz, K. (1983). Grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. R.
Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little,
Brown.

151

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity, 2""ll Ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Choy, S. P. (2002). Access and persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal
research on students. (Report No. EDO-HE-2002—02).Washington, DC:

American Council on Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED466105).

Cobb, P. & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory
and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives
in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175-
190.

Cockrell, K. S., Caplow, J. A. H., & Donaldson, J. F. (2000). A context for learning:
Collaborative groups in the problem-based learning environment. The Review of
Higher Education, 23(3), 347-363.

Como, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational
research. Educational Researcher, 22, 14—22.

Como, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman &
D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 111-141). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). (2003).
Academic Advising: CAS Standards and Guidelines.
http://wwwnatmla.ksu.edu/CIearinghouse/Research Related/CAShtm Retrieved
January 2004.

Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimmerman—Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2001).
Developmental outcomes of college student’ involvement in leadership activities.
Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 15-27.

Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Self-schemas, possible selves, and competent
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 343-438.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientation scale: Self-
deterrnination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.

Dunteman, G. H. (2003). Principle components analysis. (V 01. 69: Quantitative
applications in the social sciences). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

152

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg (V 01. Ed.). Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3
Social, emotional and personality development (5” Ed.). New York: Wiley.

Egart, K., & Healy, M. P. (2004). An urban leadership internship program: Implementing
learning partnerships “unplugged” from campus structures. In M. Baxter
Magolda, & P. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of
practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 125-150). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Erwin, T. D. (1983). The Scale of Intellectual Development.
http://wwwacpa.nche.edu/comms/comm09/dragon/dragon-index.htm. Retrieved
October 2002.

Ford, C. A. (1996). Factors that contribute to resilience in urban “at-risk” African

American male college students. Challenge: A Journal of Research on Afiican
American Men, 7(3), 17-29.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In R.
Calfee, & D. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46).
New York: Macmillan

Greeno, J. G., Pearson, P. D., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (1997). Implications for the National
Assessment of Educational Progress of research on learning and cognition. In R.
Linn, R Glaser, & G. Bohrnstedt (Eds.), Assessment in transition: Monitoring the
nation’s educational progress, background studies (pp. 151-215). Stanford, CA:
The National Academy of Education.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503.

Grotevant, H. D. (1998). Adolescent development in family contexts. In W. Damon
(Series Editor) & N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (5th Ed., pp. 1097-1149). New
York: Wiley.

Hay, K., & Barab, S. H. (2001). Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of
apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 10(3), 281-322.

Helms, J. E. (Ed.), (1990). Black and White racial identity attitudes: Theory, research
and practice (pp. 67-80). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

153

Hess, R. S., & D’Amato, R. C. (1996). High school completion among Mexican-

American children: Individual and family background variables. School
Psychology Quarterly, 11(4), 353-368.

Hood, A., & Jackson, L. M. (1985). The Iowa Student Development Inventories.
http://www.wbarrett.indstate.edu/drzgon/iowa/ig-indx.htm. Retrieved October
2002.

Horn, L. J., & Chen, K. (1998). Toward resiliency: At-risk students who make it to
college. (Report No. PLLI-98-8056). Washington DC: National Institute on
Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED419463).

Homak, A. M. (2003). Implementing a curricular framework in the exploration of White
racial identity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

Homak, A., & Ortiz, A. M. (2004). Creating a context to promote diversity education and
self-authorship among community college students. In M. Baxter Magolda & P.
King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for
self-authorship (pp. 303-332). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-416.

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytical rotation in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 23, 187-200.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in early
adolescence: Its relation with peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peer
adjustment. Child Development, 73(1), 196-213.

King, P. M. (2000). Learning to make reflective judgments. In M. B. Baxter Magolda
(Ed.). Teaching to promote intellectual and personal maturity: Incorporating
students’ worldviews and identities into the learning process. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning. No. 82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Creating learning partnerships in higher
education: Modeling the shape, shaping the model. In. M. B. Baxter Magolda &

154

P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to
educate for self-authorship (pp. 303-331). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning.
Journal of College Student Development, 3 7(2), 163-173.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cognitive-development approach to moral education. Phi
Delta Kappan, 56, 670-677.

Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for
undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 27(2), 135-148.

Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch &
J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279-307). Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.

Lang, M. (1992). Barriers to Blacks’ educational achievement in higher education: A
statistical and conceptual review. Journal of Black Studies, 22, 510-522.

Livengood, J .M. (1992). Students’ motivational goals and beliefs about effort and ability
as they relate to college academic success. Research in Higher Education, 33(2),
247-261.

Lopez, E. J., Ehly, S., & Garcia-Vazquez, E. (2002). Acculturation, social support and
academic achievement of Mexican and Mexican American high school students:
An exploratory study. Psychology in the School, 39(3), 245-257.

Manaster, G. J ., Chan, J. C., & Safady, R. (1992). Mexican-American migrant students’
academic success: Sociological and psychological acculturation. Adolescence,
27(105), 123-136.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954—969.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2"‘l Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milner, H. R. (2002). Affective and social issues among high achieving African
American students: Recommendations for teachers and teacher education. Action
in Teacher Education, 24(1), 81-89.

Ogbu, J.U. (1991). Immigrant and involuntary minorities in comparative perspectives. In
M.A. Gibson, & J.U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative
study of immigration and involuntary minorities (pp. 3-33). New York: Garland.

155

Ortiz, A. M., & Rhoads, R. (2000). Deconstructing Whiteness as a part of a multicultural
educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student
Development, 41 ( 1), 8 1-93.

Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, 3., Moye, M., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). Do diversity
experiences influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College
Student Development, 42(3), 257-271.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college aflects students. Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco.

Pasupathi, M. (2001). The social construction of the personal past and its implications for
adult development. Psychological Bulletin, 127(5), 651-657.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2”l Ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Perry, W. G. (1968/1999). Forms of ethnical and intellectual development in the college
years: A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Piper, T. D. (1997). Empowering students to create community standards. About Campus,
2(3), 22-24.

Piper, T. D., & Buckley, J. A. (2004). Community standards model: Developing learning
partnerships in campus housing. In M. Baxter Magolda, & P. King (Eds.),
Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-
authorship (pp. 185-212). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pizzolato, J. E. (in press). Achieving college student possible selves: Navigating the
space between commitment and achievement of long-term identity goals. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship, coping, and adaptation to
college in first-year, high-risk students. Journal of College Student Development,
45(4), 425-442.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2003). Developing self-authorship: Exploring the experiences of hi gh-
risk college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 797-812.

Prawat, R. S. (2000). The two faces of Deweyan pragmatism: Inductionism versus social
constructivism. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 805-840.

Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). PhiIOSOphical perspectives on constructivist views
of learning. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 37-48.

156

Pressley, M., Harris, K. R, & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are
constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 1-32.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In W. Damon (Series Editor) & N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (5‘h ed., pp.
619-700). New York: Wiley.

Ruble, D. N., & Seidman, E. (1996). Social transitions: Windows into social
psychological processes. In E. T. Higgins & S. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 830-856). New York: Guilford
Press.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Strange, C. (1994). Student development: The evolution and status of an essential ideal.
Journal of College Student Development, 34(6), 399-412.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 158-183).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tabachnick, B. & Fiddell, L. C. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York:
HarperCollins College.

Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., & Bemal, E. M. (2001). Swimming against the tide: The
poor in American higher education (Report No. 2001-01). New York: The
College Entrance Examination Board.

Thurston, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis: A development and expansion of The
Vectors of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition,
2”" Ed., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCinitio, M., & Thomas, C. T.
(1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational
Psycholog)’, 90, 1101-1137.

Yeh, T. L. (2002). Asian American college students who are educationally at risk. New
Directions for Student Services, no. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

157

‘T