promoting self-efficacy in students utilizing baxter magolda’s theory of self-authorship

Running head: PROMOTING SELF-EFFICACY 1

Promoting Self-Efficacy in Students Utilizing Baxter Magolda’s Theory of Self-Authorship

Chelsey Krankeola

University of Missouri

PROMOTING SELF-EFFICACY

Promoting Self-Efficacy in Students Utilizing Baxter Magolda’s Theory of Self-Authorship

With each succession of new generations of students entering our universities come

unique challenges and considerations. Each cohort of individuals who have grown up

experiencing similar cultural trends and impacting world events have been shaped differently by

these events than the generations who proceeded them. It is imperative that university

administrators, faculty, and staff understand the common characteristics of the students they

work with in order to improve the programming and services that are being offered to this

population of students. In order to be effective student affairs professionals, it is important to

meet the students where they are at in their development. One can only do this by understanding

the overarching context of this cohort’s development, as well as continuing to consider the

experience of each student on an individual basis.

Currently, the Millennial generation makes up an immense proportion of the college

student demographics in the United States. According to the Council of Economic Advisors

(2014), 61% of Millennial are currently attending or have previously attended college, as

opposed to their Baby Boomer counterparts at 46%. Furthermore, the range of the Millennial

generation still contains the traditional student entering college at 18 years old. So administrators

should be focusing on what unique characteristics this generation brings to the college campus in

order to discover how to promote student development.

One of the greatest challenges that I have encountered while working with the current

student population is a lack of self-efficacy. During my undergrad, I worked in an academic

advising office. There were many times when I had a parent call in on behalf of a student to ask

questions about their student’s schedule or registration details. We even had parents call us

2


claiming that their son or daughter should not have earned bad grades in particular courses and

wanting to speak to the dean of our college immediately to resolve the issue. Once, I even had a

parent take an online math placement test for her child in order to have her daughter admitted

into a higher math course. We discovered this near the end of the semester when the student

came to our office completely overwhelmed by her inability to keep up with the rigorous

requirements of the course. The culmination of these interactions with overbearing parents and

their dependent students made me question what negative impacts this could have on their

personal development. After all, one of the greatest aspirations of college is to gain independence

and be able to govern your own life choices.

In this paper, I will attempt to understand the cultural context of which students in this

generation have been raised that may impede their ability to achieve self-autonomy. I will also

examine how these factors are impacting the nature of higher education, as well as consider how

the use of developmental theory, particularly Baxter Magolda’s Theory of Self-Authorship, can

assist in understanding the issue. Finally, I will use the theory to guide effective practice by

creating an intervention that will move these students further along in this development.

Research on the Millennial Generation

Several popular characteristics have come to be associated with the Millennial

generation. There have been many researchers who have conducted studies to determine the

environmental and social factors that have shaped this generation’s common behavioral traits.

Some of the most common experiences attributed to this generation are being overly protected in

youth, the pervasiveness of technology, and an extremely structured environment.

Sheltered

One characteristic that is utilized to describe the Millennial generation is that they

3


tend to be overprotected during their youth. Howe and Strauss (2007) has found that

Millennials often grow up expecting to be protected by the authority figures in their life

and enter college with the anticipation that this protection will continue. The parents of this

generation generally tended to shield their child from harm and were more likely to step in on

their child’s behalf if they were experiencing issues in school or extracurricular activities.

Furthermore, parents continue to exhibit this behavior as their students enter the collegiate

environment. According to Elam, Stratton, and Gibson (2007), many parents still exhibit active

participation in their child’s life as they advance to college and often initiate contact with faculty,

staff, and administrators when their child is facing an issue. As this continues into higher

education, the student is unable to develop his or her own voice and achieve the self-autonomy

that is necessary to progress through life.

Aside from being more dependent on their parents for support, this generation is also

becoming more reliant on the university to make decisions. During the early conception of the

university in the United States, the institution was seen as being an extension of the family in

raising and refining the young men who initially attended college, a concept known as “in loco

parentis” (Thelin, 2010). Overtime, however, this responsibility of the university to take on the

role of an external parental unit diminished and became more focused on academics primarily

with the rise of the research institution. However, the field of higher education is starting to see

an increased renewal of this attitude. “The doctrine of in loco parentis, long denigrated by

Boomers and Gen Xers is regaining support among both Millennial students and their

parents” (Howe & Strauss, 2007, pg. 2). The expectation is increasing for universities to

be concerned about the holistic development of the student. Elam, Stratton, and Gibson

(2007) further elaborated on this idea as they described the generation as having had immense

4


support from their parents and teachers before attending college, and thus, expect the same

nurturing attitude from university faculty and administrators. This may lead the students to rely

more heavily on their knowledge and prevent them from exploring their own capability to make

important life decisions.

Technology Stunts Growth

One of the most important skills for being able to self-advocate is the ability to

communicate. This skill may be proven to be lacking in the Millennial generation relative to their

older counterparts. “Some researchers also fear that Millennial students, being over-reliant on

communications technology, will have stunted interpersonal (face-to-face) skills” (Elam,

Stratton, & Gibson, 2007, p. 22). The technological advances over the past few decades have

slowly decreased our complete reliance on human interaction, and have therefore decreased the

opportunities for students of this generation to develop their interpersonal skills. This presents a

challenge when they enter the collegiate setting, which has been designed based on the

assumption that students will possess a certain amount of independence capability.

Structured

The parents of this generation have been considered to be actively involved in their

children’s lives. Nearly all aspects of the Millennial child’s life were arranged by the parents

who intended to find activities their child would excel in (Murray, 1997). Every step of their

journey was structured in order to cultivate an achieving child who could be successful in the

future. So when the Millennial child reaches college, there are two common detrimental

scenarios that occur based on how the parents react to this transition.

Some parents see the entrance into college as a right of passage and now believe it is time

for their student to make their own life choices. While this seems like a beneficial perspective for

5


the student, he or she may struggle in the transition initially since they have not been exposed to

this level of freedom in the past. The student has not yet developed the self-efficacy capabilities

needed to navigate college. In these cases, the student may turn to faculty and staff for support

and assistance (Murray, 1997). These support systems must encourage the student to find his or

her own voice and help them be able to develop a stronger sense of autonomy. Another common

approach from parents of students in this generation is to become what is known as the helicopter

parent. This term has been designated for parents who attempt to continue their control over their

child’s life and choices. Much research has been conducted on this population of parents. One

study in particular sought to discover the effect of helicopter parenting on a student’s well being.

LeMoyne and Buchhanan (2011) discovered that college students whose parents were over

controlling were more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression, and as a result, more likely to

take related medications. This study demonstrated the negative consequences for college students

when they are not able to live their life freely and make their own decisions. As professionals in

higher education, it is our duty to discover ways to enhance our student’s self-efficacy to prevent

the negative impacts a lack of autonomy can have on a student’s education.

Implications for the Collegiate Experience

After having described some common experiences that many individuals currently in

college have been exposed to, as well as having provided the effects caused by those common

forms of socialization, I will now turn my attention towards the significant role self-efficacy

capabilities contribute to higher education. There have been a countless number of studies

conducted on the positive outcomes associated with a student’s capacity to believe in their own

abilities.

One of the most immediate implications that self-efficacy abilities can have for a

6


student who already possesses this quality is a smoother transition to college. Chemers, Hu, and

Garcia (2001) conducted a longitudinal study of first year students to discover if self-efficacy

and optimism contributed to the students’ transition to college and overall well-being.

The researchers found that, “Students who enter college with confidence in their ability to

perform well academically do perform significantly better than do less confident students”

(Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, p. 61). Furthermore, these students were able to adjust to college more

effectively since they possessed a stronger confidence in their ability to do so. It appears that

students who believe in their own abilities to meet the demands of college will be more likely to

thrive in their new environment.

Self-efficacy can also have a positive impact in terms a student’s academic performance.

Choi (2005) found that both self-concept and self-efficacy were a strong predictor of good

grades. They found that students that rated high on these two characteristics received better

scores in their academics. Another study may have discovered a contributing factor to this high

grade achievement. In an article entitled, “Procrastination in College Students: The Role of Self-

Efficacy and Anxiety,” the researchers describe their study in which they surveyed 141 college

students. Based on the participants’ responses to the questionnaire, they found that “individuals

with strong self-efficacy expectations tended to report less procrastination” (Haycock, McCarthy,

& Skay, 1998, p. 321). This was attributed to the fact that these students were confident in their

ability to take on the task at hand, where as those with a lower sense of self-efficacy tended to

avoid the challenge of schoolwork. If student affairs professionals and administrators discovered

a way to promote self-efficacy in students, they may be able to enhance the academic

performance.

Finally, a culmination of the ability to easily transition to college, to earn good grades,

7


and to avoid procrastination can culminate in the results discovered by Lent, Brown, and Larkin

(1984). These researchers wanted to see how self-efficacy beliefs affected a student’s ability to

persist. Not only did they find similar conclusions to other studies regarding higher grade

averages in students with a higher sense of self-efficacy, but also that these students were more

likely to persist longer than their lower self-efficacy counterparts. These findings highlight the

importance of being able to promote self-efficacy in our students to ensure they feel confident in

their ability to succeed in higher education and successfully navigate life beyond college.

Solving Self-Efficacy Deficiency through a Theoretical Approach

As we have learned over the course of the semester, student affairs professionals should

utilize theory to guide practice. Using theories that have been formed from research studies on

college students can give us a better idea of the progression of development our students are

likely to experience. While each student’s individual differences still need to be taken into

consideration when working one on one with them, theory helps provide a general framework to

guide effective practices.

For the current issue of decreased self-efficacy that I am examing, I have decided to

apply Marcia Baxter Magolda’s Theory of Self-Authorship. She defined self-authorship as “the

internal capacity to define one’s beliefs, identity, and social relations” (Baxter Magolda, 2008, p.

269). Essentially, the journey to self-authorship is about discovering who you are as a person,

which in turn increases one’s capability to interact with the world around them based on their

beliefs. Baxter Magolda conducted an immense amount of research to discover what experiences

drive the development of self-authorship. She identified 4 primary phases that an individual on

the path to self-authorship may reside in, although not necessarily in a linear fashion depending

on the circumstances. I believe this theory helped me create a more effective intervention

8


because it further contributed to my understanding of my related identified issue and provided

me with general characteristics that the students I am trying to assist may possess, depending on

their current stage of development.

After reading through the stages that Baxter Magolda proposed, I surmised that most

student’s entering college will most likely be in “Phase 1: Following Formulas.” According to

Baxter Magolda (2001), this phase is characterized by the individual’s reliance on external

sources for direction since the inner voice has yet to be developed enough to drive decision-

making. This can be seen in my population of focus, as I have discussed that many incoming

students, particularly in this generation, enter college with their parents still attempting to control

their life decisions. Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn (2010) further described what

students in this phase might encounter. “Not having a clear sense of self made it difficult to

determine what to do, both personally and in relationships…” (p. 185). This can explain why

these students may rely on their parents to communicate with administrators when they face

barriers. They may be at a loss for how to encounter a challenge and may not be capable of

expressing what they are experiencing to administrators or faculty, and thus rely on their parents

to articulate these issues. This phase of the theory helped me overall to understand some of the

factors that contribute to many students’ initial lack for self-efficacy upon entering college.

After examining the next three phases, I was able to identify which phase I hoped my

intervention would help students achieve and to determine what type of characteristics I was

attempting to promote in my students. I chose “Phase 2: Crossroads” to be the target for my

intervention. This phase is marked by the student’s realization that the plans they have been

following based on external influences are incongruent with their own needs and interests. This

drives them to initiate the self-discovery process to fully understand who they are as individuals

9


and what they hope to achieve in life (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). This piece

of the self-authorship journey is crucial to my proposed intervention. If I can create a program

that will help inspire this process of questioning external forces and ignite the desire to

participate in self-discovery exercises, then I may be able to effectively facilitate development.

The next two phases of the theory are more than likely beyond the scope of what my

intervention will be able to achieve. “Becoming the Author of One’s Life” and “Internal

Foundations” would require a much greater amount of time and experience to develop in

students than what my proposed intervention would allow. However, it is still important to at be

familiar with the phases since they are ultimately more progressive steps towards achieving the

ultimate goal of being able to control one’s life.

Proposed Intervention

For my purposed intervention, I decided to focus on incoming traditionally aged students

because they generally are the least developed on their path to self-authorship. I think it is crucial

to start encouraging this development as soon as they come to campus since self-efficacy will be

important both throughout their time at the university and beyond graduation. As I previously

discussed, this population will likely be in the first phase of Baxter Magolda’s theory, so my

intervention must provide opportunities to move beyond relying on external sources and

encourage students to start developing their internal voice. Based on these intentions, my

intervention could be considered both planned and institutionally targeted in nature according to

the “Developmental Intervention Model” (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). It will

be a proactive intervention geared towards encouraging a developmentally friendly environment

on campus.

I decided my intervention would be a weekly seminar course that is required for

10


either the fall or spring semester in the first year. Ideally, students would be able to take it their

first semester in order to begin their development immediately. However, I realize that may not

be a realistic option depending on the institution size and capacity for classes each semester. The

seminar will meet once a week. The first class would be centered on individuals setting goals for

the semester. There will also be an open discussion about the purpose of the course and a

preview of the activities that will be used to achieve the objectives. An article entitled “Engaged

Learning: Enabling Self- Authorship and Effective Practice” discussed how educators should

make students aware of the importance of self-authorship and the tools that will be used to

promote it. The authors argue that if students are aware of the reasoning, than they are more

likely to be engaged and motivated to achieve the intended objective (Hodge, Baxter Magolda, &

Haynes, 2009). By following this approach, I am choosing the explicit intervention type, outlined

in the “Developmental Intervention Model,” as I am making the developmental issue and

intentions of my program very clear in the hope that it will address the salient problem (Evans,

Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). I believe that with this particular developmental issue, it

will enhance student growth if the intention of the program is disclosed.

Throughout the course of the semester, there will be multiple activities and exercises

geared towards enhancing self-efficacy. Every week, there will be at least a portion of the class

centered on getting to know fellow peers through icebreakers and discussions geared towards

encouraging students to share their experiences with each other. One of the questions that Baxter

Magolda (2001) highlighted as being essential in discovering a life path is “ How do I want to

construct relationships with others?” (p. 15). She emphasized that self-discovery was not an

isolated process and involved an individual considering how they interact with others. Pizzolato,

Nguyen, Johnston, and Wang (2012) furthered this sentiment in their study examining both

11


relationship dissonance and identity dissonance’s roles in shaping self-authorship. They studied

primarily marginalized students and discovered that these individuals were more likely to

examine identity in a collective manner, which generally moved them through their self-

authorship development at a quicker rate than those students in the majority group. Both findings

indicate the importance of considering identity in relation to others in order to further

development in one’s own identity, so I think it will be crucial to include this element in my

seminar course.

The next important piece to this seminar course is an ample amount of opportunities for

self- reflection. Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn (2010) utilized Baxter Magolda’s

Theory of Self-Authorship to formulate applications to higher education. One of these was the

importance of reflective exercises in the classroom. “Opportunities for self-reflection in these

settings also assist students in becoming clearer about what they know, why they hold the beliefs

they do, and how they want to act on their beliefs” (p. 191). Self-reflective exercises are of vital

importance for this seminar course because it will encourage students to enter the “Crossroads”

phase in which they are actively seeking to discover what their goals are and how those compare

or contrast with the expectations that have been placed on them. Hodge, Baxter Magolda, and

Haynes (2009) agreed with this sentiment and provided additional factors that can contribute to

students’ growth. The authors emphasized the importance of not only providing continuous

opportunities for self-reflection, but also a balanced level of challenge and support to aid in

development. I believe my seminar course will provide a setting congruent with these ideas as

the students’ diverse backgrounds will be a source of challenge to their peers conceptions of the

world, but everyone, including the instructor, will be encouraged to support their classmates in

their self-discovery process.

12


These self-reflection exercises will take on a variety of formats in order to expose the

students to a diverse range of perspectives. Much of the self-reflection will be both written

during reflective free write sessions, as well as verbally through classroom discussions. The

topics will be centered around considering past experiences and how those have impacted where

the student is today, contemplating where they see themselves years from now, as well as setting

both short and long term goals. One of the course projects will involve the students picking an

organization to join or a series of events on campus to attend that aligns with either their sense of

self or future goals and to then share the experience with the class. This will allow students to

hear about resources on campus they may want to pursue, as well as help students get to know

more about each other’s passions. Also, this gives students the opportunity to practice self-

efficacy through making important decision regarding their extracurricular involvement. Finally,

I will incorporate a similar project that was pioneered by Welkener and Baxter Magolda (2014)

who found value in having students utilize art to express their internal voice. Students were

asked to create visual representations of their inner self. This technique allowed students to

explore their identity through creative methods and provided yet another perspective in

examining one’s beliefs. I would probably incorporate this into a final project component of the

course in which the students would create a self portrait of their lives utilizing an artistic median

of their choice and present their project to the class, making sure to incorporate a self-reflection

piece on what they learned over the course of the semester. Hopefully these different forms of

exercises will encourage the self-exploration process that is necessary to move towards the path

of self-authorship.

The final component of the seminar course will be a structured mentoring program. Each

first year student in the course will be paired with an upperclassman mentor who will be offered

13


elective or service-learning academic credit for participating in the program. The mentors will

attend particular class sessions throughout the semester that are geared towards reflective

conversations that will be improved by having the perspective of older students involved in the

discussion. The mentors and mentees will be strategically matched based on similar

characteristics while also ensuring there is a significant difference in order to offer a diverse

perspective. The hope is that the mentor and mentee might develop a genuine friendship that will

aid the first year students in their transition and development of self-efficacy capabilities.

I decided to add this component to my seminar course after I read an article entitled,

“Predicting Needs: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relation Between Student

Characteristics, Academic Paths, and Self-Authorship.” The researchers advocated for increased

interactions between freshmen and upperclassmen based on their findings that, “…students bring

with them diverse experiences and ideas, which can challenge students to consider multiple

perspectives” (Wawrzynski & Pizzolato, 2006, p. 688). They then elaborated that challenging

students to question their actions and beliefs fosters self-authorship. Introducing peer mentors

into the seminar provides a new perspective for students and challenges the belief that the

professor is the ultimate external authority source. This is important, as Baxter Magolda (2001)

postulated that learning environments that challenged dependence on authority were often the

most successful in promoting self-authorship. The new students may be more likely to start

sharing their thoughts and developing their own perspectives when they are paired with an older

student who respects their opinion.

The hope is that this experience will be just as impactful for the older students as it is for

their mentees. Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn (2010) stated, “Active involvement in

meaningful activities and leadership positions is another variable needed to foster development

14


of self-authorship” (p. 191). These older student will be taking on a leadership role as a mentor,

and this may inspire them to further reflect on their values and goals as they assist their mentee

and participate in similar reflection activities. I would be ecstatic if this addition to the seminar

would facilitate some of the upperclassmen to move along in their self-authorship development,

perhaps moving towards the end of “Crossroads” or beginning of “Becoming an Author In One’s

Life.”

Conclusion

After examining defining characteristics of the current population of students attending

college and identifying their propensity to lack self-efficacy abilities, I created an intervention

that I hope would help promote the path of self-authorship for first year students. If my program

were adopted at a university, I would look forward to conducting assessment evaluations at the

end of the first trial run to see if the intervention was effective in fostering self-authorship

development in students. I would attempt to discover if the tenets of Baxter Magolda’s Self-

Authorship theory that I had utilized to guide my program development were successful in

improving self-efficacy. If I found that some of my objectives were not met, I would then need to

go back to the drawing board to see if there were any other aspects of the theory or new theories

I could incorporate to make adjustments and improve the effectiveness of my intervention. This

process is the essence of utilizing theory to guide practice. Hopefully I would eventually be able

to find the correct combination of program components to successfully increase my student’s

ability to make decisions confidently and live the life they truly desire.

15


References

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher

education to promote self development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student

Development, 49, 269-284. doi:10.1353.csd.0.0016

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college

student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational psychology, 93(1), 55.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55

Choi, N. (2005). Self‐efficacy and self‐concept as predictors of college students' academic

performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 197-205. doi:10.1002/pits.20048

Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new generation to college: The

Millennial students. Journal of College Admission, 195, 20-25. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ783953.pdf

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student development

in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students: The

role of self‐efficacy and anxiety. Journal of counseling & development, 76(3), 317-324.

doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1998.tb02548.x

Hodge, D. C., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Haynes, C. A. (2009). Engaged learning: Enabling

self-authorship and effective practice. Liberal Education,95(4), 16-23. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ871317.pdf

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA: LifeCourse

Associates.

16


Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to

academic achievement and persistence. Journal of counseling psychology, 31(3), 356.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.31.3.356

LeMoyne, T., & Buchanan, T. (2011). Does ‘‘hovering’’ matter? Helicopter parenting and its

effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399–418. doi:10.1080/02732173.

2011.574038

Murray, N.D. (1997). Welcome to the future: The millennial generation. Journal of Career

Planning & Employment, 57(3): 36-42

Pizzolato, J. E., Nguyen, T. L. K., Johnston, M. P., & Wang, S. (2012). Understanding context:

Cultural, relational, & psychological interactions in self-authorship development. Journal

of College Student Development, 53(5), 656-679. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0061

The Council of Economic Advisers. (2014). 15 economic facts about millennials. Retrieved from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/millennials_report.pdf

Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Wawrzynski, M. R., & Pizzolato, J. E. (2006). Predicting needs: A longitudinal investigation of

the relation between student characteristics, academic paths, and self-authorship. Journal

of College Student Development, 47(6), 677-692. doi:10.1353.csd.2006.0071

Welkener, M. M., & Magolda, M. B. B. (2014). Better understanding students' self-authorship

via self-portraits. Journal of College Student Development,55(6), 580-585. doi:10.1353/

csd.2014.0057

17

promoting self-efficacy in students utilizing baxter magolda’s theory of self-authorship

Documents