Developing and Assessing Student Autonomy in the First-Year Experience of Psychology Majors

Dawn M. McBride, Ph.D., Corinne Zimmerman, Ph.D., & Derek Herrmann, M.S. in progress

Department of Psychology, Illinois State University

Introduction

As students enter college, they are immediately thrust into a world of personal responsibility and independence. This transition from the more structured learning environments found in many high school classrooms to the more autonomous learning environments of higher education is quite abrupt. Although many students look forward to this change, they are usually not very prepared for it. However, it is this granting of autonomy and self-directed learning that prepares students for the 'real world' beyond their college classrooms. The current project addressed this issue and was guided by self-determination theory, which states that self-regulation (which is needed for self-direction) is promoted by three needs-competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Certain types of environments, such as the classroom, can either promote or hinder the development of these needs, and research has shown that the amount of choice and feedback on assignments can promote competence and autonomy (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004). In addition, Ponton and Carr (2000), following other theories of motivation (Bandura, 1997), suggested that students be exposed to autonomous learning situations to promote autonomy.

In the Fall 2005 semester, the Department of Psychology implemented a new course, PSY 111: Introduction to Psychology. This course is limited to psychology majors only and has a maximum enrollment of 30 students in each section, which contrasts with the other introductory psychology course offered (PSY 110; a General Education course with a maximum of 350 students in each section). In addition, all of the sections of PSY 111 meet together each week for a guest speaker series, where speakers describe their subarea of psychology and their research specialization. PSY 111 is designed to allow students to become more familiar with the vast field of psychology and to become more independent as the semester progresses, which has been shown to be beneficial for students (Chan, 2001). In addition, it is designed to promote the three needs described in self-determination theory. Competence is promoted by teaching students about the discipline of psychology; autonomy is promoted by allowing students choice and feedback on assignments (such as argumentative papers on psychological issues) throughout the semester; and relatedness is promoted by developing a community of psychology majors.

This research project focused on the assessment of these first two needs, competence and autonomy. For this study, three hypotheses were made. It was predicted that PSY 111 students would show an increase in their knowledge of the discipline of psychology. It was also predicted that PSY 111 students would show a greater increase in locus of control (amount of control people feel they have over their environment), self-efficacy (beliefs people hold about their ability to perform tasks and accomplish goals), and psychology content knowledge than the PSY 110 students taking the course from a PSY 111 instructor. Previous research (Biggs, 1985; Janzen & Beeken, 1973; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thorsen, 2002) has shown that locus of control is related to both academic achievement and to autonomous learning, so this construct was used to measure student autonomy. In addition, it was predicted that the PSY 111 students that completed additional research-oriented activities would show a greater increase in locus of control and self-efficacy than the PSY 111 students who did not complete the additional activities.

Method

All students were asked to volunteer their responses, and they were assured that their responses would be kept confidential and neither their choice to participate nor their responses would affect their final course grades in any way (as outlined in the informed consent document the students read and signed, IRB# 2005-0541).

During the Fall 2006 semester, students in one section of PSY 110 and all four sections of PSY 111 (one of which was taught by the instructor of the PSY 110 section that participated) answered the question "What is a psychologist?" to assess content knowledge at the beginning and end of the semester. During the Fall 2007 semester, students in all four sections of PSY 111 (same four instructors as Fall 2006) completed pretest and posttest measures that included questions from a previous edition of the Psychology Subject Test of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) to assess their knowledge of the discipline of psychology. During the Fall 2007 semester, students in one section of PSY 110 (same instructor as Fall 2006) and all four sections of PSY 111 completed pretest and posttest measures that included questions taken from previously used measures of locus of control (Lefcourt, Von Baeyer, Ware, & Cox, 1979) and self-efficacy (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001), as well as questions added by two of the researchers (McBride & Zimmerman). In addition to the amount of choice the students had that was built into the assignments in PSY 111, the students in two of the four sections also completed additional research activities that further allowed them to make choices and take greater control of their learning. These activities added to the competence and autonomy by making each activity more challenging than the previous one and by allowing more choices for each activity.

Results

To determine if PSY 111 students increased their knowledge of the discipline of psychology, the number of correct responses at pretest and at posttest on the measure that contained the GRE questions was analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The students in the two sections with the highest and lowest average final course grades were combined into one set, and the students in the two sections with the middle average final course grades were combined into another set. There was a main effect of test (with posttest scores higher than pretest scores), F(1, 81) = 50.73, p < .001, but there was neither a main effect of set nor an interaction effect (ps > .05). These results indicated that there was a significant increase in the students' knowledge of psychology between the beginning and the end of the semester, and there was no difference between the two sets.

To determine if PSY 111 students showed a greater increase in their locus of control than the PSY 110 students, the scores at pretest and at posttest on the measure with these items were analyzed using a three-way ANOVA. Regarding locus of control, there was a main effect of locus of control (with internal higher than external), F(1, 187) = 147.93, p < .001, and a main effect of course (with PSY 110 higher than PSY 111), F(1, 187) = 3.96, p < .05. There was no a main effect of test nor any interaction effects (ps > .05). These results indicated that although there were significant differences between PSY 110 and PSY 111 students in internal and external locus of control, there was not a difference between the pretest and the posttest scores. To determine if PSY 111 students showed a greater increase in their self-efficacy than the PSY 110 students, the scores at pretest and at posttest on the measure that contained these items were anayzed using a two-way ANOVA. There were no main effects of test or time, nor was there an interaction effect (ps > .05). These results indicated that there was not a difference between PSY 110 and PSY 111 students in self-efficacy, and there was not a difference between the pretest and the posttest scores. To determine if PSY 111 students showed a greater increase in their content knowledge of psychology than the PSY 110 students, the responses to the question "What is a psychologist?" at pretest and at posttest were coded and analyzed using a two-way ANOVA. The total number of codes were determined, with the total number of coded responses in an answer with more codes indicating a more thorough response. There was a main effect of course (with more codes from PSY 111 than PSY 110), F(1, 162) = 27.03, p < .001, and a main effect of test (with more posttest codes than pretest codes), F(1, 162) = 79.99, p < .001. There was also an interaction effect (with a larger change between pretest and posttest in PSY 111 than in PSY 110), F(1, 162) = 47.97, p <.001. These results indicated that the PSY 111 students showed a greater increase in psychology content knowledge than the PSY 110 students between pretest and posttest.

To determine if the PSY 111 students in the two sections that included additional research activities showed a greater increase in locus of control than the students in the two sections that did not include additional research activities, the scores at pretest and at posttest on the measure that contained these items were analyzed using a three-way ANOVA. The students in the two sections that included additional activities were combined into one set, and the two sections that did not include additional activities were combined into another set. There was a main effect of locus of control (with internal higher than external), F(1, 80) = 61.56, p < .001, but there were no main effects of set or time, nor were there any interaction effects (ps > .05. These results indicated that there was a significant difference in internal and external locus of control, but there was neither a difference between the sections with and without research activities nor between the pretest and the posttest scores. To determine if PSY 111 students in the two section that included additional research activities showed a greater increase in their self-efficacy than the students in the two sections that did not include additional research activities, the scores at pretest and at posttest on the measure that contained these items were anayzed using a two-way ANOVA. There was a main effect of set (without additional research activities higher than with additional research activities), F(1, 80) = 6.48, p < .05. There was not a main effect of time nor an interaction effect (ps > .05). These results indicated that there was a difference in self-efficacy between the sections with and without research activities, but there was not a difference between the pretest and posttest scores.

Discussion

Three hypotheses were proposed at the beginning of this study. The first hypothesis was that the PSY 111 students would show an increase in their knowledge of the discipline of psychology, and this was supported by the results. The second hypothesis was that the PSY 111 students would show a greater increase than the PSY 110 students in locus of control, self-efficacy, and psychology content knowledge. Although there was no increase in locus of control or self-efficacy scores, the PSY 111 students showed a greater increase in psychology content knowledge than the PSY 110 students. The third hypothesis was that the students in the two sections of PSY 111 with research activities would show a greater increase than the students in the two sections of PSY 111 without research activities in locus of control and self-efficacy. Again, no increase in these measures was found.

There are several possible reasons for the lack of support for these predictions, especially regarding the third hypothesis (the differences between the PSY 111 sections with and without the additional research activities). The four sections of PSY 111 were not equivalent on numerous dimensions. The two sections that included research activities had the lowest two average final course grades, which could have affected the locus of control and self-efficacy of the students in these sections. The two sections that did not include research activities were morning classes, whereas the other two sections were mid-to late afternoon classes. Different types of students may have chosen these different times to take the course. In addition, the instructors of the two sections that included research activities did not post their class notes online, whereas the other two instructors did. All of these factors may have affected the results in ways that were not expected during the design of this study.

Although the predicted outcomes were not found for locus of control or self-efficacy measures, attempting to control or correct these extraneous variables in the future may yield results that are consistent with the proposed hypotheses. For example, because both of the morning class instructors posted their class notes online, one of them could include the additional research activities (instead of one of the instructors that included them in this study, who both taught afternoon classes and both did not post their class notes online). This would address these issues and thus make the groups more equivalent and more comparable. The questions used on the measures of locus of control and self-efficacy were not designed to measure longitudinal changes of these constructs. Using measures that are specifically developed to determine changes over time would be more appropriate in a future study. In addition, it may be beneficial to exaggerate the differences between each of the research activities to make the developmental shift more salient to the students. However, students in PSY 111 did show a greater increase in psychology content knowledge compared with a similar, large section course. Thus, PSY 111 appears to be meeting at least one of the goals of the course.

This research sought to determine if PSY 111 was obtaining the goal of not only teaching psychology majors about the discipline but also helping students to develop a sense of autonomy that will help them throughout and beyond their academic careers. Psychology majors' responses to questions concerning their knowledge of psychology, their locus of control, and their self-efficacy were compared to the responses of non-psychology majors at both the beginning and at the end of a semester. The results indicated that although psychology majors did show an increase in their knowledge of psychology and showed greater increases in their psychology content knowledge, there were no differences in locus of control and self-efficacy scores. In conclusion, this area of students' academic development is very important, both for their academic and professional careers, and making sure that autonomy development is embedded within any course curriculum should be a top priority throughout higher education.

Acknowledgements

This research study was supported by a 2007-2008 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Small Grant, funded by Kathleen McKinney (Cross Endowed Chair in the SoTL) and was presented at the 2009 Teaching and Learning Symposium, hosted by the CTLT.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(3), 185–212.

Chan, V. (2001). Learning autonomously: The learners’ perspectives. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(3), 285–300.

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64.

Janzen, H. L., & Beeken, D. (1973). An analysis of the applicability of the locus of control construct. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 19(4), 295–302.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710.

Lefcourt, H. M., von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., & Cox, D. J. (1979). The multidimensional-multiattributional causality scale: The development of a goal specific locus of control scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 11(4), 286–304.

Ponton, M. K., & Carr, P. B. (2000). Understanding and promoting autonomy in self-directed learning. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5(19), 1–11.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.