the development and design of an … · traditional classroom schooling (baxter-magolda, 1998)....
TRANSCRIPT
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF AN INSTRUMENT TO MEASURE SELF-AUTHORSHIP IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS
BY
Taras Ferencevych Bachelor of Arts, Rutgers College, 1996
THESIS
Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in
Kinesiology
September, 2004
This thesis has been examined and approved.
________________________________ Thesis Director, Dr. Keith Russell, Assistant Professor of Kinesiology ________________________________ Dr. Michael A. Gass, Professor of Kinesiology ________________________________
Laurie Gullion, Clinical Professor of Kinesiology ________________________________
Date
iii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my parents who made me believe I was
invincible.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................. III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. IV
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... VII
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... VIII
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... IX
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................ 3 DEFINITION OF TERMS .................................................................................... 4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................... 5 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 5
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................. 6
OUTDOOR EDUCATION (OE)............................................................................ 6 SELF-AUTHORSHIP.......................................................................................... 8 CONSTRUCTS RELATED TO SA ......................................................................... 9 REASONED LINKS BETWEEN SA AND OE ........................................................ 12 RESEARCH FINDINGS LINKING SA TO OE ........................................................ 15
Self-efficacy ............................................................................................ 15 Locus of Control ..................................................................................... 19
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. 21
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 23
PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................. 23 CASE SELECTION ......................................................................................... 25 PROCEDURES .............................................................................................. 27
Focus-group Interview ............................................................................ 27 Instrument Development ........................................................................ 28 SAQ Administration ................................................................................ 28
DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 29 Phase 1 .................................................................................................. 29 Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 30
IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................. 31
PHASE 1 ...................................................................................................... 31 Judgement/Decision Making .................................................................. 32 Self-regulation ........................................................................................ 32 Self-confidence ....................................................................................... 34 Interpersonal Skills ................................................................................. 34 Empowerment ........................................................................................ 35 Creative Problem Solving ....................................................................... 35
vi
Leadership/Responsibility ....................................................................... 36 Knowledge Creation ............................................................................... 36
PHASE 2 ...................................................................................................... 38 Participants ............................................................................................. 38 Initial Item Reduction .............................................................................. 40
V. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 49
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 49 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 49
Phase 1 .................................................................................................. 49 Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 50
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 50 Phase 1 .................................................................................................. 50 Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 52
IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 53 Phase 1 .................................................................................................. 53 Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 54
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 54 Phase 1 .................................................................................................. 54 Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 56
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................ 57
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................... 59
APPENDIX A: SELF AUTHORSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE V.1 ......................... 65
APPENDIX B: SELF AUTHORSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE V.2 ......................... 70
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ........................................... 72
APPENDIX D: OFFICE OF SPONSORED RESEARCH APPROVAL ........... 75
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1: FOURTEEN TENETS OF THE PLAST PROGRAM (TYSOVSKY, 1912). ...... 26
TABLE 4-1: FOCUS-GROUP STATEMENTS AND IDENTIFIED OPEN CODES PATTERN-
CODED INTO THEMES. ............................................................................... 33
TABLE 4-2: ORIGINAL ITEMS GENERATED FOR INCLUSION IN SAQ V.1 .................. 39
TABLE 4-3: MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, SKEWNESS, AND KURTOSIS STATISTICS.
.............................................................................................................. 41
TABLE 4-4: ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX FOR THE FOUR FACTOR PRINCIPAL FACTOR
ANALYSIS. ............................................................................................... 46
TABLE 4-6: ITEMS INCLUDED IN IDENTIFIED SUB-SCALES. ................................... 48
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 4-1:THIRTY-TWO ITEM SCALE SCREE PLOT. ........................................... 43
ix
ABSTRACT
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF AN INSTRUMENT TO MEASURE SELF-AUTHORSHIP IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS
By
Taras Ferencevych
University of New Hampshire, September 2004
Self Authorship (SA) is a growing area of interest (Baxter-Magolda, 1998;
1999; 2001; Kegan, 1994) that helps delineate specific skills for helping
young people develop into well-adjusted adults capable of dealing with the
demands of modern life. The purpose of this study was to identify domains
associated with self-authorship and to develop an instrument that could
reliably measure the construct. The study was completed in two phases.
During the first phase, a case study of the Plast Ukrainian Scouting
Organization (Plast) was completed to identify how this organization defines
self-authorship. Plast relies heavily on Outdoor Education (OE) methods in
its programs and identifies self-authorship as one of its program goals. The
domains generated from the case-study were compared to existing self-
authorship literature to develop the Self-Authorship Questionnaire (SAQ v.1).
The SAQ v. 1 was then administered to 289 young adults between the ages
of 18 and 38 (M = 21.34). The data was analyzed using Principal Factors
Analysis (PFA) to determine if distinct factors were evident in the instrument.
Four distinct factors which were identified converted into four sub-scales: (a)
x
Situational Coping, (b) Interpersonal Leadership, (c) Self-Efficacy and (d)
Knowledge Creation. The items comprising the four identified sub-scales
were retained and included in the second version of the Self-Authorship
Questionnaire (SAQ v.2). Implications for the use of the SAQ v. 2 in OE
program evaluation are presented.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
One of the challenges of modern society is to teach youth to become
independent, self-directing adults. It is a common belief that young people
develop these skills during their college years. However, Kegan (1994)
suggests that today’s American college students are not prepared for the
rigors of life upon graduation because universities and colleges do not
provide them with an opportunity to develop and practice the necessary skills
to self-author their lives upon graduation. The author reasons that American
college graduates rely heavily on someone else (e.g. professors, teachers,
parents) for knowledge. They have, with a few exceptions, been socialized
and taught to accept knowledge from authority figures (Baxter-Magolda,
1998), a direct result of the epistemological development created by
traditional classroom schooling (Baxter-Magolda, 1998).
Self-authorship (SA) is defined as peoples’ ability to simultaneously
construct knowledge within the context of their world, define an internal
identity for themselves separate from external influences, and engage in
relationships with others without losing their internal identity (Baxter-Magolda,
1999). More specifically, SA looks at the development of inter- and
intrapersonal skills and how they make meaning of one’s experience. The
2
approach proposed by higher education proponents of SA is called
constructive developmental pedagogy (Baxter-Magolda, 1999).
Both Kegan (1994) and Baxter-Magolda (1998) suggest that the
incorporation of a constructive-developmental approach to traditional subject
matter would provide a better training for students to self-author upon
graduation. Kegan (1994) identifies three necessary components of
constructive-developmental pedagogy as (a) acknowledging the student as
knower, (b) basing education on the student’s experience, and (c) inclusion of
the student in creation of the experience. Kegan and Baxter-Magolda claim
that the implementation of these three ideas into traditional American college
curricula will help students develop ownership of the subject matter and learn
critical analysis, problem solving, and interpersonal skills, thus greatly
enhancing their ability to author their own future. More recently, Baxter-
Magolda (1999) has suggested that this type of pedagogy can and should
also be applied to traditional K-12 education.
It is my contention that Outdoor Education (OE), which bases learning
in the natural environment with emphases on group process, collaboration,
leadership, judgment and reflection (Ewert & Haywood, 1991; Gass in Miles &
Priest 1990; Kraft in Miles & Priest, 1990; Walsh & Golins, 1976), has since
its inception provided participants with the necessary skills to self-author.
Research conducted on OE outcomes (Bertolami, 1981; Ewert, 1983; Hans,
2000; Hattie, Marsh, Neill & Richards, 1997; Koesler & Propost, 1998;
Paxton, 1998; Sibthorp, 2003) has demonstrated that participation in OE
3
programs can facilitate positive change in self-efficacy and a more
internalized locus of control (LOC), both of which are closely related to SA.
Increased or enhanced self-efficacy and more internalized LOC help young
people depend on themselves for knowledge creation and direction, both of
which are critical elements of SA.
Though many concepts comprising SA have been researched at length
in OE (i.e. self-efficacy and locus of control), only recently has OE research
started to make mention of the connection between OE and self-authorship
(Gass, Garvey & Sugerman, 2003). This study will attempt to make evident
the connections between OE and SA, suggesting that this may be an
important area of research in OE in the future. This study will also attempt to
create a sound instrument for measuring self-authorship, which may be used
to empirically test the idea that OE programming facilitates the development
of SA in participants.
Study Objectives
The specific objectives of this study were: 1) to review literature to
better understand the underlying themes that define self-authorship, 2) to
explore how outdoor education processes and outcomes relate to self-
authorship, and 3) to design and pilot test a valid and reliable measure of self-
authorship.
4
Definition of Terms
Outdoor Education – Education based on the experiential philosophy of
learning by doing in the outdoors. Outdoor Education emphasizes
relationships between people and natural resources as its major modality for
learning. Outdoor education is divided down into adventure education and
environmental education with focus on four types or relationships:
interpersonal, intrapersonal, ecosystemic, and ekistic (Priest & Gass, 1997).
Self-authorship – Individuals’ ability to simultaneously construct knowledge
within the context of their world, define an internal identity for themselves
separate from external influences, and engage in relationships with others
without losing their internal identity (Baxter-Magolda, 1999).
Self-efficacy – The belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
sources of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1986).
Locus of control – An individual’s belief about the relationship between his/her
actions and the outcomes of those actions (Rotter, 1966). Generally refers to
a person’s belief that he/she controls his/her own destiny or that it is
controlled by others or fate.
Plast – A 91-year-old Ukrainian scouting organization founded in Ukraine
which has existed in the United States and Canada since the late 1940’s.
5
The organization uses scouting as its main programmatic delivery method
with a heavy reliance on outdoor education programming (e.g. summer
camps, hiking, camping, canoeing, etc.).
Research Questions
1. How is self-authorship defined in the literature?
2. Do proven OE outcomes lead to self-authorship?
3. What constructs should be included in a measure of self-authorship?
4. Can a reliable measure of SA be developed?
Limitations
The researcher recognizes several limitations to this study. They are:
1) The analysis of case study data was not peer reviewed.
2) It is assumed that participants responded to the SAQ truthfully.
3) The sample number N=289 was on the lower end of the acceptable
sample size for Principal Factor Analysis (PFA).
4) The sample was not randomly selected.
5) The researcher has limited experience.
6) The results of the study are not generalizable beyond the sample.
6
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In this chapter an overview of OE and its relation to other psychological
theories and the underlying principles of experiential and outdoor education
are explored to provide a context for the research. SA is examined primarily
by introducing the concept of constructive-development pedagogy. A review
of outdoor education research literature is provided, focusing on evidence
about outcomes related to self-authorship, particularly self-efficacy and locus
of control. Finally, in light of self-authorship theory and outdoor education
evidence pertaining to related constructs, suggestions for future research
about the connections of OE and SA are made.
Outdoor Education (OE)
The use of the outdoors for educational purposes is by no means a
novel concept. Plato promoted the use of outdoor experiences for education
and the development of healthy bodies (Hattie, Marsh, Neill & Richards,
1997). On its way to its current form outdoor education has borrowed and
added ideas from the related field of education, most notably the ideas of
John Dewey (Dewey, 1938/1997). Dewey (1938/1997) introduces the use of
7
experience as a necessary element of education. Dewey talks about the
importance of cooperation both between teacher and student and among
students (Dewey, 1938/1997). We later see this idea incorporated into major
OE theories that focus on team work and facilitator competencies (Hahn,
1957; Walsh & Golins, 1976).
Miles and Priest (1990) claim that any history of OE must start with
Kurt Hahn. Hahn believed that the use of intense adventure experiences in a
natural setting and based on increasingly difficult challenges would build an
individual’s sense of self-worth and concern for others (Hahn, 1970). Hahn
used these ideas to found several schools, most importantly Outward Bound
(Miles & Priest, 1990). Outward Bound in turn has given rise to several “spin-
offs and adaptive programs” which have influenced traditional education all
over the world, most notably in the United States (Miner in Miles & Priest,
1990). Ewert (1989) reported that in 1975 U.S. universities were offering over
200 wilderness-related adventure programs, a number that rose to more than
640 by 1984. Hattie et. al. (1997) report that in 1994 alone more than 40, 000
students participated in Outward Bound. Since the origins of Outward Bound
in the 1940’s, adventure-based programs have been used for educational,
recreational, developmental and therapeutic programming. The populations
most often associated with these programs include, but are not limited to:
adolescents, adjudicated youth, corporate, people with disabilities, children,
dysfunctional families, and psychiatric patients (Hattie, et. al., 1997; Ewert,
1989; Priest & Gass, 1997).
8
Self-authorship
Baxter-Magolda defines SA as “the capacity to author, or invent, one's
own beliefs, values, sense of self, and relationship with others" (Baxter-
Magolda, 2001, p.14). Baxter-Magolda (1999) goes on to write that adulthood
in contemporary America requires the ability for lifelong learning in order to
keep up with the rapidly changing worlds of technology, science, economics,
and culture. Kegan (1994) suggests that today’s American college students
do not possess these skills upon graduating college because colleges do not
provide students with an opportunity to develop them. American students
graduate college being heavily reliant on others (e.g. professors, teachers,
parents) for knowledge. They have, with a few exceptions, been socialized
and taught to accept knowledge from authority figures (Baxter-Magolda,
1998). This trend is a result of the epistemological development created by
traditional classroom schooling (Baxter-Magolda, 1998).
Both Kegan (1994) and Baxter-Magolda (1998) suggest that the
incorporation of a constructive-developmental approach to traditional subject
matter would better train students to be self-authoring individuals upon
graduation. Kegan (1994) goes on to identify three necessary components of
constructive-developmental pedagogy: (a) acknowledging the student as
knower, (b) basing education on students’ experience and, (c) inclusion of the
student in creation of the experience. The inclusion of these three ideas into
traditional American college instruction will lead to ownership of the subject
9
matter and the development of critical analysis, problem solving, and
interpersonal skills enhancing students’ ability to self-author.
The most recent and comprehensive study (Baxter-Magolda, 2001) of
the use of a constructive-developmental pedagogy in higher education
involved tracking 101 incoming college freshman from college through their
thirties. Baxter-Magolda conducted more than 300 interviews with the
participants. The results of the 18-year longitudinal study focused on 39
remaining participants and identified several constructs which define SA. The
validation of a student’s capacity to learn through participation in collaborative
work, leadership roles, and membership in diverse communities creates the
backbone of SA. Young adults who participate in these types of activities are
better equipped to make meaning of their own experiences, ultimately
allowing them to self-author. The most interesting result of the research is the
relationship between SA and time. The research (Baxter-Magolda, 2001)
shows that young people with longer exposure to constructive-developmental
pedagogies and techniques have a greater ability to self-author their lives.
Constructs related to SA
SA incorporates various ideas (Baxter-Magolda, 1999, 2001) much like
OE (Walsh & Golins, 1976; Ewert & Haywood, 1991; Gass in Miles & Priest,
1990; Kraft in Miles & Priest, 1990). However, the most relevant connection
between SA and OE research can be seen in the realms of self-efficacy and
10
locus of control (LOC). A closer look at the research makes this connection
evident.
Kegan (1994) and Baxter-Magolda’s (1998;1999; 2001) ideas about
self-authorship and constructive-developmental pedagogy are related to the
theory of self-efficacy proposed by Bandura (1977). Self-efficacy refers to an
individual’s judgment about his/her capability to act in the face of novel,
uncomfortable, and stressful situations (Bandura, 1977). Bandura claimed
that an individual gains greater self-efficacy through successfully overcoming
challenges. Furthermore, Bandura proposed that self-efficacy beliefs strongly
determine an individual’s behavior. Thus, if self-efficacy beliefs can be made
more positive, then enhanced behavior will follow.
In order to boost self-efficacy beliefs Bandura recommended that
individuals have experiences of successfully overcoming relevant challenges.
Bandura goes on to say that an individual’s self-efficacy increases
incrementally after each successful encounter, meaning they believe they can
overcome more and more difficult situations. Bandura (1986; 1997) also
states that self-efficacy is not just about knowing how to do something, but it
is also combining cognitive, behavioral and social skills to develop a holistic
course of action. According to Bandura’s theory, it is important to have
success early so that self-efficacy can increase and not be affected by future
failures (Bandura, 1977). This idea is definitely reflected in the theories of
both Kegan and Baxter-Magolda. They both advocate the value of providing
students with the opportunity to learn how to succeed in order to increase
11
self-efficacy. This in turn allows them to tackle more difficult challenges
(interpersonal relationships, critical thinking, etc.) that eventually lead to SA
(Kegan, 1994, Baxter-Magolda, 1998, 1999).
Another worthy theory when thinking about self-authorship is Rotter’s
(1966) theory of locus-of-control. LOC relates to an individual’s beliefs
around the relationship between his/her actions and the outcomes of those
actions (Rotter, 1966). Lefcourt (1982) expands on Rotter and explains the
dichotomy inherent in LOC. The dichotomy of internal-external LOC
describes the way a person evaluates life events and subsequently assigns
meaning to those events. Individuals with internal LOC orientations view
events as resulting from one’s own actions, implying the potential for personal
control (Lefcourt, 1982). On the other hand individuals with an external LOC
orientation perceive events as being unrelated to personal actions and
thereby out of their control (Lefcourt, 1982). Individuals with internal LOC
attribute success and failure to skill and hard work, whereas individuals with
external LOC attribute them to luck, chance or fate (Zwart, 1988).
According to Zwart (1988) research suggests that an internal LOC
orientation is the more “psychologically healthy” of the two. Individuals with
an internal LOC orientation strive to achieve some measure of control over
personal development and environment. This idea of control of personal
development and environment also relates to Kegan and Baxter-Magolda’s
ideas of SA. Both Kegan (1994) and Baxter-Magolda (1999) talk about
students taking control of their own learning and being responsible for
12
creating their own knowledge and beliefs. More recently Baxter-Magolda
(2001) reported that young people experiencing a constructive-developmental
approach learn to take responsibility for their actions because they have been
given opportunities to make decisions with real consequences.
Both LOC and self-efficacy are complex concepts which explain young
people’s development and closely relate to SA. OE research has shown that
internal LOC and improved self-efficacy are outcomes of participation in OE
activities (Bertolami, 1981; Ewert, 1983; Hans, 2000; Hattie, Marsh, Neill &
Richards, 1997; Koesler & Propost, 1998; Paxton, 1998). Before delving into
the results of specific research studies, an exploration of the inherent
presence of SA in OE is warranted.
Reasoned Links between SA and OE
Since John Dewey formally introduced the idea of experiential
education in 1938, the essential components of SA have been present. The
connection can be made between OE’s emphasis on cooperation and
teamwork and SA’s need for creating relationships which aid in the creation of
knowledge. OE theory also has a deep history of problem solving (Walsh &
Golins, 1976) and provides a level of discomfort or dissonance (Dewey, 1997;
Walsh & Golins, 1976) which heightens student awareness of challenges and
impels them to create solutions both individually and within a group.
OE programs, particularly in North America, are grouped into four
categories by Priest & Gass (1997): recreational, educational, developmental
13
and therapeutic. A brief explanation of the four areas is warranted to better
understand which of the four categories best aid in helping individuals to self-
author. Recreation in OE is focused on having fun, learning new things, and
becoming reenergized (Priest & Gass, 1997). The learning of new skills
traditionally occurs through problem-solving tasks of increasing difficulty
which encourage creative thinking and collaboration. Through teaching new
skills recreation does provide some opportunity to transfer learning to future
events; traditionally, however, those events are the same or similar to the
recreational experience.
Educational OE programs are “aimed at understanding concepts,
enriching the knowledge of old concepts, or generating an awareness of
previously unknown needs through adventure” (Priest & Gass, 1997, p. 23).
These educational programs provide students a fresh perspective and
encourage them to create new attitudes regarding the way they conceptualize
daily life (Priest & Gass, 1997). In these programs students are challenged to
create connections between the adventure experience and their personal
realities. The development of these transfer skills is crucial to self-authorship
because it provides students with a mechanism for synthesizing information
and experience and making it relative to their own reality.
Developmental programming attempts to change people’s behaviors
by teaching alternative behaviors using adventure (Priest & Gass, 1997).
These programs focus a great deal on interaction with others (i.e. teamwork,
communication, cooperation) and personal development. Developmental
14
programs attempt to provide individuals with a better ability to function within
a group and develop a strong sense of self within a group. The development
of interpersonal skills through collaborative work is a very important part of SA
(Baxter-Magolda, 2001). Clearly developmental OE programs have a strong
connection to self-authorship.
Lastly, therapeutic programs strive to change dysfunctional behavior
patterns using adventure experiences (Priest & Gass, 1997). Therapeutic OE
programs focus particularly on changing dysfunction and fighting destructive
behaviors which often aids individuals in being able to self-author their future
lives. Additionally, therapeutic adventure programs help participants develop
appropriate and adaptive social skills (Russell, 2003) which are both
important in becoming self-authoring adults.
All four categories of OE programs have the potential to increase an
individual’s ability to self-author. The critical pedagogical components of OE
are: experiential learning, dissonance, critical reflection, leadership,
empowerment, group process, and collaboration (Gass in Miles & Priest,
1990; Kraft in Miles & Priest, 1990; Walsh & Golins, 1976). These central
tenets of OE provide students with opportunities to develop and practice self-
authorship skills. Through participation in OE activities students learn
interpersonal and problem-solving skills which aid them in relying on
themselves as sources of knowledge, rather than depending on someone
else to provide that knowledge. Additionally, students gain the self-efficacy
15
and internalize their locus of control, which helps them to stand by the
knowledge they have derived for themselves.
Research Findings linking SA to OE
Self-efficacy
Research findings reporting positive self-efficacy outcomes as a result
of participation in OE activities are abundant. The research shows that OE’s
emphasis on problem solving, feedback, and group process (Hattie, et.al.,
1997; Koesler & Propst, 1998; Paxton & McAvoy, 1998, Newhouse, 2002)
provides an excellent context for experiencing incremental successes which
aid in the development of self-efficacy.
Hattie et.al. (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of outcomes influenced
by adventure programs. They analyzed 96 unique studies in which they
identified 1,728 effect sizes based on 151 unique samples. The study
reported an overall immediate effect size of .34. Additionally, they reported a
follow-up effect of .17 which, when added to the immediate effect, results in a
total effect of .51. The study reported the greatest immediate effects on
leadership, academics, independence, assertiveness, emotional stability,
social comparison, time managemen,t and flexibility. The researchers went
on to create six encompassing dimensions (academic, leadership, self-
concept, personality, interpersonal, and adventuresome) across which effects
of adventure programming were systematically high (Hattie et.al., 1997).
Hattie et. al. (1997) then state that there are marked increases in
16
interpersonal dimensions as a result of adventure programming. It is
Important to note that in the conclusions reported by Hattie et.al. (1997) is the
claim that “adventure programs increase the amount of quality feedback that
is vital to the experiential learning process” (p.75). The results reported by
Hattie et.al. (1997) regarding the positive effects of adventure programming
on several dimensions necessary for self-authorship provide clear evidence of
the inherent connection between OE and SA. The analysis conducted by
Hattie et.al. is far reaching and comprehensive, providing good insight into
various OE outcomes which influence SA. Hattie et.al. provide a good
overview of self-efficacy as one outcome of participation in OE. A review of
research which focuses specifically on OE and self-efficacy will further the
understanding of the connection between SA and OE.
Self-efficacy has been measured using the self-efficacy scale and
shown to be increased as a result of participation in outdoor leadership
trainings at the National Outdoor Leadership School (Koesler & Propst, 1998).
An experiential group (N = 194) was administered a pre-test and two post-
tests (immediately after the course and one year later), and these results
were compared to a baseline group The study also showed that self-efficacy
decreased from post-course levels but remained significantly higher than
base levels a year after participation. Additionally, the study reported that
feedback and mentoring had a positive effect on self-efficacy (Koesler &
Propst, 1998).
17
In a study conducted by Paxton and McAvoy (1998), the researchers
focused on 68 participants aged 18 to 29 years who participated in a series of
21-day Outward Bound courses. Researchers used a pre-test post-test
design with an added post-test six months after completion of the course.
The study investigated the effect of adventure programs on participants’ self-
efficacy and the transference of self-efficacy outcomes of adventure programs
to everyday life. Respondents indicated a greater feeling of control of their
own lives. Additionally, respondents indicated greater feeling of self-reliance,
evidenced by statements such as “I have learned to do things on my own
without depending on someone else to do it for me” (Paxton & McAvoy, 1998,
p. 7) Such reported by-products of increased self-efficacy suggest that OE
programs help students to create their own identities and not rely on others
for knowledge.
Paxton and McAvoy (1998, p.2) adopt Bandura’s notion that “a resilient
sense of efficacy is needed to sustain a continual effort, which is needed for
success in any situation” and attempt to measure various elements of self-
efficacy: general efficacy, socio-political efficacy and interpersonal efficacy.
Their study showed an increase in all three elements pre- to post-test, and six
months later (Paxton & McAvoy, 1998). Showing increases in interpersonal
efficacy, they were able to show that adventure program participants are
better able to defend one’s point of view during group decisions, develop
working relationships, and develop personal relationships. (Paxton & McAvoy,
1998).
18
Another important finding of the study shows that participants were able to
transfer positive gains from participation in adventure programs to their
everyday lives (Paxton & McAvoy, 1998). All of the results reported by
Paxton & McAvoy support the contention that OE aids in SA.
Kolb (1993, p.8) suggests that “in a rapidly changing workplace,
employees need the ability to handle new and ambiguous situations”. In an
attempt to show that participation in outdoor experiential training increases
self-efficacy, Kolb examined two experimental and control groups of
adolescents over a four-month period (Kolb, 1993). Kolb’s study focused on
128 ninth graders participating in a five-week program consisting of: team
building activities, rock climbing, rappelling, wilderness living skills,
spelunking, challenge course events and problem-solving activities. The
participants were measured weekly for self-efficacy. Although Kolb
discovered numerous limitations in his study that may have altered results, he
reported that self-efficacy changes initially, but over time self-efficacy is
comprised of past successes and failures and will not automatically change in
a short period of time (Kolb, 1993).
Newhouse (2002) conducted a study of the use of a climbing wall
adventure activity on children’s perceived self-efficacy. The study included
over 100 participants from fourth- and fifth-grade classes in Albuquerque
public schools. The participants were given a pre-test one week prior to the
intervention and a post-test immediately after the intervention using Cowen’s
Perceived Self-Efficacy scale. Newhouse (2002) concluded that adventure
19
education increases self-efficacy of participants to deal with problems with
people. Additionally, Newhouse (2002) underscored the importance of
debriefing in adventure education as a necessary element to produce
increased self-efficacy. It was reported that children need help in making
connections and transferring learning to everyday lives.
Locus of Control
OE programs provide an opportunity for participants to see immediate
results of their actions, making the amount of control they exercise over their
circumstance very apparent. This element of OE programs aids students in
accepting responsibility for their actions and enhances a feeling of personal
control over their lives. When young people internalize a feeling of control
over their lives, they become better prepared to begin self-authoring.
Hans’(2000) meta-analysis of the effects of outdoor programming on
LOC found an effect size of .38 (Cohen’s d), substantiating previous findings
(Cason, 1993; Cason & Gillis, 1994; Hattie et.al.,1997) of increased internality
of participants’ LOC. The meta-analysis included 24 studies with 1,632
subjects and 30 effect sizes. Hans (2000) concluded that the individual
studies regarding LOC and participation in outdoor/adventure programming
need to focus on specific program elements and their relationship to changes
in LOC. Hans (2000) suggested that by using better measurement tools and
developing further clarity around program characteristics as moderators of
change, would strengthen research connecting increases in internal LOC to
adventure programming.
20
Another study connecting LOC and adventure programming reports
that students have an increased sense of their ability to take control of their
lives (Bertolami, 1981). The study used a quasi-experimental control group
design to collect quantitative data from young adults participating in a
standard 26-day Outward Bound course. Bertolami’s (1981) study collected
descriptive data in the form of journal entries and written self-evaluations.
The data supported the quantitative evidence which concluded that
wilderness programs provide an important medium for enhancing the
personal development of young adults (Bertolami, 1981). Additionally, the
qualitative data supported the quantitative findings that wilderness programs
increase internal LOC orientations in males and decrease female perceptions
that events were controlled by chance or others (Bertolami, 1981). The study
reported that students felt more able to control their lives in light of realistic
personal limits (Bertolami, 1981). Lastly, Bertolami (1981) attributes changes
in “personal control” to accomplishment of challenging activities, supportive
group environment, intense personal interactions, wilderness environment,
and increased self-awareness (Bertolami, 1981). The language used by
Bertolami, suggesting internalization of LOC, again resembles tenets of SA
concerned with development of personal identity.
A study conducted to examine the effects of participation in an
Outward Bound program on multidimensional self-concepts (Marsh, Richard
& Barnes, 1986a, 1986b) reported a significant shift toward an internal LOC
orientation during the program. The study included 361 participants from 16
21
to 31-year-olds who completed one of ten Outward Bound courses over the
course of seven months in the early 1980’s (Marsh, Richard & Barnes, 1986a,
1986b). The researchers used the Rotter I-E scale (Rotter, 1966) at the start
and finish of the Outward Bound course and again 18 months later.
The Hattie et.al (1997) meta-analysis reported an effect of .30 on
internal LOC. The researchers concluded that the increase in internal LOC in
conjunction with increases in independence (.47), self-efficacy (.31), self-
understanding (.34), assertiveness (.42), and decision making (.47) resulted
in the greatest effects on self-control (Hattie et. al, 1997). The outcome
related to a reported sense of control or regulation of self, responsibility or an
assurance of self (Hattie et.al., 1997). The above clearly show that
participants gain a level of self-regulation which is critical to self-authorship by
participating in adventure programs (Hattie et.al., 1997).
By experiencing the feeling of control over their lives, participants are
empowered to move toward SA. Increased independence and greater ability
to self-regulate action enhances an individual’s ability to self-author.
Conclusions
An attempt has been made to present relevant research which makes
clear the connection between OE and self-authorship. SA and OE share
common pedagogical approaches which incorporate critical thinking, problem
solving, interpersonal skill development, empowerment, and making meaning
of one’s experience. SA is a relatively new concept being explored in the
22
realm of higher education; however, OE methodologies appear to inherently
posses mechanisms which enhance SA. Recently connections between SA
and OE have appeared in OE research (Gass, et.al., 2003).
OE research demonstrates that participation in OE programs has
positive effects on personal development including transference to everyday
life over time. The research demonstrates that OE increases self-efficacy and
internalizes LOC, both concepts related to SA.
23
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A case study design is best suited for this study. The case study
design allows for multiple sources of data, which complement and reinforce
each other (Yin, 1989). This particular case study called for the inclusion of
several components to meet the stated purpose of the research. The first
component involved a review of SA and OE literature. The second
component was a focus group used to add clarity to the relationship between
SA and OE and inform the generation of themes and items to include in a
measure of SA. Lastly, data were collected using the Self-authorship
questionnaire (SAQ) created using themes and items identified during
analysis of focus-group data.
Participants
The participants in this study are divided into two phases: (a) focus-
group interview participants and (b) SAQ subjects. Phase 1 participants were
all members of the Plast organization. Phase 2 subjects were young adult
members (18 – 38 years old) of Plast and students at the University of New
Hampshire (UNH) in Outdoor Education and Recreation Management/Policy
24
classes. The University of New Hampshire is a traditional state university
located in Durham, New Hampshire with approximately 13,000 students.
Phase 1 participants were seven adult members of Plast who were
asked to participate by the author. The actual interview was conducted
during Plast’s bi-annual national convention held at a resort in the Catskill
Mountains of New York State. All the participants gave their consent to
participate in the interview. Demographic information was obtained from all
interview participants.
Phase 2 Plast subjects (49.1%) were from the United States and
Canada. The participants were identified using the database of Plast’s
national headquarters and through personal contacts of the author. In total
233 e-mail addresses were identified and used to invite participants to
complete an on-line version of the SAQ. Participants provided consent
electronically via the internet. Phase 2 UNH subjects were graduate and
undergraduate students in Outdoor Education and Recreation Management &
Policy classes. Students in six classes were administered paper versions of
the SAQ during class times scheduled with instructors: KIN 550 Philosophy
and Methods of Outdoor Education, KIN 682 Outdoor Leadership, RMP 557
Recreation Services Program Design, RMP 668 Youth Culture and Programs,
RMP 667 Recreation Resource Planning, RMP 501 Recreation Services for
Individuals with Disabilities and RMP 772 Law and Public Policy in Leisure
Services. Prior to administration of the survey participants provided their
25
consent (see Informed Consent Form in Appendix C). Demographic
information was collected about all SAQ test subjects.
Case Selection
Plast was founded in 1911 by a group of progressive educators led by
Dr. Olexsander Tysovsky. The organization was created only a few years
after scouting was founded in England by Lord Baden-Powell. The founders
of the Plast organization sought to provide young men with an opportunity to
become well-rounded “citizens of the world” (Starosolsky, 1948). Since its
founding, Plast has broadened it scope to include females. During the mid-
20th century Plast was forced to exist in exile in the Diaspora because it was
outlawed in Ukraine by the Soviet government.
Plast membership traditionally begins at age six, but the major
educational programming occurs between the ages of 11 and 18. At age 11
Plast members pledge to strive to adhere to the 14 core tenets (see Table 3-
1) set forth by Plast’s charter (Yurchuk, 2003).
George Starosolsky, the head scout and author of the seminal book
explaining Plast’s philosophy and methods, states that Plast does not
demand unconditional adherence to its tenets, but throughout many years it
provides a scout with a certain directive to strive to abide by its principles,
eventually making it a way of life (Starosolsky, 1948). The ultimate goal of
Plast closely resembles SA (Kegan, 1994; Baxter-Magolda, 1999). The key
phrase which Plast uses directly translates to “self-rearing” and is defined by
26
Starosolsky (1948) as having the courage to function independently and
relying on one’s own strengths to be in control of the direction one’s life takes.
Table 3-1
Fourteen tenets of the Plast program (Tysovsky, 1912).
Keep your word.
Be conscientious.
Be punctual, exact.
Be thrifty.
Be fair.
Be polite.
Be brotherly, good-natured.
Be even-tempered.
Be useful.
Be obedient.
Be diligent.
Care for your health.
Love beauty and nature, and care for it.
Be optimistic
Plast relies on a year-long program to achieve its goals. From the age
of 11 participants progress through three major levels which are summarized
into: (a) knowing, (b) ability to demonstrate, and (c) the ability to teach. Older
Plast members act as guides and models along the way, incrementally
rendering themselves obsolete and allowing for the older adolescents to
direct their own program. The year-long program culminates every summer at
various camps where participants take part in experiential programs focused
on group development, leadership development, task/skill mastery, problem
solving and further integration of the 14 tenets into their way of life.
Ultimately, Plast’s program is an intentional pairing of youth development and
outdoor education in the hopes of achieving SA.
27
Procedures
Focus-group Interview
After receiving approval from the IRB (Appendix D) the researcher
traveled to the bi-annual convention of Plast in the Catskill Mountains in New
York State. The researcher identified potential participants, based on their
years of leadership, position within the organization, and personal relationship
and shared experience with the researcher. In total eight participants agreed
to participate in the focus-group interview. All the participants were given
informed consent letters (Appendix C) to review and were asked to bring
them to the arranged time and place of the interview. Of the eight consenting
participants, only seven actually participated in the interview.
The interview was conducted using a general interview guide format
(Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003). The researcher began the interview with a short
introduction and then asked the participants to describe self-authorship as
they understood it in the context of Plast. Based on cues taken from the
participants the researcher directed the interview exploring the philosophy,
methods, programs and outcomes the participants believed to be critical to
achieving SA. Particular attention was paid to outdoor and camp
programming. The entire interview was video recorded for future re-visiting
and data analysis.
28
Instrument Development
The SAQ was created to measure eight domains which were identified
as a result of reviewing SA literature and analyzing qualitative data collected
during Phase 1. The eight identified domains of self-authorship are: (a)
judgment/decision making, (b) self-regulation, (c) self-confidence, (d)
interpersonal skills, (e) empowerment, (f) creative problem solving, (g)
leadership/responsibility, and (h) knowledge creation.
SAQ Administration
The researcher utilized an internet-based survey for the Plast group
and an in-person paper survey for UNH group. Participants in the Plast group
were asked to participate via an e-mail distribution list. In an attempt to
increase the return rate, a $100 gift certificate to Amazon.com was offered as
incentive. In total 233 emails were collected. The participants were directed
to a website where the purpose, requirements, benefits and commitment of
the study were explained. Participants indicated their consent by choosing
the “I agree to participate” button, which redirected them to the actual SAQ.
Upon completion of the survey the participants clicked the “submit” button,
which sent an email with their responses to the researcher. The 233
collected e-mail addresses returned 142 completed surveys, yielding a 61%
response rate. The remaining 39% resulted from expired or erroneous e-mail
addresses and non-responses.
29
Participants in the UNH group were surveyed during class at a time
pre-arranged with the class instructor. The researcher explained the purpose
of the study and distributed informed consent forms (Appendix C) to the
participants. They were given a paper version of the SAQ to fill out.
Confidentiality was maintained throughout the data collection process.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed in two phases. The first phase consisted of
analyzing qualitative data collected during the focus-group interview. The
second phase involved analyzing quantitative data collected using the SAQ.
Phase 1
The focus-group interview material was analyzed using a pattern
coding approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994) within the context of a case study
(Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003). Transcripts were viewed several times to identify
common themes. During each viewing general patterns were noticed by the
researcher and were noted. These patterns emerged from interview
participants repeatedly mentioning similar ideas and beliefs about SA. Initially
the researcher viewed the video transcript and on each occasion started
without notes from previous viewing. After several viewings, notes were
analyzed and themes were identified from the patterns. The researcher
compared the identified themes from several sessions of pattern analysis with
published research and literature on the topic of SA to determine if the
interview data was analogous to published research.
30
Phase 2
Data were analyzed to determine internal reliability and Cronbach’s
Alpha for each item as well as a total measure alpha. Alpha scores between
.65 and .70 are considered minimally acceptable; between .70 and .80
respectable; between .80 and .90 very good (DeVellis, 2003). The researcher
focused on inter-scale correlations making sure that none of the inter-item
correlations approached one with a desired range between .3 and .9.
Descriptive analysis was conducted to compute a mean, standard
deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for each variable. This procedure checked
for the normality of data and determined which items were appropriate for
inclusion in subsequent analysis. As outlined by Tabachnik and Fidell (2001)
Principal Factor Analysis (PFA) was used to determine if independent factors
exist and are distinguishable among the identified items. Lastly, identified
factors were converted into sub-scales for inclusion in subsequent versions of
the SAQ.
31
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The objectives of this study were (a) to review literature for a better
understanding of the underlying themes that define self-authorship, (b) to
explore how outdoor education processes and outcomes relate to self-
authorship, and (c) to design and pilot test a valid and reliable measure of
self-authorship. The first two objectives were met by the review of literature.
The third objective was accomplished in two phases. Phase 1 involved
qualitative review of data for the purpose of generating a pool of items to be
included in a preliminary version of a Self-authorship questionnaire (SAQ v.1).
In addition to analysis of qualitative data, self-authorship literature was
reviewed to inform the generation of items. Phase 2 involved the analysis of
quantitative data collected using SAQ v.1 for the purpose of refining the SAQ
v.1 into a more psychometrically sound instrument.
Phase 1
The seven focus group participants were four males ranging in age
form 27 to 49 and three females ranging in age from 24 to 58. All participants
were lifelong members of Plast hailing from: Toronto, New Jersey, New York,
Boston and Washington DC. On average the seven participants had
32
attended 5 Plast summer camps as participants and had been counselors or
leaders within the organization for an average of more than 20 years.
The focus-group interview explored the participants’ perceptions of SA
in the context of the Plast program as they have experienced it and tried to
facilitate it with the youth in their care. Open pattern coding methods
suggested by Miles & Huberman (1994) resulted in the identification of eight
major themes (see Table 4-1).
Judgement/Decision making
Participants reported that the Plast organization provided adolescents
the opportunity to practice decision-making skills over the course of at least
five years which resulted in the development of good judgment. Participants
noted that the process was based on a progression of decision-making with
an increasing level of consequences. “…you were responsible for planning it,
carrying it out, making sure the logistics were there. And if the group didn’t
pull it together, then you had a miserable two weeks.” The importance of
actual consequences was identified as being more effective at developing
judgment and decision-making than hypothetical consequences.
Self-regulation
Focus-group participants consistently mentioned that Plast required
adolescents to take responsibility for their actions, especially when tasks
needed to be accomplished. The Plast program is designed in such a way
that as the adolescent progresses his/her program becomes increasingly
Table 4-1 Focus-group statements and identified open codes pattern-coded into themes.
Themes Sample open codes Sample interview statements
Judgment/Decision Making self-confident decision-making “safe” failure progression of consequences discomfort within a controlled “familiar”
environment
You still need the ability to say “I’m going to take that risk, and these are the consequences. I’m willing to accept them or I’m not willing to accept them.”
Self-regulation self-regulating community learn not to fear failure
…Basically you are taking on the responsibility of checking up on your own behavior and attitude and outlook.
Self-confidence confidence self-confident decision-making success breeds success
And it really helps to have self-confidence when they are able to get through these challenges.
Interpersonal Skills feedback dependant tied to group consequences tied to group standards come from within the group support inherent duration of group
…This group of 6-10 really regulating each other. They are held to a similar standard by a similar community…
Empowerment transition from told to telling empowerment leadership opportunities rites of passage
I think the key word you hit on was empowerment. Begin to empower that child to make decisions…
Creative Problem Solving creativity calculated risks solution oriented non-judgmental
We want a child, a young person to develop their own ability to grasp the situation and understand the complexity of it and then figure out a way of dealing with that complexity.
Leadership/Responsibility alternating position of responsibility within group
leadership opportunities peer leadership
…Every child has the opportunity to see what they are capable of and then subsequently to develop, you know, strengthen their weak areas in these leadership roles…
Knowledge Creation moment of internalization of 14 tenets solution oriented targeted method: knows, can show, can teach “greater context”
…You start to have your own feelings about it and your own interpretations or understanding about it.
more self-directed. Plast participants are expected to create and execute a
program which results in specifically outlined outcomes. Plast
leaders/counselors employ a theory of planned obsolescence, whereby they
gradually remove themselves from a leadership role and retreat to limited
oversight: “…it is the road from being led by the guide to being a self-
motivator…”
Self-confidence
Self-confidence was the theme that surfaced most often throughout the
interview and data analysis. One of the interview participants stated that the
main purpose of Plast’s program was to get adolescents to a certain point:
“So when a young adult arrives at a point of having to make decisions for
themselves, that person is self-confident enough to live in a society as a
useful person, rather than depend on society to provide for them.”
Participants continually noted that self-confidence was the key element that
allowed all the other gains in knowledge and maturity made by an adolescent
to be incorporated into everyday life. Another participant commented that “It
really helps to have that self-confidence when they are able to get through
those challenges” when referring to a person’s ability to deal with
uncomfortable and novel situations.
Interpersonal Skills
The importance of group continually surfaced throughout the interview.
Participants identified that adolescents benefited from going through the Plast
program with the same core group “…our patrol groups are very beneficial to
35
that development, because these children grow up within that same group…”
In addition to the core group, participants talked about the constant interaction
of adolescents at various camps, outings, jamborees, and competitions. The
idea of a progression was again mentioned when talking about the
development of interpersonal skills. At first counselors/leaders set and model
very specific guidelines of interaction which eventually result in the
adolescents establishing and enforcing their own group norms of behavior.
Empowerment
Second only to self-confidence, the theme of empowering youth
surfaced throughout the interview. Participants mentioned that Plast
empowered adolescents by providing group and individual challenges,
leadership opportunities, and a well-defined reward system. Empowerment
was the theme which was mentioned most often in connection with
transference to life outside of Plast. One participant recalled the feeling of
empowerment he felt “I was ready to, you know, whether it be the outdoor
world or going to Tokyo into a new environment… well, I may not be entirely
comfortable with this new environment, but I had the background to say – I’m
ready to take on this challenge and deal with it.”
Creative Problem Solving
The following sentiment was reported by the majority of the
participants: “We want a child, a young person to develop [his/her] own ability
to grasp the situation and understand the complexity of it and then figure out
a way of dealing with that complexity”. The interviewees reported that Plast
36
continually tries to challenge its adolescent participants to enhance their
creativity in the face of challenges. The participants all agreed that creative
problem solving was a key ingredient to self-authorship. The interview
revealed that the summer camp program and annual competitions where the
most effective at encouraging and facilitating creativity.
Leadership/Responsibility
Participants continually mentioned that providing adolescents with
leadership opportunities with real consequences was vital to creating a self-
authoring individual. One of the participants stated “…you continue to up the
ante, if you will, so that you learn to be responsible, you learn something from
failures…how to do better, taking on larger responsibilities, to the point where
you understand that there may be some real risk involved.” Participants
agreed that in order for leadership and responsibility to have the desired
effect on self-authorship it had to be carefully facilitated and guided by a
counselor/leader.
Knowledge Creation
The final theme that was identified from the pattern coding was
knowledge creation. Participants reported that the final stage of the Plast
program turns almost all leadership and decision-making responsibility to the
adolescents. This shift forces participants to decide on and create a plan of
action which is scrutinized by peers and senior counselors. Interview
participants reported that all these factors required the adolescents to form
their own opinions and beliefs and to have the ability to defend them. Most
37
important, in the opinion of the participants, was the internalization and
interpretation of what they had learned to that point. One participant said: “So
it’s this internalization and using it creatively and interpreting for himself the
tenets and progressing forward.” The independent interpretation of Plast
tenets resulted in participants realizing that they are better prepared to collect
and interpret information when making decisions and forming a life plan.
The themes identified from the data analysis indicate the elements of
the Plast program which participants believe lead to self-authorship. The
themes identified were compared to the self-authorship literature (Baxter-
Magolda, 1998, 1999; Kegan, 1994), and it was decided that the two were
very similar. Therefore they provided the researcher with valuable insights
which would aid in the generation of a preliminary item pool for inclusion in a
self-authorship questionnaire.
An initial search for existing instruments measuring the identified
elements of SA was conducted. The following instruments were identified: (a)
the Review of Personal Effectiveness And Locus of Control (ROPELOC)
(Richards, Ellis, & Neill, 2002) and (b) the Empowerment Scale (Rogers,
Chamberlin, Ellison & Crean, 1997). The ROPELOC reports an average
internal reliability of .85 and an overall alpha of .96 (Richards, Ellis, & Neill,
2002). The Empowerment Scale reports an alpha of .86 (Rogers, Chamberlin,
Ellison & Crean, 1997). Where appropriate, intact items were used directly or
slightly adapted from the two measures; this was true for seven of the eight
identified elements of self-authorship. For the seven elements between
38
seven to eight items were selected from the existing measures and later
reduced to five per element resulting in 35 items. In the case of knowledge
creation the author created eight items and ultimately settled on five resulting
in the final instrument (see Appendix A) containing 40 items (see Table 4-2).
The 40 items were randomly ordered and measured on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 False (not like me) to 5 True (very much like me),
providing respondents the opportunity for strong assertions (DeVellis, 2003).
Phase 2
Participants
Basic demographic information was collected to describe the sample.
In total SAQ v.1 data was collected from 289 subjects. Of the 289 subjects
176 (60.9%) were female and 113 (39.1%) were male. One hundred and
forty-two (49.1%) subjects were members of Plast, and 147 (50.9%) were not.
All of the 147 non-members of Plast were students at the University of New
Hampshire (UNH). The average age of the subjects was 21.34 (SD = 2.79),
and ages ranged from 18 to 38. The majority (79.3%) of subjects were
between the ages of 19 and 23.
39
Table 4-2
Original items generated for inclusion in SAQ v.1
Theme Items
Judgment/Decision Making I am good at deciding whether a risk is worth taking. I think about the consequences of my actions. I make the right decision a majority of the time. I show good judgment in most situations. I make decisions in an efficient manner.
Self-regulation I am calm in stressful situations. I am capable of regulating my own actions. I don’t need to be told how to behave. My actions are determined by my peer group. I am efficient and do not waste time.
Self-confidence I am able to do things as well as most other people. No matter what the situation I can handle it. I am confident that I have the ability to succeed in anything I want to do. No matter what happens I can handle it. I know I have the ability to do anything I want to do.
Interpersonal Skills I like cooperating in a team. I am effective in social situations. I cooperate well when working in a team. I communicate effectively with other people. I feel comfortable speaking in front of a group.
Empowerment I see myself as a capable person. People are only limited by what they think is possible. I am given opportunities to make a difference. I am given real responsibility in my life. I am able to handle positions of authority.
Creative Problem Solving Very often a problem can be solved by taking action. I cope well with changing situations. Whatever situation arises I can come up with a solution. I enjoy coming up with solutions to my problems. Problem-solving is stressful.
Leadership/Responsibility I am capable of accepting responsibility. I am willing to accept the consequences of my leadership decisions. I am a good leader when things need to get done. I am a capable leader. I am willing to make difficult decisions.
Knowledge Creation I believe experts are in the best position to decide what people should learn or do. I can research a topic and form my own opinion effectively. I never question the opinion of my superiors. Before making decisions I consult experts. I always look to my teacher/boss for direction.
40
Initial Item Reduction
All data was initially screened for illegal scores which were defined as
beyond the extremes of the 5 point Likert scale. Several illegal scores were
identified and corrected by referring to original data sheets. All illegal scores
were the result of data entry errors.
The initial SAQ contained 40 items chosen to measure the eight
themes identified during Phase 1 of the study. The data for all 40 items was
screened. Of the 40 items, 19 were answered 289 subjects, 15 were
answered by 288 subjects, three were answered by 287 subjects, two were
answered by 286 subjects and one was answered by 284 subjects. In total,
260 subjects answered the SAQ completely. The 29 incomplete surveys
were not eliminated because the missing values were replaced by the mean
scores for that item for the purpose of analysis (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001).
Data screening was performed on all 40 items in an attempt to
eliminate poorly functioning items. Central tendency measures, skewness,
and kurtosis statistics were used to establish normality (see Table 4-3).
Although a high number of items returned mean scores toward the higher end
of the scale (M>3.5), it was decided not to eliminate items due to ceiling
effects. This decision was based on the fact that the subjects to whom the
SAQ was administered were not a random sample but instead were Plast
members or students in Recreation Management Policy and Outdoor
Education classes. Items #3 (I am willing to accept the consequences of my
41
Table 4-3
Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics.
Item Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
4* (reverse) 2.56 .99 .16 -.67 13 (reverse) 2.96 .92 -.10 -.43 22* (reverse) 3.27 .97 -.16 -.69 38 3.33 1.07 -.25 -.66 39 (reverse) 3.39 .93 -.19 -.31 20 (reverse) 3.48 .98 -.28 -.49 5 3.63 1.16 -.49 -.73 31* (reverse) 3.64 .96 -.37 -.39 12 3.73 .80 -.28 -.13 26 3.75 .84 -.31 -.26 2 3.78 .92 -.69 .29 8 3.82 .99 -.69 -.10 15 3.83 .75 -.44 .11 33 3.84 1.03 -.71 -.08 19 3.96 .66 -.39 .48 25 4.01 .78 -.76 .79 36 4.02 .72 -.69 1.10 14 4.07 .78 -.60 .33 7 4.09 .83 -.61 -.14 21 4.10 .88 -1.01 .96 9 4.11 .80 -.89 .91 28 4.11 .85 -.76 -.06 32 4.11 .82 -.78 .39 24 4.14 .82 -1.01 1.21 1 4.15 .70 -.77 1.13 29 4.17 .65 -.57 1.32 37 4.22 .66 -.49 .16 16 4.24 .67 -.46 -.23 34 4.25 .75 -.88 .58 6* 4.25 .82 -1.17 1.74 23* 4.26 .88 -1.47 2.58 27* 4.27 .67 -.73 .78 17 4.27 .73 -.74 .10 18 4.27 .72 -.91 .85 11 4.31 .71 -.95 1.32 3* 4.37 .75 -1.32 2.13 10 4.42 .69 -1.04 .76 35 4.42 .65 -.85 .32 30 4.48 .58 -.73 .15 40* 4.54 .62 -1.55 3.95
*items were dropped
42
leadership decisions), #6 (I think about the consequences of my actions), #23
(I don’t need to be told how to behave) and #40 (I am capable of accepting
responsibility) were eliminated because of the returned skewness and
kurtosis levels beyond the desired range of +1 and -1.
Inter-item correlations were analyzed for the remaining 36 questions.
No correlations outside the desired range between .30 and .90 were noted.
Items #4 (Before making decisions I consult experts), #22 (Problem solving is
stressful), # 27 (I cooperate well when cooperating in a team) and #31 (My
actions are determined by my peer group) were eliminated because the
returned no inter-item correlations within the desired range of between .30
and .90. Prior to the removal of item #’s 3, 4, 6, 22, 23,27,31, and 40,
reliability analysis returned a Cronbach’s Alpha = .86. After removal of the
items reliability analysis returned a Cronbach’s Alpha = .87, indicating an
increase in reliability was achieved as a result of the elimination of the eight
items.
To determine if factor analytic techniques were appropriate for the
remaining 32 item scale, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling
adequacy was used on the entire data set. The data set returned a KMO =
.842, indicating factorability (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001).
First PFA was run on the data set to reduce the remaining 32 items
into components. PFA was chosen because it is widely used and understood
(Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). PFA was run using the eigenvalue rule (Kaiser,
1960), which asserts that factors with eigenvalues less than 1.0 should not be
43
retained. The PFA returned 9 components with eigenvalues > 1.0 explaining
45.1% of the variance in the data set (see Table 4-4). After the initial PFA the
Cattell (1966) scree test was used in conjunction with the variance results to
determine the number of factors to retain. Figure 4-1 shows a break between
Figure 4-1
Thirty-two Item Scale Scree Plot.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Factor Number
0
2
4
6
8
Eig
en
va
lue
Scree Plot
the fourth and fifth eigenvalues and little difference between the fifth and sixth
eigenvalues. The remaining eigenvalues trail off with only slight differences,
indicating a four-factor solution.
The four-factor solution only extracts 34.5% of the variance, which
might indicate the extraction of additional factors would be beneficial.
44
However, PFA was used to develop scales, and thus the researcher was not
interested in a complete description of the variance. Based on DeVallis
(2003) a four-factor scale was decided on. While the PFA shown in Table 4-4
was used to determine the number of factors to retain, a second PFA with
orthogonal varimax rotation was used to improve the interpretability of the
four factor solution. Table 4-5 shows the results of the PFA with an
orthogonal varimax rotation. Since loadings below .30 account for less than
10% overlapping variance, they were left out of the output to assist the
reading and interpretation of the remaining factors.
45
Table 4-4
Total Variance Explained for the Initial Principal Factors Analysis.
Factor Initial eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
1 7.618 23.805 23.805 7.099 22.184 22.184 2.639
2 2.033 6.353 30.158 1.518 4.743 26.928 2.293
3 1.934 6.043 36.201 1.419 4.435 31.362 2.249
4 1.522 4.757 40.958 .997 3.115 34.477 1.484
5 1.402 4.381 45.339 .955 2.986 37.463 1.380
6 1.375 4.296 49.635 .857 2.677 40.140 1.235
7 1.167 3.648 53.283 .624 1.950 42.090 1.220
8 1.160 3.625 56.908 .572 1.786 43.876 1.053
9 1.005 3.141 60.050 .490 1.532 45.408 .977
10 .993 3.103 63.153
11 .908 2.837 65.990
12 .845 2.641 68.631
13 .824 2.574 71.205
14 .740 2.314 73.519
15 .714 2.230 75.749
16 .670 2.093 77.842
17 .652 2.036 79.878
18 .631 1.973 81.850
19 .610 1.907 83.757
20 .560 1.751 85.508
21 .530 1.657 87.165
22 .510 1.594 88.759
23 .493 1.541 90.300
24 .474 1.482 91.783
25 .439 1.371 93.154
26 .403 1.259 94.413
27 .377 1.179 95.592
28 .332 1.037 96.629
29 .304 .949 97.578
30 .287 .898 98.476
31 .252 .789 99.265
32 .235 .735 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
46
Table 4-5
Rotated Factor Matrix for the Four Factor Principal Factor Analysis.
Factor
1 2 3 4
26 .712
12 .648
15 .566
8 .481
28 .460
25 .456
36 .407 .338
2 .392
32 .367
37 .355 .327
38 .311
16 .732
17 .634
10 .569
5 .565
14 .475
18 .388 .379
7 .387
35 .370
24 .341
29 .680
30 .604
19 .540
34 .478
9 .471
1 .351
11 .334
33
20 (reverse) .665
39 (reverse) .548
13 (reverse) .427
21
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
47
In order to develop homogeneous sub-scales, only items that loaded on a
single factor were retained. Items 2, 8, 12, 15, 25, 26, 28, 32, and 38
comprised Factor 1. Items 7, 10, 14, 16, 17, 24, and 35 comprised Factor 2.
Items 1, 9, 11, 19, 29, 30, and 34 comprised Factor 3. Items 13, 20 and 39
comprised Factor 4. It was determined that each of the extracted factors
would comprise sub-scales for the next version of the Self-Authorship
Questionnaire (SAQ v.2). Graduate students and faculty in the KIN 885
“Psychological Factors of Adventure Programming” were enlisted to help
name the factors. Based on the items in the first sub-scale it was named the
Situational Coping sub-scale. Factor 2 was named the Interpersonal
Leadership sub-scale. Factor 3 was named the Self-efficacy sub-scale.
Lastly, Factor 4 was named the Knowledge Creation sub-scale.
SAQ v.2 (see Appendix B) retained 27 items from 40 items in the
original pool. The 27 remaining items were divided into four sub-scales:
Situational Coping, Interpersonal Leadership, Self-efficacy and Knowledge
Creation. Reliability analysis on the SAQ v.2 based on the original data
returned a Cronbach’s Alpha = .85 indicating high reliability.
48
Table 4-6
Items Included In Identified Sub-Scales.
Factor 1 Situational Coping
No matter what happens I can handle it.
No matter what the situation I can handle it.
Whatever situation arises I can come up with a solution.
I cope well with changing situations.
I enjoy coming up with solutions to my problems.
I am willing to make difficult decisions.
I am calm in stressful situations.
I can research a topic and form my own opinion effectively.
I am efficient and do not waste time. Factor 2 Interpersonal Leadership
I am a capable leader.
I am able to handle positions of authority.
I am a good leader when things need to get done.
I feel comfortable speaking in front of a group.
I communicate effectively with other people.
I am given opportunities to make a difference.
I am given real responsibility in my life.
I am effective in social situations.
Factor 3 Self-efficacy
I show good judgment in most situations.
I see myself as a capable person.
I make the right decision a majority of the time.
I know I have the ability to do anything I want to do.
I am able to do things as well as most other people.
I am good at deciding whether a risk is worth taking.
I am capable of regulating my own actions. Factor 4 Knowledge Creation
I never question the opinion of my superiors.
I believe experts are in the best position to decide what people should learn.
I always look to my teacher/boss for direction.
49
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the two phases of the study and
then presents findings, conclusions, implications, and limitations for each
phase. The last portion of the chapter will discuss recommendations for
future research.
Summary
Phase 1
During the bi-annual national meeting of the Plast organization, seven
individuals were identified to participate in a focus-group interview in an
attempt to ascertain the underlying themes of self-authorship. The Plast
organization has existed for over 90 years and since its beginnings has
identified self-authorship as one of its program goals. The interview lasted
approximately one and a half hours and analysis of the resulting data
identified eight themes: Judgment/Decision making, Self-regulation, Self-
confidence, Interpersonal Skills, Empowerment, Creative Problem-solving,
Leadership/Responsibility and Knowledge Creation. These eight themes
were then compared with self-authorship research and used to generate a
50
pool of items for inclusion in a self-authorship measure (SAQ v.1). The SAQ
v.1 contained forty items each measured on a five-point Likert scale.
Phase 2
During the second phase of the study the SAQ v.1 was administered to
289 subjects. Using data screening, item analysis and principal factors
analysis, a number of questions from the SAQ v.1 were eliminated. The final
self-authorship questionnaire (SAQ v.2) was reduced from 40 to 27 questions
that measured self-authorship along four sub-scales: Situational Coping,
Interpersonal Leadership, Self-efficacy and Knowledge Creation.
Findings and Conclusions
Phase 1
The first phase of this study provided in-depth insight into a long
running program which has pursued the development of self-authorship in
young people for over 90 years. The case-study participants identified
several key areas of their program which they believe to be critical to self-
authorship. During the interview participants noted the importance of
developing a healthy sense of self-confidence in adolescents. This self-
confidence was carefully developed through a well-thought-out progression of
programming which included a heavy reliance on group/cooperative work with
gradually increasing responsibility and consequences. Additionally, young
51
people were provided with various opportunities for leadership during which
they practice decision-making skills. Another important key to the Plast
program was the constant presence, allowing for an intimate knowledge of
each participant over a substantial period of time (6 – 10 years), of counselors
and guides who provide feedback and supervision in an effort to aid
adolescents on their journey toward self-authorship. The focus-group
participants agreed that ultimately the goal of Plast was to empower young
people by providing them with a strong foundation for decision-making now
and in the future.
It is interesting to note that the majority of ideas and themes agreed
upon by the focus-group participants are congruent with the results of a 10-
year longitudinal study conducted by Baxter-Magolda (2001). In her book
Making Their Own Way (2001) Baxter-Magolda talks about validating
student’s ability to know as a critical element of self-authorship. Among the
things Baxter-Magolda identified were participation of collaborative work,
leadership roles, and membership in a community. Both Kegan (1994) and
Baxter-Magolda (1999, 2001) write about the importance of teachers acting
as guides for young people for an extended period of time. The extended
interaction allows for the teachers/guides to eventually remove themselves
from the relationship once the young person has the necessary foundation to
self-author their present and future.
52
Phase 2
The second phase of the study used various quantitative data analysis
techniques to develop an instrument to measure SA. Descriptive data
showed the majority of items scored toward the high end of the five point
Likert scale. Two primary reasons are given to explain this phenomenon.
First, the sample of subjects used in the study was not randomly selected
from the general population as is suggested for use in the development of
scales (DeVellis, 1991; Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Secondly, all of the
subjects that formed the data set were either Plast members or students in
Outdoor Education or Recreation Management & Policy classes. It is inferred
that these students have had some exposure to programming, which
seemingly enhances self-authorship thus explaining scores on the higher end
of the range.
Allowing for the not ideal distribution of data subsequent descriptive,
statistics were examined for the items, and based on unfavorable skewness
and kurtosis scores, four items were eliminated from the measure. Review of
inter-item correlations led to the elimination of four additional items. leaving a
total of 32 to be used in Principal Factors Analysis (PFA).
Principal Factors Analysis was selected because of its wide use and
ease of interpretation (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001), especially in the preliminary
stages of instrument design. The PFA ultimately returned four distinct factors
which were then converted into sub-scales. The four scales were labeled:
Situational Coping, Interpersonal Leadership, Self-efficacy and Knowledge
53
Creation. A closer look at the sub-scales reveals a great thematic similarity to
themes identified both by self-authorship literature (Baxter-Magolda, 1998,
1999, 2001; Kegan, 1994) and the case-study conducted during Phase 1.
For example, the Situational Coping sub-scale includes several items that
evoke self-regulation, decision-making, self-confidence and empowerment.
The Interpersonal Leadership sub-scale harkens back to SA’s reliance on
leadership opportunities and the development of interpersonal skills. In the
Self-efficacy sub-scale ideas of self-confidence, good judgment, and
empowerment are again evident. Lastly, the Knowledge Creation sub-scale
gets at the very heart of the antecedents to the inability to self-author (Baxter-
Magolda 1999, 2001; Kegan 1994) and the reliance on authority figures for
direction/knowledge. The results of the PFA suggest that the SAQ v.2 indeed
measures elements which are inherent to self-authorship.
Implications
Phase 1
By conducting a case study which examines a well-established youth
organization that relies on Outdoor Education methodology and defines SA as
a program goal, the author was able to gain valuable insights into SA. The
themes derived from the qualitative data allowed for comparison with
established SA research conducted in the realm of higher education.
Because of the congruence between the case-study results and SA literature
54
the use of the qualitative data in creating a quantitative measure of SA
enhances the SAQ’s theoretical base. Additionally, the comparison furthers
the author’s contention that Outdoor Education programming enhances SA in
young people.
Phase 2
By creating a statistically tested and valid measure of self-authorship
(SAQ v.2), future research can be conducted to investigate the relationship
between OE and the enhancement of SA. The SAQ v.2 can be
supplemented with additional demographic (i.e. age, gender, socio-economic
status, academic standing) and antecedent variables (i.e. program duration,
location) to provide more in-depth understanding of SA and its relationship to
OE. Additionally, the measure can be used by OE programs for evaluation
and program enhancement. The measure can be customized to relate SA to
any number variables. Lastly, the SAQ has the potential to be used as a
screening tool for admission into certain programs (i.e. graduate school, study
abroad) and by human resources personnel when hiring new employees.
Limitations
Phase 1
While the author attempted to use best practices of qualitative case-
study data collection and analysis, certain limitations were present. The
trustworthiness of the data collected and analyzed was primarily established
55
only by the researcher. Initially, the focus-group interview participants
member checked each other by coming to consensus, during the interview,
on what self-authorship meant to them and how Plast went about achieving it.
It would have strengthened the data if the interview participants were later
asked to review the analyzed data which yielded the eight identified themes
used to create the SAQ v.1. During the data analysis portion of Phase 1 the
author did not have the opportunity to involve others in analysis in an attempt
to increase trustworthiness using triangulation. The faculty chair of the thesis
committee did have oversight over the author and periodically reviewed the
author’s findings before allowing him to proceed to subsequent steps in the
research. This interaction acted as a form of peer debriefing; however the
inclusion of other faculty and graduate students would have been beneficial.
Lastly, it is important to mention that conducting several focus-group
interviews with different groups of Plast members would have strengthened
the study.
The generation of items using existing measures, though commonly
practiced (Neill, 2003; Sibthorp, 2000) has its limitations. The author chose
items based solely on his understanding of the case-study results and self-
authorship literature. Additionally, when the author could not find an existing
measure he created items again based solely on his understanding of the
pertinent data. In the future the involvement of experts for review of the items
prior to inclusion in an instrument is advisable.
56
Phase 2
The quantitative portion of the study had several limitations. The
sample used in collecting data for analysis was a volunteer convenience
sample and therefore does not have the same strength as would a completely
random sample. Since the sample in this study was predominantly in college
students or recent graduates with at least a minimum exposure to Outdoor
Education methods, the generalizability to other populations of young adults
is questionable. Additionally the total sample number (N = 289) was at the
lower end of suggested sample sizes for Principal Factors Analysis
(Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001).
While three or four items may constitute a reliable and valid scale,
Loewenthal (1996) suggests that between six and fifteen items should be
used to measure a single factor. Therefore, the inclusion of the Knowledge
Creation sub-scale into the SAQ v.2 could be questioned.
The administration of the SAQ v.1 at the University of New Hampshire
was done by permission of faculty and based on the consent of the
participants. However, the SAQ v.1 was usually administered at the end of
class, and the author observed several participants filling out the SAQ v.1
while seeming rushed or hurried, which likely had some effect on the integrity
of the data.
In an effort to distill the data into easily interpretable factors which
could be converted into sub-scales for inclusion in the SAQ v.2, only one type
of factor extraction method was used, namely Principal Factors Analysis with
57
orthogonal varimax rotation. For the purposes of this study this method was
the most appropriate because it weighted the factors independently of one
another, allowing for easy extraction of factors. Other rotational methods (i.e.
oblique) do not weigh the factors independently and allow co-variance into the
analysis, providing less distinguishable factors with greater explanatory value.
Recommendations for Future Research
While this study was a good first step toward creating a reliable and
valid measure of self-authorship, much more research has to be conducted
before a psychometrically and theoretically sound instrument can be
produced. Additional research is needed to identify more thoroughly the
underlying themes of self-authorship to better inform the creation of
subsequent SAQ’s. Based upon this study the following areas of study could
be explored:
similar studies involving a greater number of focus-groups;
similar studies involving other Outdoor/Experiential education
programs;
similar studies involving focus-groups made up of educational experts
interested in the field of SA;
similar studies involving experts in adolescent epistemological
development;
58
similar studies involving a larger randomly selected sample size for use
in Principal Factors Analysis;
similar studies involving a greater number factor analytic data analysis
techniques;
similar studies with several versions of the resulting measure
undergoing confirmatory factor analysis;
further investigation of the connection between particular program
elements (i.e. location, duration, facilitation style) and the development
of SA;
further investigation of the connection of antecedent variables (i.e.
gender, age, national origin, socio-economic status) to self-authorship.
Further research about SA will provide educators from every facet of
education a better understanding of their students needs. The continued
understanding of the connection between SA and OE will lead to the
strengthening of programs and facilitators. Additionally, by demonstrating a
strong connection between OE and the development of SA, the field will gain
greater standing as a viable or even preferable approach to education.
LIST OF REFERENCES
60
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative Data. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company. Battegay, R. (1977). Group models, group dynamics, sociological and
psychological aspects of group formation and evaluation. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 55(5), 330-344.
Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1998). Developing self-authorship in young adult life.
Journal of College Student Development, 39, 143-156. Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1999). Creating Contexts for Learning and Self
Authorship: Constructive-Developmental Pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2001). Making Their Own Way: Narratives for
Transforming Higher Education to Promote Self-Development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bertolami, C. (1981). Effects of a Wilderness Program on Self-esteem and
locus of control orientations of young adults. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 266 928)
Brower, M. (1998). Group development as constructed social reality: A social-
cognitive understanding of group formation. Social Work with Groups, 12(2), 23-41.
Cason, D. R. (1993). A meta-analysis of adventure programming with
adolescents. Unpublished master’s thesis, Georgia College, Milledgeville.
Cason, D. R., & Gillis, H. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of adventure
programming with adolescents. Journal of Experiential Education, 17, 40-47.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
61
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J (1938/1997). Experience and Education. New York: Simon &
Schuster. Ewert, A. (1983). Outdoor adventure and self-concept: A research analysis.
Eugene, OR: Center of Leisure Studies, University of Oregon. Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor adventure pursuits: foundations, models, and
theories. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons. Ewert, A., & Haywood, J. (1991). Group development in the natural
environment: Expectations, outcomes and techniques. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 23(5), 592-615.
France, T.J. (1994) The impact of Project Adventure activities on self-
perception. Unpublished masters thesis, Springfield College, Springfield, OH.
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003) Educational Research, Pearson Allyn &
Bacon. Gass, M., Garvey, D. & Sugerman, D. (2003). The Long-Term Effects of First-
Year Student Wilderness Orientation Program, Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 34-41.
Hahn, K. (1957). Outward Bound. New York: World Books. Hahn, K. (1970). The education of thought. In Kurt Hahn and the development
of Outward Bound: A compilation of essays. London: Outward Bound. Hans, T. (2000) A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure programming on
locus of control. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy. 30, 33-60. Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure
education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67, 43-87.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor
analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Koesler, R. & Propst, D. (1998). Bandura goes outdoors: Role of self-efficacy
in the outdoor leadership development process. Leisure Studies. 20, 319-344.
Kolb, D. C. (1993) General self-efficacy and outdoor experiential training.
(Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1733.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1982) Locus of Control: Current trends in theory and research.
New York: Wiley. Loewenthal, K. (1996). An introduction to psychological tests and scales.
London: UCL Press. Marsh, H. W., Richards, G.E., & Barnes, J. (1986a) Multidimensional self-
concepts: The effect of participation in an Outward Bound Program. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50, 195-204.
Marsh, H. W., Richards, G.E., & Barnes, J. (1986b) Multidimensional self-
concepts: A long-term follow-up of the effect of participation in an Outward Bound course. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 12, 475-492.
McFee, M., & Gass, M. (1993). A group development model for adventure
therapy programs. In M. Gass (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, J.C. & Priest, S. (1990) Adventure Education. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing. Newhouse, G. C. (2002). Effects of adventure education utilizing a portable
climbing wall activity on children’s self-efficacy. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (02).
Outdoor Education Research and Evaluation (2003, September 10). A
Measurement Tool for Assessing the Effects of Adventure-based Programs on Outcomes for Youth-at-Risk Participants. Retrieved October 15, 2003 from http://www.wilderdom.com/tools/leq/ YouthDevelopmentLEQScalesPaper.htm
63
Parle, M. D. (1986). The role of self-efficacy in Outward Bound: An investigation of a high school course. Unpublished bachelor’s Honours dissertation, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Paxton, T. S. (1998) Self-efficacy and outdoor adventure programs: A
quantitative and qualitative analyses. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1998). Dissertation Abstract International, 59, 2717.
Paxton, T. & McAvoy, L. (1998) Self-efficacy and Adventure Programs:
Transferring Outcomes to Everyday Life. Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium Proceedings.
Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Richards, G. E., Ellis, L. & Neill, J. T., (2002). The ROPELOC: Review of
Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control: A Comprehensive Instrument for Reviewing Life Effectiveness. . Self-Concept research: Driving International research Agendas. Proceedings of the 2nd International Biennial Conference. University of Western Sydney, Australia. Aug 6-8, 2002.
Rogers, S.E., Chamberlin, J., Langer Ellison, M., & Crean, T. (1997). A
Consumer-Constructed Scale to Measure Empowerment Among Users of Menatl Health Services, 48(8), 1042-1047.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal and external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 609 (80), 1-28. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing
Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Russell, K.C. (2003). An assessment of outcomes in outdoor behavioral
healthcare treatment. Child and Youth Care Forum, 32(6), 355-381. Russell, K.C., & Phillips-Miller, D. (2002). Perspectives on the wilderness
therapy process and its relation to outcome. Child and Youth Care Forum, 31(6), 415-437.
Shelter, Jay (1998). Adventure recreation and adolescent perceived self-
efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering Vol 59 (6-B) Dec. 1998 p. 3099.
64
Sibthorp, J. (2000). Instrument Validation and Multivariate Assessment of Life Skill Development in Adolescents through the Adventure Education Process. Unpublished dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.
Sibthorp, J. (2003). An Empirical Look at Walsh and Golins’ Adventure
Education Process Model: Relationships between Antecedent Factors, Perceptions of Characteristics, and Changes in Self-Efficacy. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(1), 80-106.
Starosolsky, Y. (1948). The Big Game, Munich: Plast Publishing. Stenger, T.L. (2001). Sequence of adventure-based resident outdoor
education programs and middle school students’ perceptions of life effectiveness. (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 2881.
Tabachnik, T. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Tysovsky, O. (1912). Life In Plast, Lviv: Plast Publishing. Walsh, V., & Golins, G. (1976). The exploration of the Outward Bound
Process. Denver, CO: Colorado Outward Bound. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 754).
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research: design and methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage. Yin, R.K.(1993). Applications of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. Yurchuk, D. (2003) The Exploration and Use of Tenets in Outdoor Education
Programs, Unpublished Qualifying Masters Packet, Prescott College. Zwart, T. J. (1988). The effects of wilderness/adventure program on the self-
concept, locus of control orientation, and interpersonal behavior of delinquent adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49 (07), 1709A. (UMI No. 8816827)
APPENDIX A
66
67
68
69
APPENDIX B
71
APPENDIX C
73
Dear Participant:
I am conducting a research project to find out the effects of participation in outdoor
education programs on self-authorship. I am writing to invite you to participate in
this project. I plan to work with approximately 10 participants in this study.
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a video-
taped interview conducted by Taras Ferencevych which will take approximately 1 – 1
½ hours. Additionally, you will be asked to review transcripts and analyzed data to
ensure that your ideas are not being misrepresented.
While you will not receive any compensation to participate in this project, the
anticipated benefits are the personal fulfillment and satisfaction you will receive from
helping me in my pursuit of a Masters degree. Additionally, the information you
provide will potentially be used to better the field of Outdoor Education.
Participation is strictly voluntary; refusal to participate will involve no prejudice,
penalty, or loss of benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled. If you agree to
participate and then change your mind, you may withdraw at any time during the
study without penalty.
The investigator seeks to maintain the confidentiality of all data and records
associated with your participation in this research. You should understand, however,
there are rare instances when the investigator is required to share personally-
identifiable information (e.g., according to policy, contract, regulation). For example,
in response to a complaint about the research, officials at the University of New
Hampshire, designees of the sponsor(s), and/or regulatory and oversight government
agencies may access research data. Data will be kept on my computer; only myself
and my faculty advisor will have access to the data. If you would like to have access
to any data that you provided during the course of this study please ask and it will be
made available to you. At the end of the research study the videotapes will be erased
or returned to you, the transcripts will be kept on file.
The work will be conducted by me under the supervision of Dr. Michael Gass as part
of a Masters thesis in the department of Kinesiology at the University of New
Hampshire. Occasionally, I will ask fellow graduate students for help in analyzing
the data. In these instances your identity will be protected by the use of a pseudonym.
I am a graduate student in Outdoor Education in the department of Kinesiology at the
University of New Hampshire.
If you have any questions about this research project or would like more information
before, during, or after the study, you may contact Taras Ferencevych at Department
of Kinesiology, New Hampshire Hall, Durham, NH 03820, 603.781.0672,
74
[email protected]. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, you
may contact Julie Simpson in the UNH Office of Sponsored Research at 603-862-
2003 to discuss them in confidence.
I have enclosed two copies of this letter. Please sign one indicating your choice and
return in the enclosed envelope. The other copy is for your records. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely,
Taras Ferencevych
Masters Student – Department of Kinesiology
Yes, I, ________________________________ consent/agree to participate in this
research project.
No, I, ________________________________ refuse/ do not agree to participate in
this research project.
APPENDIX D
76
77