07/23/2015 by @Sit_With_It - 4 Comments

Myths About Self-Authorship in Student Affairs

I thought I would blog about self-authorship to help clear up some misunderstandings I’ve personally experienced throughout my time in the field. Self-authorship is something that I research and study, so I try to notice when it is misunderstood. I thought an easy way to clear it up would be to share four main myths I’ve heard about the concept.

Myth #1: Self-authorship is simply saying “I’m making this decision myself, so therefore, I’m self-authored.” For example, “I’m sorry Sarah, I decided to self-author my homework and not do it.”

Myth #2: Self-authorship is only for White people.

Myth #3: Self-authorship is participating in self-reflection.

Myth #4: Self-authorship doesn’t allow you to build relationships with others.

So let’s start with some basics. Self-authorship is a way of making meaning. A self-authored individual makes meaning of their experiences by determining their own values and beliefs while seeing others’ views as important and worth considering (Garvey Berger, 2011). This addresses myth #1 and myth #4.

Another way of looking at self-authorship is that it is a way of making meaning in which individuals possess the ability to face economic complexity, balance multiple roles, interact effectively with a diverse world, and responsibly confront social issues (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Having the ability to face each of these issues most certainly is necessary for those working within the field of student affairs, as the problems of our field seem to only be increasing in complexity within each of these areas and more.

A self-authored way of thinking isn’t just about thinking about oneself (myth #1), it actually requires one to become closer to others in order to see their view point. Kegan (1994) discusses this by stating,

“When we see that we are not made up by the other’s experience, we then have the capacity not to take responsibility for what is now genuinely and for the first time not ours. And as a result, we can get just as close to the other’s experience (even the other’s experience of how disappointing, enraging, or disapprovable we are!) without any need to react defensively to it or be guiltily compliant with it” (p. 127).

Imagine if in student affairs, we could interact with each of our colleagues and others at work having this capacity!

Myth #2 is addressed through research that is being conducted worldwide, as documented in Development and Assessment of Self-Authorship: Exploring the Concept Across Cultures (Baxter Magolda, Creamer, & Meszaros, 2010). Within the book, there are chapters on Bedouins and Jews in Israel, Latino ethnic identity, and other groups of people; and those aren’t the only studies occurring. In fact, if you explore almost all development theories, you will find a common ebb and flow to them if you explore “how” development is occurring, not just “what” is being developed. Like almost all development theories, those who experience the most dissonance are the most likely to develop toward it.

Myth #3 is not what self-authorship is, but is instead a way to promote the development of self-authorship. Again, given the issues facing our field, I believe we want to promote it. We need people who are conscious of themselves and the systems that are at work in student affairs and higher education, so that they can make responsible decisions for the good of the community by recognizing what is their responsibility and what is not in an ever increasingly complex world. Other processes that promote self-authorship include:

“an ingenious blend of support and challenge” (Kegan, 1994, p. 42)
“listening without judgment, working on the process of one’s own way of making meaning, and intentionality” (Garvey Berger, 2012)
“identify diverse experiences, epistemological reflection, and participation as methods” (Mezirow, 2000, 2009; Zull, 2002)

It is also important to remember that being self-authored in how one makes meaning isn’t the end goal–there is more to our development and it continues to be explored. Being self-authored in how one makes meaning allows individuals to move beyond solely depending on the external environment to tell them who they are and what actions they should take. Being able to think for one’s self is a way of thinking that employers seek in employees (Kerry, 2013, para 6; Krislov and Volk, 2014, para 13). However, my own research on new professionals indicates that those entering the field of student affairs aren’t yet self-authored (Schoper, 2011) (sorry if I’m bursting that bubble), so how can we expect them to assist in fully developing undergraduate students to meet the qualifications that employers seek? I don’t believe it is simply the fault or full responsibility of student affairs preparation programs. It seems as though the field of student affairs may still be, “overly focused on outcomes and not process” (Jones, 2006, p. 4).

To me, it is the collective responsibility of all of us to promote continued development, not just in our students, but in ourselves. If for no other reason then it enables us to approach the problems we are facing with a different mindset.

06/09/2015 by @Sit_With_It - 0 comments

The “How”, Spoon Theory, and #SAPros

In January, I experienced a medical crisis that caused me to reestablish all of my personal and professional goals for 2015. I have been working toward my goal of recovery and adjusting to my “new” normal ever since. Recently, I was given permission to return to my teaching position in order to teach one course this summer. I am both excited and anxious about it. So far, it is progressing nicely, but week one is always an easy week, because you are getting the course established and going. 🙂

Beyond my anxiety around not being able to fully walk due to my acquisition of foot drop, I knew I would be challenged to have enough energy to fully return to work. I’ve been told ever since I “woke up” on January 7th that I would be tired and would need a lot of rest. And, yes, early on this was true, I did need rest. Yet, my need for rest has evolved as I’ve progressed in my recovery (at first I was tired from coming back to life, and now I get tired from using more higher order cognitive skills).

Recently, I was describing the unique way in which I found myself tired– “I can feel my brain and it is tired”, and a friend told me that it sounded to her as though I was describing Spoon theory. A few days later, Spoon theory was shared on the Stroke Talk for Facebook group that I am a member of, so I decided to spend more time with it. Prior to my January experience, and the conversation with my friend, Spoon theory was not a theory I’d come to know. It isn’t found in any student development book that I know of, nor have I come across it in any counseling theory texts. I found it to be accessible, easy to understand, and quite important to our field when considering a host of invisible disabilities. (I will assert that I believe we quite often complicate how to bring theory into practice by not using accessible examples for all—perhaps we need to use more dining utensils 😉 ).

Furthermore, I teach the Student Development Theory 1 course at Western Illinois University and during class we spend time exploring how development occurs. We do this because I believe it is powerful to know how development occurs if one is going to promote development amongst students, not just what the identity or characteristic that is developing. It is challenging to explore development theory this way because it is almost always easier to identify “what” the theory is developing rather than clearly articulating “how” it is being developed. As we do such exploration as a class, we begin to realize the power dynamic present when one determines a developmental place:

Does one place another in a specific spot in their development?

Does one allow another to share where they are at in their development for themselves?

These are important questions. They are the difference between prescribing developmental interventions, as if we ourselves are fully developed, and creating developmental interventions, with the assistance of others, because we acknowledge that none of us are fully developed.

I’m not necessarily advocating for Spoon theory to be included in student development theory courses, although I do secretly think it would be a good idea. I am asking us to consider what it would look like if, instead of focusing so much on “what” is being developed, and the end result of that developmental process, we start the conversation about bringing theory into practice by focusing on “how” development is occurring.

For example, Spoon theory asserts that if my foot drop heals (which I am really hoping that it does) and I am left with a non-visible neurological disorder due to my January experience, I will only be given a limited number of spoons for the day that I can use to accomplish my tasks. It also claims that each of my tasks will use up a spoon, which might result in me only having one spoon left for the day come 6 p.m., but more work to do. In other words, instead of focusing only on what my decreased energy is at various places on my road to recovery, Spoon theory also helps others understand how it is that I’ve come to have decreased energy. And, personally, I’ve found that understanding both how I’ve come to have decreased energy, and what decreased energy is like for me, allows others to better understand my experience and support me as I continue to develop toward my goal of full recovery. If this is how I’m left feeling about the inclusion of attending to how, and not just the what, in the process of development, imagine how our students might feel if we were to do the same as we put theory into practice as student affairs professionals. It certainly seems to me as though it would create a more inclusive environment for our students.

07/10/2014 by @Sit_With_It - 0 comments

Considering Social Class in my Classroom Learning Environment

This morning I finished reading Social Class on Campus: Theories and Manifestations by Will Barrett. I purchased the book for several reasons.

One, social class is an area I want to personally continue learning more about as I find myself noticing it more. I’m also considering incorporating a focus on it in the Internship 2 course that I teach, which currently contains a focus on chaos theory and disruptive innovation theory. I’ve been considering social class a disruptive “innovation” to higher education in my mind for the past few years, but am still wrapping my head around it so have not yet incorporated it into that course.

Second, the book contains personal narratives in the last chapter, and I’m always looking for such narratives to add to the courses I teach. I am of the belief that learning occurs best when it connects to lived experiences, and providing the lived experiences of others can sometimes help to build those connections. Perhaps not at all surprising is the challenge in actually finding such personal accounts in print. One of the points that the books contains is that valuing narratives of lived experiences is not often something valued by those in a higher social class–hence, a potential reason as to why I am always on the hunt. A final reason I selected the book was due to the structure in which it was written. Each chapter contains suggestions for activities, as well as discussion questions at the end. I value both of these as an educator for myself and others.

I gained a lot to “sit with” from the book, and would recommend it to others working within higher education. Social class isn’t necessarily one of those areas that gets a lot of attention directly, yet as I reflect on all of my experiences and conversations on college campuses (starting with the college search in high school) it is an ever present guiding force. This I’ve known, but continuing to learn more about it allows me to “see” it even more. As an undergraduate student, I recall being told by an administrator that it was refreshing to work with a student wearing flip flops and a ponytail, and similar, yet different, messages continue to be sent to me as a faculty member.

At one point in the book, Barrett discusses how students who are the co-creators of knowledge are more likely to reach self-authorship. Self-authorship in a very reduced definition is a way of making meaning in which an individual determines their own values and beliefs while seeing others’ views as important, separate, and worth considering (Important to note: Separate does not mean disconnected). This internal value and belief system enables individuals to consider experiences from multiple perspectives and make responsible, ethical decisions for the common good. Arguably, this is the goal of higher education.

Barrett draws the connection between types of pedagogy found in courses hosted at various institutions (discussion based, lecture style, etc.) and class. For example, a student who was able to attend a high school where discussion was valued in the classroom might seek out a college experience where the classroom experience is discussion based. He then draws the connection to those students being more likely to be self-authored. This was one point in the book where I found myself thinking two thoughts:

One, simply because something is discussion based does not mean that students are developing toward self-authorship. Baxter Magolda provides several examples of various ways, including lecture style learning environments, that promote self-authorship, and the key, according to her, is the incorporation of all principles and assumptions within in the learning partnerships model (a model designed specifically to promote the development of self-authorship). My own experience in higher education demonstrates that discussion based learning environments to do not inherently promote self-authorship, as it was not until my graduate education that I was asked to “situate learning in my own experience”, as well as experience being “validated as a knower”–the two principles missing from Barrett’s discussion about what is necessary to develop toward self-authorship. I engaged in discussion based classes at my own undergraduate institution, yet, I was rewarded for being able to argue/defend/repeat claims made by others about the field of study–not consider those claims in terms of my own lived experiences, which would have validated that I brought knowledge with me to the classroom.

The second thought I had was not to dismiss quickly the point Barrett was making. This got me thinking about the classroom experience I seek to provide, and the messages that are being sent about class. It is extra complicated when considering that,

“We all have a social class of origin, a current felt social class, and an attributed social class” (p. 7).

I’m still working on exactly where I land with the classroom environment I try to create (I just finished the book this morning!). I do know of at least three ways that I can be more inclusive, so that even if students are being taught cultural capital in a variety of ways throughout all of their experiences (this is a whole other blog post, and is really just one type of capital..it sure is complex stuff), they aren’t being asked to completely reject whatever cultural capital they do bring. So, here are my list of three:

1. Provide on my syllabus information about purchasing any books electronically. Often publishers allow for purchasing of hard copy and electronic copy with the electronic copy being less expensive. I’ve also already done this one, but want to keep doing it…work with the library to make sure that the assigned books for class can be checked out of the library.

2. Discuss class attire on the first day of class. Learning does not require business clothes. I look forward to seeing how this conversation goes this fall.

3. Continue to have library orientation and technology orientation involved in the Intro. class I teach. Continue also assisting students in learning APA style through a continual learning process, rather than provide a workshop and expect that they “get it” after the workshop.

05/29/2014 by @Sit_With_It - 2 Comments

Discussing Metacognition in Student Affairs

As a doctoral student at the University of Maryland, I was required to take classes toward a concentration. I knew that I wanted my concentration to be in learning and development (my true passion), but I admit that I was quite nervous to take courses outside of my degree department. Still, I kept in mind the advice I received from Sharon Parks Daloz during my first year as a student affairs professional at Longwood University. She had come to campus to speak, and I had the opportunity to drive her home, which I took full advantage of by asking her about the PhD process (I knew that I wanted to obtain a PhD, but was still in the exploration phase). I can only imagine she was exhausted when I dropped her off at the airport from the amount of questions I asked, but she was so kind and patient in responding to all of them (Thank you, Sharon!). One piece of advice that she shared that stuck with me was to, “take courses outside of the field I was interested in contributing to so as to find unique contributions/ideas/thoughts/insights.” And so this was the advice that I clung to as I entered unfamiliar classrooms in unfamiliar buildings in pursuit of my concentration.

Perhaps the course I was the most nervous about taking was a cognitive psychology course. I recall having to look on the campus map for the building, and arriving early the first day to make sure that I found the classroom. I wasn’t sure of the style of teaching I would experience, and knew that I would fail miserably at any course that was going to require rote memorization. Considering this thought now makes me chuckle a bit, given that such a teaching style would not implore all of the research contributions cognitive psychology has made to the learning process…at the time though I was unfamiliar with such contributions. I just knew that I was leaving the familiar discussion-based classroom environment of the Benjamin Building!

It was here in this course that I began reading articles from the field of neuroscience, and considering the physical processes of the brain such working memory, executive function, and long term memory. I could see the benefit of research conducted from a more positivist paradigm (although I did keep showing my paradigm by thinking…why try to control for so much when people don’t experience the world in such a controlled way?), as it allowed for a deeper understanding of specific details. All of this, I was encouraged to translate into what I understood to be the learning process, specifically the transformative learning process that I was exploring and writing a bit about in the field of student affairs. It was exciting as I could see the interconnections of two fields, and it added depth to what I was learning about the developmental process spoken about my theorists such as Piaget, Kegan, and Bronfenbrenner. I’ve continued post-PhD to explore as much as possible fields such a neuroscience, biology, physics, and psychology for the insights being made into the learning process. In this continued exploration, I have come to learn more about the process of metacognition, and recently came across this chart:

to demonstrate the process of metacognition. James Zull (2011) included it in his most recent book titled From Brain to Mind. It is his depiction of the process one needs to experience to move from brain to mind…to reach metacognition. In the chart you would move up through the different levels. Zull goes into a detailed discussion of what it might look like to be “at” each “bar” in the chart, and I encourage you to read his book for more insight. What is hanging with me is the assertion he makes that metacognition depends on the nature of our experiences, and that these experiences must involve self-awareness. That such experience must allow the learner to integrate, “cognition, emotion, action, feelings, sensory experiences, and motor experiences” (p. 279). They must encourage the learner to draw and develop connections. It is from this that “the self emerges”, and it is allowing spaces for the learner to be them “selves” that allows for difference, that allows unique interactions with the world, and through unique interactions innovation thrives. Innovation is what many argue our world needs to continue progressing. Innovation is what many argue we need for survival.

So, I, like Zull, offer the above chart and my reflections here to encourage a discussion to those in the field of student affairs. What are your thoughts about how you design experiences for metacognition within the learner? What are your thoughts about involving self-awareness for the learner?

05/15/2014 by @Sit_With_It - 0 comments

Privilege and Developing One’s Mind

About two weeks ago I decided to give running a try again…10 years ago I ran every other day pretty consistently.

(This is what I imagine I look like when I’m running)

Since that time, I moved away from running and began doing other things such as spinning, a Les Mills program called Body Pump (a great program that I highly recommend), and I will admit it…sometimes nothing. This winter, though, felt endless. And so, as soon as the weather turned a bit warmer I decided it was time to get outdoors and be active. A few students within the program I teach inspired me to take up running by sharing their stories, and so this spring I began running again. So far I am up to two miles, and it feels great!

Not only have I felt better physically, but running has provided me with some greatly valued reflection time. Lately, I’ve been spending time considering learning on my runs. To anyone who has spent time with me as a student affairs professional or now as a faculty member, you will know that I have a passion for learning….student learning, organizational learning, etc. I am known for describing the process of learning as magical, the biology behind learning, and I work hard to be a good learning partner to others around me. While I could speak about the challenges and rewards in helping others to learn, what has been on my mind recently is the privilege that exists in higher education when one does not consider learning. It isn’t that I think privilege is suddenly gone when learning is considered, but I can’t help but wonder what it means to not be intentional with what individuals are learning from one’s practice.

James Zull speaks about the learning process in both The Art of Changing the Brain (2002) and From Brain to Mind (2011), and reminds us that learning isn’t necessarily an option. Just by simply interacting with the world around us we are bound to learn. So, learning isn’t something we can simply shut off or separate out from our understanding of the world around us. Zull encourages educators to help students (arguably he considers everyone an educator and thus, every is a student) move beyond encouraging the kind of learning that is comprised primarily of copying, and toward the kind of learning that develops ones mind. This is the kind of learning that Mezirow (2000) labeled transformative learning, which is the kind of learning we are called to practice in Learning Reconsidered (2004) and Learning Reconsidered 2 (2006). These documents encourage us, student affairs professionals, to establish learning outcomes, shape the environment to reach those learning outcomes, and to assess for learning in the experiences we provide through our practice. Regardless of the method one follows to move through this cycle (I strongly encourage being as inclusive as possible), I can’t help but wonder what one’s practice is doing if one is not pausing and intentionally moving through this process? What does it mean if one thinks that it takes too much time to consider what people should be learning from their practice, if they are helping them to learn it, and how they know if they are helping them to learn it? Or, if one thinks that learning is for the classroom? For faculty members to take care of? So, as I’ve been asking these questions on my run, I keep coming back to how much privilege must be present to be able to not consider what one wants others to learn. It seems to me that without the incorporation of intentional learning, one simply stays in a place where they are able to copy what either they themselves, or someone else, is doing, and prevents one from developing one’s mind.