Who I Am and What I Do Is in My Hands: A Qualitative Study on High-Achieving College Students’ Perceptions of Agency Experiences

Abstract

This qualitative research study investigated the agency perceptions of students who had applied to a highly selective research program at a northeastern university in the United States. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which high-achieving college students feel it is important to experience ownership over educational experiences and how these students describe their responses to agentic opportunities. This study was modeled in accordance with Social Cognitive Theory, which posits that individuals desire and exercise agency through self-regulative, evaluative, and adaptive behaviors and constructivism, which suggests that individuals actively construct knowledge informed by their interactions with their environments. Eleven undergraduate students were selected to participate in two interviews. Thematic Analysis was used to analyze data across these interviews. This study revealed three themes: (a) Recognition of Personal Agency; (b) Authenticity; and (c) Taking Initiative.

Keywords

achievement motivation qualitative postsecondary honors

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anagün

S. S.

(2018). Teachers’ perceptions about the relationship between 21st century skills and managing constructivist learning environments. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11452a

Anderson

R. C.

Graham

Kennedy

Nelson

Stoolmiller

Baker

S. K.

Fien

(2019). Student agency at the crux: Mitigating disengagement in middle and high school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56(2019), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.12.005

Balthasar

(2011). Critical friend approach: Policy evaluation between methodological soundness, practical relevance, and transparency of the evaluation process. German Policy Studies/Politikfeldanalyse, 7(3), 187–231.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org.ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bar-Tal

Bar-Zohar

(1977). The relationship between perception of locus of control and academic achievement: Review and some educational implications. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(77)90020-0

Basu

S. J.

Barton

A. C.

(2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20143

Bodner

G. M.

(1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p873

Boud

(1988). Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846

12.

Cannella

G. S.

Reiff

J. C.

(1994). Individual constructivist teacher education: Teachers as empowered learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(3), 27–38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23475804

13.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

14.

Deci

E. L.

Eghrari

Patrick

B. C.

Leone

D. R.

(1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x

15.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

17.

Dounas-Frazer Stanley

J. T.

Lewandowski

H. J.

(2017). Student ownership of projects in an upper-division optics laboratory course: A multiple case study of successful experiences. Physical Review: Physics Education Research, 13(2), 020136-1-020136-22. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020136

18.

Evans

Boucher

A. R.

(2015). Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy to foster motivation and engagement in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12073

19.

Findley

M. J.

Cooper

H. M.

(1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.419

20.

Harris

L. R.

Brown

G. T.

Dargusch

(2018). Not playing the game: Student assessment resistance as a form of agency. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0264-0

21.

Kember

T. S.

Lam

B. H.

Lee

Yan

Yum

J. C.

(1997). The diverse role of the critical friend in supporting educational action research projects. Educational Action Research, 5(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799700200036

22.

MacKay

(2020). Authenticity and normative authority: Addressing the agency dilemma with values of one’s own. Journal of Social Philosophy, 51(3), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12309

23.

Madden

M. E.

Baxter

Beauchamp

Bouchard

Habermas

Huff

Ladd

Pearon

Plague

(2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316

24.

Mameli

Grazia

Molinari

(2021). The emotional faces of student agency. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 77, 101352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101352

25.

Matusov

(2011). Authorial teaching and learning. In White

E. J.

Peters

(Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe (pp. 21–46). Peter Lang.

26.

Matusov

von Duyke

Kayumova

(2016). Mapping concepts of agency in educational contexts. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(3), 420–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9336-0

27.

Mudrak

Zabrodska

(2015). Childhood giftedness, adolescent agency: A systemic multiple-case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214559602

28.

Nieminen

J. H.

Tai

Boud

Henderson

(2022). Student agency in feedback: Beyond the individual. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1887080

29.

Oshana

(2007). Autonomy and the question of authenticity. Social Theory and Practice, 33(3), 411–429. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23558483

30.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (4th ed.). Sage.

31.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Creative Learning Press.

32.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

33.

Schunk

D. H.

DiBenedetto

M. K.

(2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60(2020), 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

34.

Secules

G. A.

Elby

Tanu

(2018). Supporting the narrative agency of a marginalized engineering student. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(2), 186–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20201

35.

Shogren

K. A.

Little

T. D.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2017). Human agentic theories and the development of self-determination. In Wehmeyer

Shogren

Little

Lopez

(Eds.), Development of self-determination through the life-course (pp. 17–26). Springer.

36.

Stenalt

M. H.

Lassesen

(2022). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967874

37.

Taub

Sawyer

Smith

Rowe

Azevedo

Lester

(2020). The agency effect: The impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 147(2020), 103781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103781

38.

Terry

Hayfield

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. In Wilig

Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 17–37). Sage.

39.

Tisdell

E. J.

Merriam

S. B.

Stuckey-Peyrot

H. L.

(2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

40.

Tuckett

A. G.

(2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1-2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.19.1-2.75

41.

Vaughn

(2020). What is student agency and why is it needed now more than ever? Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702393

42.

Wilcocks

(2017). Curriculum as a vehicle for agency in gifted learners. Kairaranga, 18(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.54322/kairaranga.v18i1.222

43.

Wimpenny

Savin-Baden

(2013). Alienation, agency and authenticity: A synthesis of the literature on student engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.725223

44.

Zammit

(2020). Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to interpreting data in practitioner research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19(2020), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810

45.

Yang

Gentry

M. L.

(2023). Striving to excel in STEM: Insights from underrepresented, minoritized graduate students with high academic ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(2), 110–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221119208