In Loco Parentis | Student Services Movement | Student Development Movement | Developmental Theory Families | Chickering | Perry | Bibliography
Student Development Theories
A working knowledge of student development theory provides academic advisors a foundation upon which to understand the maturation and development of the students with which they work. This foundation will guide the advisor in how to best challenge and support individual students to promote psychosocial and cognitive development.
In Loco Parentis
For about the first three hundred years, the theory that dominated thinking about higher education was in loco parentis: colleges acting on behalf of parents for the good of their students. As the average age of seventeenth-century freshmen was about fourteen, students were considered children, and the institution their parents. Character development (which really meant traditional Christian religious values) was instilled by strict rules and regulations and enforced by rigid discipline. The development of students' character was substantially more important to early American colleges than the development of their intellect.
The Student Services Movement
During the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, American higher education was facing rapid growth, extensive change, and impersonalization. Colleges shifted from the small, close-knit English residential college approach to a large, increasingly diverse, residence hall approach. Psychological theorists such as Freud and Jung began to write about humans from a perspective different from theologians and philosophers. As the field of psychology developed, theorists such as B.F. Skinner and Carl Rogers influenced the student affairs profession. A student services paradigm influenced by social and behavioral sciences was used as a model to help troubled students with remedial services and to provide other services and programs to supplement academics. The focus was on services. (top)
The Student Development Movement
Toward the middle of the twentieth century the combination of student activism and developing psychological and sociological theories changed the thinking about student development. Though there are many models of student development, the basic premise is the same; Student Development reflects theories of human growth and environmental influences as applied to in-class and out-of-class personal learning opportunities. The essence of intentional student development is the interaction between the student and the educational environment, so that all aspects of the student's life are attended to and the environmental resources both challenge the student and give the support needed to meet these challenges so that more advanced levels of development result.
Student Development is both a theory base and a philosophy about the purposes of higher education. It is a directional movement toward greater complexity and competence. Student Development Theory is integrative in nature; it requires mutuality, equality, cooperation and collaboration among all parties (students, faculty, staff, administration.) Student development models should stimulate and support students as they progress through their own unique developmental process, and the more the development can be individualized the better. This is why it is so important to work with students one-on-one. Programs based on student development models are designed to stimulate self-understanding, to strengthen skills, and/or to increase knowledge. These types of programs reflect specific educational interventions.
The basic educational value is enhanced when one uses theory to inform practice by designing and providing environments that help students both learn and mature. The well-rounded development of the whole person is valued as a primary goal. (top)
Basic assumptions guiding the student development movement:
1. The individual student must be considered as a whole.
2. Each student is a unique person and must be treated as such.
3. Each student is a unique person and must be treated as such.
4. The total environment of the student is educational and must be used to help the student achieve full development.
5. The major responsibility for a student's personal and social development rests with the student and his/her personal resources. (top)
Developmental Theory Families
Student development theories generally fall into five broad categories; psychosocial, cognitive-structural, person-environment, humanistic existential, and student development process models.
Psychosocial theories address developmental issues or tasks and events that occur throughout the life span. These tasks and events tend to occur in sequence and are correlated with chronological age. Individuals progress from one stage to another by accomplishing related developmental tasks or by resolving crises. This is the 'what' or 'content' of student development
Cognitive-structural theories address a sequence of meaning-making structures through which the student perceives, organizes, and reasons about their experiences. The stages are hierarchical and each successive stage incorporates the functional parts of the previous stage. This is the 'how' or 'process' of student development.
Person-Environment theories address conceptualizations of the college student, the college environment and the degree of congruence that occurs when they interact. Behavior is a function of the person and the environment. Many of these theories are used in career planning.
Humanistic existential theories share a common philosophy of the human condition. Humans are free, responsible, self-aware, potentially self-actualizing, and capable of being fully functioning. These theorists believe the forces of growth are within the person and are facilitated by self-disclosure, followed by self-acceptance and self-awareness. These theories are used extensively in counseling and give us a framework from which to practice other theories.
Student development process models are either abstract representations of the field of student personnel work or recommended sets of action steps for the practice of student development. They give us the process steps of how to use theories rather than the why, what to do, or how to do it that the theories provide. For example, the COSPA I model tells us to 'assess behaviors the student has already developed' and then 'formulate the student's behavioral objectives', but it tells us nothing about what to assess or how to assess it.
There are dozens of theories falling into these five families. Many address general populations of traditionally-aged college students; however, more recently theories have emerged which address the differences in development in specific populations such as returning adult students, African-American students, female students, etc. Two of the most practiced theories are discussed below. (top)
Chickering's Psychosocial Theory of Student Development
Perhaps the most widely known and applied theory of student development is Arthur Chickering's psychosocial model. Based on Eric Erikson's identity vs. identity confusion stage of development, Chickering proposed seven vectors along which traditionally aged college students develop. These seven vectors of development are general tasks of identity resolution.
Vector 1: Developing Competence
1. intellectual competence
a. knowledge acquisition
b. critical thinking skills
c. capacity for analysis, synthesis, evaluation, creation of ideas
2. physical and manual competence
a. use bodies to master previously unattainable skills
3. social / interpersonal competence
a. interactive / communication skills
Developing competence gives the student an increasing capability to manage a variety of social situations from talking in class to meeting strangers. Without gaining some of the confidence maturation along this vector provides, maturation along sequential vectors may be difficult. (top)
Vector 2: Managing Emotions
1. increasing awareness of one's feelings
a. become aware of range and variety of impulses pushing from within
2. integration of feelings, which allows flexible control and expression
a. tries to find new modes of expression
b. assess consequences
c. know how to handle different feelings
d. define what will be expressed to whom
Students' limited ability to manage emotions is often reflected in the common problems of apartment damage, roommate conflict, exploitative sexual encounters, substance abuse, and excessive academic anxiety. (top)
Vector 3: Developing Autonomy
1. establishing emotional autonomy
a. decreasing need for reassurance, affection, and approval / strokes
b. environments permitting self-regulation start process
2. attaining instrumental autonomy
a. ability to make plans for reaching goals
b. be mobile in relation to one's desires
c. self-directedness / solve own problems
d. ability to identify resources
e. use systematic problem solving methods
3. recognition of one's interdependence
a. follows only after independent stance
Students' must be able to trust in their abilities and feelings as valid sources of information in order to mature along this vector. (top)
Vector 4: Establishing Identity
1. some growth along first three vectors prerequisite
2. ability to integrate many facets of one's experience
3. negotiate realistic and stable self-image
4. change is perceptual and attitudinal
5. encourages experimentation in realms where decisions are required: relationships, purpose, and integrity
6. know kinds of experiences preferred (top)
Vector 5: Freeing Interpersonal Relationships
1. increased tolerance for and acceptance of differences between individuals
2. increased capacity for mature and intimate relationships
3. more reciprocal and empathetic (top)
Vector 6: Developing Purpose
1. direction for one's life through assessment and clarification of interests, educational and career options, and lifestyle preferences
2. reflects and integrated with sense of identity (top)
Vector 7: Developing Integrity
1. defining set of values to guide actions
a. humanizing of values
2 . shift from literal doctrine set of beliefs to awareness of relativity of values
a. personalizing of values
3 . personal code reflecting personal assessment and direction serving as flexible guide to behavior
a. congruence between beliefs and behavior
4 . congruence between values and actions
5 . viewing values from post-conventional level of morality (top)
Maturation Through Vectors
Chickering's theory states that students progress through the first three vectors simultaneously during the freshman and sophomore years. Some progression along the first three vectors is a prerequisite for the fourth vector. Students generally progress through the fourth vector during their sophomore and junior years. During the junior and senior years students progress simultaneously through the last three vectors. Students progress through the vectors at different rates and may recycle through some vectors. Development is not simply a maturation process, but requires stimulation through challenge and support. (top)
Components of college environment influencing student development:
1. Clarity and Consistency of Objective
2. Size of Institution
a. as redundancy increases development decreases
3. Curriculum, Teaching and Evaluation
a. when memorization is fostered, development is not
b. when choice and flexibility are offered development is fostered
4. Living Arrangements
a. can foster or inhibit development
5. Faculty and Administration
a. friendly, frequent student-faculty interaction in diverse situations fosters development
6. Friends, Groups, and Student Culture
a. amplifies or attenuates impact of curriculum, teaching, evaluation,
living/housing, and student/faculty relationships (top)
Major Experiences Central to Developmental Change
1. Engage student in making choices
2. Require interaction with diverse individuals and ideas
3. Involve students in direct and varied experiences
4. Involve students in solving complex intellectual and social problems without demand for conformity to authority's view
5. Involve students in receiving feedback and making objective self-assessments
Chickering also addresses the theory of Mattering vs. Marginality which simply put states that if students believe, whether right or wrong, that they matter to someone else, that they are the object of someone else's attention, and that others care about and appreciate them, they are far more likely to persist and succeed. If students do not feel anyone cares about them or their success, if they feel ignored by the mainstream and not accepted, they will fee marginal, and, therefore, are much less likely to succeed in college. (top)
Perry's Cognitive Theory of Student Development
William Perry's cognitive theory of student development examines nine positions tracing the evolution of traditionally aged students' thinking about the nature of knowledge, truth and values, and meaning of life and responsibilities. Based on Piaget's cognitive development theory, Perry lists steps by which students move from a simplistic, categorical view of the world to a realization of the contingent nature of knowledge, relative values, and the formation and affirmation of one's own commitments. Perry sees change as coming about through cognitive conflict.
The scheme portrays three general levels - dualism, relativism, and commitment - and three positions within each level. The three positions in dualism and relativism are considered to be structural stages. The three positions in commitment are affective stages, which describe the process of living through commitments. (top)
Level 1: Dualism
Basic assumptions:
A. There are two categories, right and wrong
B. Uncertainty is an error of some sort
The three positions within dualism are differentiated based upon how one accounts for uncertainty.
Position 1: All information is either right or wrong
Position 2: All information is right or wrong, and where uncertainty seems to exist it is really an error committed by a wrong authority
Position 3: All information is either right or wrong, but uncertainty is acceptable in areas where experts don't know the answers yet. Someday, the right answers will be discovered. (top)
Level 2: Relativism
Basic assumptions:
A. The categories or assumptions of absolute right and wrong are transformed
B. Knowledge seen as uncertain or valid only within a context
The three positions within relativism are differentiated based upon (a) absence of criteria for making judgment, (b) use of discriminating but non-absolute criteria for making judgments in context, and (c) applications of non-absolute criteria to questions of personal identity.
Position 4: Knowledge pervasively uncertain. Ideas have equal value. No one has 'the answer.' Non-absolute evidence or standards for judgment within context are not yet integrated into the structure. A few right and wrong categories may still exist.
Position 5: Knowledge is contextual. Non-absolute evidence is available for making contextual judgments of better or worse but not for judgments of absolutely right or wrong. If my life is also contextual, what am I to be?, to do?, to value?
Position 6: A person's life, especially his/her values emerge as commitments are made. Life commitments are foreseen as one applies contextual criteria to identify issues. (top)
Level 3: Commitment
Basic assumption
A. These positions are seen as attempts to reflect on and define one's identity as commitments are made and lived.
Position 7: Active affirmation of self and responsibility in pluralistic word, establishing identity in process
Position 8: Personal commitments are made out of a relativistic frame of reference allowing for recognition of diverse personal themes
Position 9: Understand role in pluralistic world by establishing own identity and life style in way consistent with own personal theme (top)
Alternatives to Forward Progression through Positions
1. Temporizing - delaying in position. Explicitly hesitating to take NextStep
2. Escape - avoiding responsibility of commitment, seeking refuge in relativism.
3. Retreat - return to dualistic orientation to find security & strength to cope with a too-challenging environment
Positions 1-5 focus on epistemological & intellectual development. Positions 6-9 focus on moral, ethical, & identity development. (top)
Theory helpful in:
1. establishing program goals
2. planning steps in implementing program
3. evaluating effectiveness of program (top)
Dualistic position:
1. relativism of viewpoint in course content and instructional method
2. experiential learning modes
3. diversity requiring analysis of conflicting viewpoints (top)
Dualistic students gain support from:
1. high degree of structure in instruction
2. personal atmosphere in classroom
3. limited degree of freedom (top)
Relativistic position challenges:
1. occurrence of commitment amid relativistic, diverse content
2. vicarious experiential learning
3. low degree of structure in instruction (top)
Relativistic students gain support from:
1. existence of diversity in content
2. personal atmosphere of classroom
3. extensive freedom
4. less structure (top)
Bibliography
Creamer, Don G. (Ed.). Student Development in Higher Education: Theories, Practices and Future Directions. Cincinnati: ACPA, 1980.
Knefelkamp, Lee, Widick, Carole and Parker, Clyde. (Eds.). Applying New Developmental Findings. New Directions for Student Services No. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.
Miller, T.K. and Winston, Jr., R.B. 'Human Development and Higher Education.' In T.K. Miller, R.B. Winston, Jr. and Associates. Administration and Leadership in Student Affairs: Actualizing Student Development in Higher Education. Muncie, Indiana: Accelerated Development, Inc., 1991.
Rodgers, R. F. 'Student Development.' In U. Delworth, G. R. Hanson, and Associates, Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
Strange, C. 'Managing College Environments: Theory and Practice.' In T.K. Miller, R. B. Winston, Jr. and Associates, Administration and Leadership in Student Affairs: Actualizing Student Development in Higher Education. Muncie, Indiana: Accelerated Development, Inc., 1991.
Upcraft, M. Lee and Gardner, John L. (Eds.). The Freshman Year Experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989. p. 41-46.
Upcraft, M. Lee and Moore, Leila V. 'Evolving Theoretical Perspectives of Student Development.' In Margaret J. Barr, M. Lee Upcraft and Associates. New Futures for Student Affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. (top)
This text on Student Development Theories has been prepared by:
The University of Texas at Dallas
Office of Undergraduate Education
P.O. Box 830688, MP16 / Richardson, TX 75083-0688
972.883.6805 (fax) 972.883.2487
http://www.utdallas.edu/dept/ugraddean/theory.html