Commitment To Social Justice

Running head: APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

Applying Student Development Theory in Higher Education Jessica Avila-Cuevas Loyola University Chicago

1

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

2

Applying Student Development Theory in Higher Education The role of a student affairs professional is essential in the development of the student. If it were not for literature on student development theories, practitioners would not have an understanding of the lived experiences students have prior, during, and after college. Moreover, it is best to utilize student development theories to inform our practice than the anecdotal experiences we gather in our professional settings. After reflecting on my role in the profession, this paper will provide an overall history of student development theory. I will address how practitioners can utilize theory into practice when applying some of the theories we discussed in my Student Development Theory class. Additionally, I will tackle a few topics for which I consider areas of focus within social identity development that have greatly impacted my understanding of student development theory. Finally, I will provide implications and recommendations that student affairs scholars should consider when serving students in this profession. Reflecting on My Role in Higher Education In my opinion, the student affairs profession is a multifaceted field that ultimately brings people towards one purpose – to better serve students in a college setting. Many people in the profession may consider themselves as student affairs professionals. However, it is difficult to assess our practice without actually measuring it and not utilizing literature to understand how we can better serve our students. I have been in the higher education field for over five years in college admissions. While in my tenure, I can attest that there were moments where I did not know how to best serve my students as I did not have a theoretical foundation to justify my practice. Furthermore, I had the preconceived notion that student development theory would only apply to college students and not to the prospective students I serve in my function area of

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

3

college admissions. However, the Student Development in Higher Education course exemplified the varied theories and frameworks that can support how we better utilize our practice to different student populations from their adolescent to early adult years. Therefore, it is best to utilize literature to inform our practice than the anecdotal experiences we gathered in the profession. This course has been instrumental in my learning and development as a professional in higher education. The course readings and discussions have helped me to get a grasp of how my role can be best utilized when serving students at any setting in higher education. Student Development Theory I did not come to the realization that student affairs professionals began to question what their role was at an institution of higher learning until after World War I when colleges and universities noticed an increase on enrollment (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016). Essentially, the goal of a student affairs practitioner shifted in order to support the development of the holistic student and advance the mission of the institution. The Student Personnel Point of View (SPPV) is a report that was published in 1937 that recognized student affairs professionals to “guide the ‘whole student’ to reach their potential and contribute to society’s betterment” (Patton, et al., 2016, p. 10). This resulted in redefining the role in which higher education plays to the student experience. The SPPV still brings truth to today and how institutions of higher education carry their mission based on student development. According to Patton et al. (2016), the evolution of student development theory is defined as a body of knowledge in which is broken down into three waves. Jones and Stewart (2016) further explain how higher education has been transformed through such waves. The first wave was centered on student services where the majority were all white men from affluent backgrounds. The second wave had a focus on student development and the realization

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

4

that identities were socially constructed. The third wave, which is where higher education and student affairs are currently situated, emphasizes student learning and critiques the ideology derived from the first and second waves. Jones and Stewart (2016) concluded that: Scholars need to practice intentional and consistent interdisciplinary engagement by directing our theorizing toward liberatory and healing ends. This has always been the commitment of student development theorists, although in differing sociohistorical contexts, and continues in the promise of third wave perspectives. (p. 25) Understanding the history of student development theory is crucial as it can help us get an idea how far scholars have gone. Moreover, it can help us critique or rectify research toward new approaches of student development theory. Applying Theory into Practice After learning about some of the student development theories, the class concluded that no one uses one theory or theorist, as we each take a little bit of everything to create and/or develop our own model to understand students’ needs. When we create an environment for student inclusivity, we could then assess ourselves on a personal and on an institutional level. As Coomes (1994) states, “the use of core concepts of student development can provide a useful guide for the formulation, implementation, and analysis of campus policy” (p. 436). We need to remind ourselves why our roles matter in our varied function areas and how we can apply student development theory into our practice. For this reason, practitioners can utilize one or more theories and frameworks to better inform our practice. I will discuss some of the theories that best resonated with my understanding of student development. Psychosocial Identity Development

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

5

In order to understand students’ development and how they see their own development at a college setting, it is important to consider psychosocial identity development. Such theories can speak toward examining “the important issues people face as their lives progress, such as how to define themselves and their relations with others, and what to do with their lives” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 287). It is essential for student affairs professionals to have an understanding of the changes in development students have in their adolescent to early adult lives. Chickering’s Seven Vectors. Chickering and Reisser (1993) proposed seven vectors of development in which students may experience through the course of their college lives. As a college admissions counselor, who is helping prospective college students in the college process, I witness the development of the student during their senior year of high school. It is my role to guide them through the emotional process, whether if they are excited to attend the institution or discouraged because they didn’t receive a scholarship. One of the vectors that truly resonates to this particular process is Managing Emotion. Chickering and Reisser (1993) explain the second vector as: Some students come with the faucets of emotional expression wide open, and their task is to develop flexible controls. Others have yet to open the tap. Their challenge is to get in touch with the full range and variety of feelings and to learn to exercise self-regulation rather than repression. As self-control and self-expression come into balance, awareness and integration ideally support each other. (p. 144) This is a vital tool when working with any student, whether if I meet them in the recruitment process or see them at orientation. As student affairs professionals, we are equipped with knowledge and theories to help students “recognize and accept emotions, as well as appropriately

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

6

express and control them” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 298) no matter what the circumstances are in their development before or during college. Self-Authorship The concept of self-authorship is essential in order to understand students’ ability to make meaning of the world and their lives around it (Patton et al., 2016). This theory is widely used in order to see the process of student development and how students can be the author of their own lives. Hence, Baxter Magolda (1998) defines self-authorship as the internal capacity to define one’s beliefs, identity, and social relations and answers the three following questions: How do I know? Who Am I? How do I want to construct relationships with others? Through these questions, students would make meaning of their lives. Although I do not work directly with current college students, I must be aware about the importance of how students’ journeys may be affected on a college setting. Patton et al. (2016) further explain that: Baxter Magolda (2002) stressed the need for students and educators to work together to develop student self-authorship, demonstrating respect for each other and actively sharing ideas and viewpoints. Opportunities for self-reflection in these settings also assist students in becoming clearer about what they know, why they hold the beliefs they do, and how they want to act on their beliefs. (p. 374) As students encounter various phases of Baxter Magolda’s self-authorship theory, they will be able to define their own beliefs and acceptance of who they are. In order to develop a strong internal foundation, students need to trust the internal voice and build an internal foundation (Patton et al., 2016). As I think about the students I may serve outside my function area within student affairs, I must be aware that they come from various degrees of their beliefs, identity, and

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

7

social relations. However, the context that they are in (college), may be redefined toward being authors of their own lives. Areas of Focus in Social Identity Development Patton et al. (2016) define social identity development as “the process by which people come to understand their social identities (ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, and others) and how these identities affect other aspects of their lives” (p. 67). Recent literature posits how such social identities are making meaning based on an array of contexts (Patton et al., 2016). Abes, Jones, and McEwen (2007) discussed how Reconceptual Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (RMMDI) can capture the complexity related to social identity. Making meaning “provides a richer portrayal of not only what relationships students perceive among their personal and social identities, but also how they come to perceive them as they do” (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007, p. 13). The following areas of social identity development are those that I find most salient, such as ethnic and racial identity, while others, such as trans* and ability status, are areas of growth toward my understanding of the saliency students may bring on a college campus. The following topics will not only provide identity development models, but ways in which student development theory is approached through the lens of such models. Ethnic and Racial Identity While some scholars defend the interchange of racial and ethnic identity, others consider that either identities are related, but are different constructs (Patton et al., 2016). Both are socially constructed, but are different as to how students may identify themselves. It is crucial for student affairs professionals to understand the varied degrees in which students may identify themselves as when it comes to racial and ethnic identity development. Tatum (2017) describes how racial-ethnic-cultural identity development (REC) is cyclical “like a spiral staircase: as you

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

8

proceed up each level, you have a sense that you have passed this way before, but you are not in exactly the same spot” (p.174). I will describe ethnic and racial identity development separately, as I consider them to be their own respective entity. Due to my experiences as a Latinx woman, my ethnicity is more present while race is considered secondary (Patton et al., 2016). Thus, I will describe the variances between racial and ethnic identity. Ethnic identity development. According to Patton et al. (2016), “ethnicity means a pattern of culture, traditions, customs, and norms unique to, but also shared within, an ethnic community” (p. 130). Students who arrive to college carry on their ethnic roots, where levels of dissonance may present themselves as students attend a dominated culture different from what they know. Torres and Hernandez’s (2007) study sought to investigate the role of ethnic identity on the experiences students had on college campuses. Although ethnic identity is important there is a reason why Patton et al. (2016) integrated the concept of acculturation into the ethnic identity section of their book. Acculturation refers to “changes in beliefs, values, and behaviors of ethnic individuals as a result of contact with, and desired or undesired adaptation to, the dominant culture” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 132). I can attest that through my experience at a Predominately White Institution (PWI), my culture and heritage was not celebrated nor acknowledged, where I did not have the opportunity to express my ethnic identity. This ultimately led into isolation and conformation to the dominate culture. At each institution, there may be a different dominate culture on campus, depending on the student population of the university (Patton et al., 2016). It is essential for student affairs professionals to consider ways in which students can celebrate their unique ethnic roots. This can be done through programming, campus organizations and institutional policies reflecting integration and thought behind acculturation.

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

9

Racial identity development. Student affairs professionals must understand that every student comes into our campus with varying degrees of racial development and experiences. Atkinson, Morten, and Sue’s racial and cultural identity development (RCID) serves as a foundation for understanding the stages and orientations – conformity, dissonance, resistance and immersion, introspection, and synergistic articulation and awareness – in racial identity development theories (Patton et al., 2016). For PWIs, students may encounter a new awareness than what they knew of at home. Tatum (2017) discusses that “an individual begins to grapple with what it means to be a member of a group targeted by racism” (p. 135). Ultimately, student affairs professionals must have an understanding that the process of identity development can help all of us build bridges across lines of difference. Therefore, we must be ready to have conversations and provide spaces for students to discuss their development with race and other intersectional identities. Gender Identity According to the World Health Organization, gender is “the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women” (as cited in Patton et al., 2016, p. 175). Furthermore, Patton et al. (2016) explain that gender identity development begins in early childhood and then intensifies in early adolescence before students attend college. However, college is also a context in which students can explore their understanding of gender roles (Patton et al., 2016). Hence, one can infer that gender identity is an ongoing process. The following are two concepts of gender identity that are areas of growth for which I should consider when working with students. Masculinity. Similar to gender identity development, masculinity is perpetuated by various forces. Masculinity is influenced by the social interactions, social structures, and social contexts

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

10

that produces and reinforces normative expectations of masculine behavior (Harris, 2010). We understand that gender is socially constructed, and we can infer that so is masculinity. At birth, we are assigned a gender based on our biological sex (Patton et al., 2016) and in the topic of masculinity, males have been assigned a specific gender by parents or their kin. Ultimately, society perpetuates it more based on gender norms and the socialization of what it takes to be a man. This can cause levels of “masking” masculinity, where men have to perform a certain way in order to fit society’s expectations even if they recognize the consequences for wearing such mask (Edwards & Jones, 2009). Ultimately, putting on this “mask” covers the true sense of self. Higher education has a key responsibility in reconstructing masculinity, especially on the essence of gender identity development. Patten et al. (2016) argue that colleges can serve as a context for students to explore their gender identity, it is important to understand the implications that higher education professionals should consider when providing an environment where students can reassess and explore their gender identity. Although traditional gender roles and expectations continue to play a central role in the lives of undergraduate students that is supported by abundant and persistent evidence on gender-related phenomena (Patten et al., 2016), applying theory to practice is essential when intervening the masking of masculinity. Trans* identity. Like most of our culture, higher education is very binary and genderized. It is not the physical spaces, such as bathrooms, but student organizations, programming, and curriculum that perpetuates oppression amongst trans* students. Patton et al. (2016) state that “trans* students may find college a place for identity exploration or for expression of a gender identity that they had not previously named or expressed publicly” (p. 180). My profession presumes that students belong at a certain binary, such as when they complete an application for admission. The college application, where the institution I work for, requires for students to

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

11

answer whether if they are female or male. Nicolazzo (2017) defines this to be gender-binary discourse, which is the overarching discourse that pervades institutions of higher education toward a gender binary. Ultimately, this approach is presented overtly or covertly on college campuses and can create isolation and a hostile environment to trans* students (Nicolazzo, 2017). It is essential that institutions of higher education implement policies that may not hinder trans* students and should create a non-binary discourse on campus. College is an ample time for students to explore their sexuality and gender and it is the role of student affairs professionals to make sure that there is a space for these students on campus. We have to be aware that these students have probably known this identity their entire lives, but the consciousness of the identity is what throws these students into uncertainty. (Patton et al., 2016). Our goal as student affairs professionals is to listen and guide students so that they have a better sense of belonging. Ability Status The research of college students with disabilities has changed throughout time just as scholars develop and/or conceptualize theories on how the historical construction of disability moves within higher education (Patton et al., 2016). Disability has been historically conceptualized through a medical model, however there has recently been a move that disability is a function of the social and physical environment rather than being characterized within the person (Patton et al., 2016). This attests that disability is socially constructed based on an ableist point of view in which that examined characteristics and experiences of students with disabilities without meaningful interrogation into systemic, institutional, and structural inequities and constraints (Peña, 2014).

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

12

Higher education practitioners utilize a deficit model when approaching and assuming ability status. We tend to think of disability as an abnormality and deficiency rather than acknowledging it as normative (Peña, Stapleton, & Schaffer, 2016). This can trigger a harmful experience for students with disabilities on college campuses since we see the saliency within their disability rather than other attributes. Moreover, we tend to focus on just their disability and not the intersectionality between their disability and other marginalized identities. “When it comes to disability, there is a tendency to isolate the identity and oppression, and not fully problematize or understand the complexities of an intersectional lived experience” (Peña et al., 2016, p. 90). If higher education practitioners do not understand the complex ways in which intersectionality come into play between disability and other identities, then we are constructing an ableist approach in our practice and we are not fully serving the student toward their needs. Implications and Recommendations Much of the literature that was presented in class state that there is still work to be done with regard to the research on student development theory. There are still limitations for student affairs professionals to get an overarching understanding on the development and lived experiences of students. Patton et al. (2016) state that professionals: Must challenge themselves and their colleagues to test, refine, and extend that knowledge base. For student affairs educators, it is particularly important to examine student development theory critically and seek opportunities to add to the information that already exists about how students change and grow during the college years. (p. 380) Previous and recent literature of student development assumes that college students are traditionally aged and recently out of high school. However, through my professional lens in college admissions, I am seeing a growth of nontraditional prospective students seeking higher

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

13

education. These student populations range in different demographics and lived experiences that may be hard for student affairs professionals to gauge on the recent literature that we know exists. Therefore, it is essential to continue with this third wave or create a fourth wave of student development theory. The following are recommendations that Patton et al. (2016) provide to student affairs professionals and those who are in higher education programs. Researchers should also put these recommendation into considering for future research: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Educators must consider development in a more holistic and less linear manner Examine development through a lens of privilege, power, and oppression Examine development independent of dominant culture models Give appropriate attention to underrepresented groups Consider development across the lifespan Conduct more longitudinal research to examine development over time Consider the impact of the environment on development Generate better methods to assess development Design interventions attuned to specific environments Make assessment and evaluation a part of developmental intervention Encourage the use of theory in educational practice and awareness of theoretical complexities Take an inclusive evolutionary approach to theory Acknowledge contextual influences on the development trajectory Acknowledge the whole of students’ development Final Thoughts This paper provided an overall history of student development theory. It addressed how

practitioners can utilize theory into practice when applying some of the theories we discussed in my Student Development Theory class. Additionally, I touched on a few topics for which I consider areas of focus within social identity development that have greatly impacted my understanding of student development theory. Finally, I provided implications and recommendations that student affairs scholars and practitioners should consider when serving students in this profession.

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

14

This course provided an understanding on student development theory. Moreover, this course has helped me advance from what I have already practiced in the field, yet it will allow me to have some sort of foundation to determine how well I am doing in my job by utilizing the literature we read and discussed in class. Taking Student Development in Higher Education was beneficial for me and will allow me to progress in my career by understanding how to better serve students in the college setting. Thus, I am hopeful that I will apply such knowledge into my practice in the future.

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

15

References Abes, E., Jones, S., McEwen, M. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48 (1), 1-22 American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. (American Council on Education Studies, series 1, no. 3). Washington, DC: Author. Coomes, M. (1994). Using student development to guide institutional policy. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 428 - 437. Davis, T. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men’s Identity. Journal of College Student Development, 43 (4), 508-521 Edwards, K. & Jones, S. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A Grounded theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (2), 210-228. Jones, S., & Stewart, D. (2016) Evolution of student development theory. In Abes, E. (Eds.). New directions for student services: No. 154. (pp. 135-165). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Magolda, B.M. (1998). Developing self-authorship in young adult life. Journal of College Student Development, 39 (2), 143-156 Magolda, B.M. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (4), 269-284. Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Trans in college: Transgender students’ strategies in navigating campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus Ortiz, A., & Rhoads, R. (2000). Deconstructing whiteness as part of a multicultural educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student Development, 41 (1), 8193

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

16

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in college: theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Peña, E. V. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in journals of higher education. Jour Journal of College Student Development, 55 (1), 30-40 Peña, E. V., Stapleton, L., & Schaffer, L. (2016). Critical perspectives on disability identity. In Abes, E. (Eds.). New directions for student services: No. 154. (pp. 85- 96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tatum, B. D. (2017). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Torres, V. & Hernandez, E. (2007). The Influence of Ethnic Identity on Self-Authorship: A Longitudinal Study of Latino/a College Students. Journal of College Student Development 48(5), 558-573.