RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
1
The landscape of higher education is one that is seemingly changing daily. Students
who attend colleges and universities today are dramatically different than the student body
that attended higher education institutions a century or even half a century ago. While
historically those that have had access and the ability to go to college have been White,
heterosexual, middle-class men, this is no longer the norm and the term “traditional
student,” no longer makes sense. Increased access is finally being granted to larger and
larger portions of students who have not traditionally been able to attend. In addition to
this increased access has been an increased importance for colleges and universities to
adequately an environment that is conducive for all students to learn and holistically
develop. Often times this role falls heavily, if not entirely, on the student affairs officials on
each campus.
This increased attention needed to provide an inclusive and supportive
environment can be an overwhelming task. The varying populations of students on any
given campus can range in differences of racial, ethnic, and sexual identity to varying
degrees of cognitive, moral, and spiritual development. And this only names a few.
Students are also at all different stages or levels of understanding or development and any
combination across the board. It can be confusing just to try and understand all of the
dynamics that surround student development, let alone attempting to understand where
each student is and how to best work with each student. This begs the questions of how
student affairs practitioners are expected to deal with such a widely varying student body?
This is where an understanding of student development theories and the role theory plays
in shaping how student affairs officials at every campus operate comes in.
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
2
Although the entire body of student development theory and research is chiefly
confined to less than one century, there has still been a significant amount of work done in
understanding how students learn, develop, and grow during their formative college years.
This research and the theories formed out of this research have helped to drastically alter
how student affairs practitioners approach their role. Theory, or more appropriately, the
application of theory in to practice can give student affairs officials a foundation for
understanding students better. A knowledge and grasp of different theories related to
student development allow for practitioners to work with a wide array of students. In
addition, the application of theories to students can help to give understanding of decisionmaking and actions by student. Finally, by understanding where students may be coming
from, understanding why they may act or think in the manner they are, theory can give
practitioners the ability to challenge or support students in the most effective way possible.
This paper will attempt to outline more clearly how theory can be useful by applying
three different theories to a specific student that has been interviewed. In addition, the
challenges and shortcoming associated with these three theories and theory in general will
be brought up and discussed. Finally, recommendations will be made based on the
interview and theories applied for both the student and the university that will best
facilitate development for the student
The interview conducted for this paper was done in a two-part series that spanned a
course of two weeks. The questions for the first interview followed a basic protocol that
allowed for a base knowledge and background of the student. The second interview went
was more specific and allowed for more detailed questions to be asked about specific
theories. In both interviews, the conversations were recorded and deleted upon
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
3
completion of the paper. A pseudonym (James) is being used for privacy purposed and any
other defining variables, including residence hall and fraternity, have been replaced with
alternate names for this purpose.
James is a freshman student at a mid-sized, public university in the Midwest. He is a
recent graduate of a mid-sized high school, also in the Midwest, and is in his first semester
of any form of higher education. He currently resides in an on-campus honors residence
hall and will continue to do so through the remained of the academic year. James is an
African-American student of a middle-class household where both of his parents have
earned an advanced degree of some form. He currently wants to be a political science
major and plans on attending law school immediately after finishing his degree.
In order to best understand James and his current level of development and
understanding in college, three theories will be applied will each be evaluating three very
different aspects of James. The first theory used will be Arthur Chickering’s Seven Vectors
of Development, the second will be Cross and Fhagen-Smith’s Model of Black Identity
Development, and the third theory will be James Rest’s Neo-Kohlbergian approach to moral
development. Each of these theories approaches a different major theme that came about
when interviewing James and should present a fairly accurate picture of the type of student
and type of person James currently is. However, it is important to note that these theories
will certainly not give a completely comprehensive view and should be taken in light of
what they are: theory.
Chickering and Reisser: Seven Vectors of Development
The first thing to not when using the evaluating the vectors is that this paper will be
using the second revised version of Chickering’s Education and Identity (1993) that was
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
4
compiled with additions from Linda Reisser. The revised version is a more applicable
model as one of the major criticisms of the first model is that it studied almost exclusively
White, middle-class males (citation needed). The model is based on a series of seven
vectors (as the name would imply) that ultimately form a students identity (Evans et a.l,
2010). Each of these vectors are an independent component of psychosocial development
that, although not rigid stages, do build on one another and increase in complexity as a
student moves along them toward forming an identity. The vectors combined take in to
account how a student develops emotionally, physically, socially, and intellectually during
their formative college years.
The seven vectors are; developing competence, managing emotions, moving through
autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships,
establishing identity, and establishing purpose. This paper will examine the first three in
detail.
Developing competence is split in to three categories: intellectual, physical and
interpersonal. Intellectual competence involves all aspects of how a student learns and
retains knowledge throughout college. Physical/manual competence represents the
physical aspect of the college years such as intramurals and wellness. Interpersonal
competence looks at how a student effectively (or ineffectively) communicates, and works
with others.
James shows a high level of intellectual and interpersonal competence. His
involvement with the honors program, and the ability to live in an honors dormitory are a
testament to his work in secondary education and he has continued this level of dedication
to his studies in post-secondary education. When asked about his academic goals and how
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
5
he managed schoolwork, the response was “academics always come first…with all of my
obligations I make sure to set aside the appropriate time every night for studies” and “I’m
very comfortable so far and, at least at midterms, had all A’s.” In addition to having the
tangible grades to show for his efforts, James also mentioned that he already made the
decision to become a political science major.
One of the most interesting aspects of the interview was the manner in which James
responded. Rather than simply blurt out the first answer that came to mind, he would take
a few seconds after every question to synthesize what he had heard and develop a response
that was both coherent and relatable. In addition, he spoke about how this summer his
work with a leadership tested him to become to a better communicator with his group. “I
initially had a tendency to fill the same role I did in high school…as the guy who is always
talking…however I realized my groupmates (sic) were getting frustrated with me and I
started staying quiet a lot more.” Chickering and Reisser (1993) talk about how a major
component of interpersonal competence is the ability to listen as much as one talks.
(citation needed)
Physical competence has yet to be a priority for James. “I don’t really have the time
to work out.” However, there is an understanding by him of the need to maintain his
physical well-being. “I need to find time to lose some weight.” On the other hand, on-site
and physical community service has become a major part of his enjoyment and stress relief
during this first semester. “Pounding nails on a Habitat for Humanity project can boost
interdependence and integrity and foster personal integration” (Chickering & Reisser,
1993, p.72)
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
6
The next vector, managing emotions, is an area that James has already noticed a
great deal of growth in himself. “Middle and high school were a tough time for me, I
struggled socially and would beat myself up at night…if I didn’t do well in school I would
come home and cry, suicide even seemed like an OK idea at times. However, this entire
first semester, I have just felt happy. I think it’s because I like what I’m doing and I like my
friends. If I get upset, I have my big brother (fraternity) to talk to.” Managing emotions is
all about the ability to effectively handle negative emotions and understand how to deal
with them rather than shut them out (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Before college, James
struggled with how to deal with negative thoughts and emotions and had no outlet. His
relationship with his parents is strained and never felt he had close enough friends to share
his feelings and/or struggles. The relationships he has formed in his fraternity are giving
him an positive outlet for his emotions and allowing him to self-control. He is dealing with
negative thoughts before he gets to the point of drastic thoughts such as suicide.
“Development involves finding appropriate channels for releasing irritations before they
explode” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 87).
ADD A PART ABOUT DEALING WITH TENSION AND BOREDOM??
Moving through autonomy toward interdependence is where James is working at
the moment. This vector is explained as the ability to first be autonomous but obtain
emotional independence, instrumental independence, and finally interdependence
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Interdependence in this case is the end-goal and is defined as
“an awareness of one’s place in and commitment to the welfare of the larger community”
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p.117). In order to achieve interdependence, there needs to
be a recognition of others needs, and how to not only be autonomous yourself, but
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
7
recognize others autonomy, and also when it is appropriate to ask for assistance
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
It is the ability to seek assistance that is proving to be troublesome for James. When
asked about who he uses for support and what he relies on them for, the response was “I
really only go to my big brother, and that doesn’t happen often. We mostly talk about him.”
In addition, James mentioned repeatedly that he likes to remain as independent as possible
for most things, iterating that “being completely autonomous is one of my biggest
strengths.” Beyond what James clearly stated as remaining independent, his leadership
roles indicate a willingness to give but not a willingness to take. Recently, he was elected
vice president of his fraternity – a position that is very rarely given to freshmen. Although
he didn’t want to take it, he felt he had to because so many people had asked it of him.
With knowledge of where James is at with his autonomy and falling short of true
interdependence, there are several steps that can be taken to help foster his growth, not
only along this third vector but in to the next. There needs to be an understanding that
although independence is an important step, he needs to maintain a healthy, positive
relationship with others and his family. At several points, James spoke of his strained
relationship with his parents and how that has led him to no longer rely on them in any
way. He should be encouraged to revisit the relationship with his parents. In addition,
conversations should be had about what a healthy and equal relationship looks like with
friends. Chickering and Reisser define interdependence as “looking for ways to give and
take with an ever-expanding circle of friends” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p.140.) This
foundation for understanding and maintain healthy relationships is critical for significant
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
8
movement along the next vector; developing mature interpersonal relationships. At the
moment, James mentions having no truly close friends outside of his big brother.
The seven vectors provide an excellent foundation for understanding student
development and progression. They take in to account several different factors and have
been used consistently for several decades as a barometer for a better understanding of
college students by faculty and staff alike. They also provide suggestions for how educators
can work with students to foster growth. (citation needed) That is not to say they are
without criticism, though. One of the biggest issues is the lack of specificity provided in the
vectors (Evans et al., 2010). Other criticisms include a lack of ability for practical
application of the vectors (Molasso, 2006), and issues surrounding how students are
supposed to progress through the vectors rather than develop independently in each.
(citation needed)
Cross and Fhagen-Smith Life Span Model of Black Identity Development
The theory proposed by William Cross and Peony Fhagen-Smith deals not with just
college students but African-Americans in general. It is a social identity development that
spans the entire lifetime in six distinct sectors. Across these six different sectors there is
also importance given to whether an individual has a high or low race salience. People
with a low race salience “accord only minor significance to race and African American
culture in determining what is, and is not, important in one’s everyday life,” while high
salience put account for their Black heritage as being of central significance” (Cross, Strauss
& Fhagen Smith, 1999, p.30). What is also discussed in the fifth is “Nigrescence” – a
process by which a Black identity is formed. (Cross et al., 1999). This nigrescence pattern
formed the majority of Cross’s original body of work and involves four stages:
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
9
preencounter, encounter, immersion-emersion, and internalization/internalization
commitment (Cross, 1991).
The six sectors outlined in Cross and Fhagen-Smith’s model are: Infancy and
Childhood, Preadolescent Social Identities, Adolescence, Early Adulthood, Nigrescence, and
Identity Refinement Across the Life Span. Given his age and development level as a young
adult, James is most likely Early Adulthood sector. Much of his upbringing also makes him
a prime example low race salience. “All of my schools, were almost entirely white… I had
no idea I was really different until I was in fifth or sixth grade.” In addition, he made
mention several times that he could never remember a single conversation with his parents
that talked about race or ethnicity. Cross et al. delineate in sectors one and two that this is
not uncommon and many Black parents are avoidant of the conversation and instead focus
on the construction of a worldview where race is irrelevant (Cross et al., 1999). This was
very much the case for James.
The majority of sectors one and two lay the foundation for how students in the third
sector develop. “The period of adolescence finds Black youth examining the racial frame
imparted to them by significant others” (Cross et al., (1999) p. 38) As such, James has both
entered and emerged from the adolescent sector with a continued low salience. Although
he encountered situations in high school where he was “too White to be Black, but too
Black to be White,” his focus turned not on to trying to discover his racial identity and its
importance and role in his life but rather a quest to seek out others where conversations
about race were avoided altogether.
As he enters Early Adulthood, James continues in avoidance of race as a factor in his
life. When asked about situations where racism may be present, he replied “The only thing
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
10
that bothers me is the ‘N-word,’ and generally when people say or do something, I just try
and avoid it.” Little movement or development has been made in the sector and James has
failed to really evaluate his racial identity in his life. As he continues on in college, it would
be beneficial for him or for others to involve him in activities where he could explore his
identity as a Black man. Student affairs practitioners could make suggestions for him to
join a Black cultural society or other primarily African-American student organizations
where he could interact with student of varying salience or developmental levels. When
looking at Cross’s Nigrescence Model, James is stuck in the pre-encounter phase. Although
situations present themselves where James can begin to embrace his racial identity, he has
yet to have the situation which “causes the person to see for the first time the racial gap in
his or her current social identity and to comprehend the necessity for an identity
conversion” (Cross et al., (1999), p. 38).
While this model is helpful in understanding a student like James past, it lacks a
proper understanding of how to work with and how to foster identity development for him.
Much of the theory seems to focus on an instilled desire in the person to move along a path
of stronger Black identity. In this case, James has been, and remains at a point in his
understanding of self that sees no need to identity his race and make it a focal point of his
life. “I’m neither ashamed or proud to be Black. I just am…Black, just the way other people
are White, or Asian, or Hispanic… It really doesn’t impact me and I just don’t think about it.”
When evaluating this theory and attempting to apply it to James, it was difficult to gain a
firm understanding of where development occurred or did not occur.
NEED MORE HERE.
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
11
Neo-Kohlbergian Approach to Moral Development
In order to understand and apply James Rest Neo-Kohlbergian approach to moral
development, it is first important to understand Kohlberg’s theory and why Rest felt it was
necessary to make revisions. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning is based on a six-step
process that is grouped in to three different levels (Evans et al., 2010). Each of the levels
present an understanding how the self relates to society and societal rules. The stages are
basically comprised of a transformation from obeying rules in the first stage to an intense
understanding of society in which people base their interactions and thought process on
what is for the greater good of society and a belief in human values (Evans et al., 2010).
One of the fundamental differences between Kohlberg and Rest is the belief that
Rest had that a hard stage model simply doesn’t work to fully explain development.
Instead, Rest based his theory on three schemas, where individuals thinking could be
divided among what he adapted off of Kohlberg’s six stages (Rest, Narvarez, Bebeau,
Thoma, 1999). The stages are: Obedience, instrumental egoism and simple exchange,
interpersonal concordance, law and duty to the social order, societal consensus, and
nonarbitrary social cooperation. These stages are divided evenly in to three schemas:
personal interest schema, maintaining norms schema, and postconventional schema.
These schemas are all focused on a concept of how the individual view himself or herself in
relation to society. The personal interest schema is marked by a focus on the self and a
much lesser focus on recognition or needs of others. Maintaining norms schema is best
described by a desire to prescribe to a given set of rules and expectations that govern
society. It is important to note that a shift happens from personal interest schema in that
individuals go from respecting an authority figure to respecting society (Rest et al., 1999).
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
12
Finally, the third schema is the postconventional schema. In this, individuals look beyond
even societal norms to form their own internal sense of right and wrong and become
critical evaluators of society.
Much of Rest’s theory is built on research conducted through the Defining Issues
Test. The DIT is “a device for activating moral schemas (to the extent that a person has
developed them) and for assessing them in terms of importance judgments” (Rest at al.,
1999, p.6). It was out of the DIT that Rest realized the issues he saw with Kohlberg’s theory
and set out to develop the schemas as a way to better define moral development.
The Neo-Kohlbergian approach is a much better theory to use when evaluating
James. A majority of James sense of right and wrong is shaped by his desire to become a
judge one day. He holds a strong belief in the legal system and the purpose it serves for
maintaining right and wrong in the world. This falls right in line with Rest mentions as
“maintain the established social order defines morality (in this schema)” (Rest at al., 1999,
p. 38). For him, there is a great sense of pride in his belief that he is a very practical person
and that, for the most part, most decisions can be viewed as being either right or wrong.
When asked what he thought the attributes of a good person are, one of the first things he
mentioned was “a person that maintains societal standards.”
On the other hand, James also shows several aspects of his decision-making that fit
in with the postconventional schema. At one point in the conversation, he made special
attention to point out that what he values most are support, equality, and tolerance with
tolerance taking on the most importance of the three. Even though he places a great deal of
importance on upholding the law, when asked a question about his stance on gay marriage
being illegal, he did not hesitate in his response. “That’s a situation where the law doesn’t
RUNNING HEAD: Formal Theory Paper
13
make sense. I don’t agree with it and it’s something I want to change. I think that it’s only
fair that everyone should be allowed to marry.” Even in the process of our conversation
and his ability to think aloud about his espoused values he admitted to conflict in his mind
between what society dictates sometimes and what he believes. “At the postconventional
level one realizes that the law itself may be biased; lawful acts may nevertheless favor
some over others” (Rest at al., 1999, p. 42).
For James, simply the ability to openly discuss topics that he is passionate about can
assist him in to moving toward a more postconventional schema. He should be encouraged
to get involved with groups that deal with social issues like LGBT organizations or any
other equality focused grouped. With his biggest espoused value already being tolerance,
he has a clear understanding of the need for equality. For him, the connection needs to be
made between this and how it may come in to conflict with societal norms. Just how when
it comes to his racial identity he takes a more passive approach in his Black identity, there
is a great opportunity to put James in situations where he has an opportunity to develop in
to a more critical and deep thinker.