Student Development Theory In Practice

Over the first four weeks of the term, our class has been able to understand student development theories in practice through agencies and practitioners at the University of Utah as well as colleagues across the U.S.  Here are some highlights.

Tony Gonzales, the Director of the First Scholars Program, shared with us information on his program that is focused on engaging first generation students to facilitate accomplishing their academic goals.  The First Scholars Program provides 20 students with a scholarship that covers tuition, room, and board for their first year as well as continued financial resources beyond their first year if they meet renewal criteria.  In addition, Tony serves as an academic advisor for these students to facilitate their success.  He shared some initial experiences he has had with these students as well as his use of Astin’s I-E-O Model and Theory of Involvement as well as Tinto’s later theories on retention.

Dr. Gwen Fears, Director of Orientation and Leadership, discussed the components of her department that focus on orienting new students, connecting to parents, and facilitating student leadership.  She explained her model of program development, which involves theory, best practice, and listening to the student experience.  These three components result in programming that is holistic in facilitating student development.  For orientation, she has drawn on Kolb’s Learning Theory, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Chickering’s Seven Vectors, Holland’s Theory of Vocation Choice, and Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development. 

As the class discussed Chickering’s Seven Vectors, we reflected on the Professional Development Seminar from Nichols College in Dudley, MA.  This seminar teaches professional skills to college students through a number of courses that are offered to students during the entire college degree.  The Seven Vectors are used to organize the content by year.  For example, Developing Competence, in the First Year course focuses on time management and introduces the personal portfolio.  By the senior year, students are using their portfolios, developing resumes, and engaging in a senior project.  Nichols has identified areas of competency for students based on academic year of their degree progression.

Recently, the class focused on the Theory of Self-Authorship by Marcia Baxter Magolda.  An example from colleagues at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT demonstrated how academic advisors could use this theory to facilitate development of self-authorship by students.  In her presentation at the 2010 National Academic Advising Conference, Gale Larson explained that conversations that encourage a student to reflect on his/her experiences through dialogue with an advisor will build self-authorship.  This technique is important for students as they make decisions on majors, careers, and extra-curricular activities.

Examples of applying theory to practice through guest speakers and materials from higher education colleagues are contributing to a deeper understanding of college student development.  And, here’s a photo of our group that includes Dr. Fears.

Chickering's Theory of Seven Vectors by Andrea Cox

Theory Overview

Chickering’s Theory of Seven Vectors (1969) delves into the idea that college students experience seven vectors of development throughout their college experience. These vectors of development must reach resolution for the student to achieve identity. Though Chickering, and later as revised by Reisser (1993), did not necessarily state that a student’s movement through these seven vectors were sequential, the theory indicates that student’s must resolve through a specific group of vectors as a springboard or foundation towards progressing through later vectors (Foubert, 2005).

As to the revision of the vectors as instigated by Reisser, the definition of development meant students were proceeding along the seven vectors of developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward inter-dependence,  developing mature interpersonal relationship, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity (Foubert,  2005) during their college experience.  Chickering and Reisser go on to postulate that students can experience several vectors at once rather than having to resolve one before moving on to the other.  The vectors build upon each other leading to greater “complexity, stability, and integration” (Evans, 2010). Chickering and Reisser also acknowledged that the educational environment plays an enormous role in a student’s ability to progress and resolve each vector. They suggested seven educational environmental influences that impact a student’s development are as follows: institutional objectives, institutional size, student-faculty relationship, curriculum, teaching, friendships and student communities, and student development programs (Evans, 2010).  These influences not only affect a student’s ability to progress through all seven vectors, but also, affect the rate in which they do so.

However, what Chickering and Reisser fail to fully address is the application of the seven vectors to a diverse group of student’s, i.e., students of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, gender, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Use in Higher Education

An example of how Chickering’s theory and seven vectors are used in higher education is most apparent in the inherent differences between incoming freshman and a graduating senior.  It is clear in most cases that a graduating senior will have resolved many of Chickering’s vectors by the time they are ready to enter the “real world.” Freshmen, on the other hand, are in a transition period where they are starting to build a “foundation” of basic college student developmental needs before attempting to address such vectors as “developing purpose” or “establishing identity”, which most seniors may have already experienced. Student affairs individuals or academic counselors have different expectations when a freshman enters their office versus when a senior enters. In such a scenario, an advisor can use Chickering’s vectors to assess where the student is on their developmental journey simply by knowing what class they are in.  Again, it would be prudent to utilize Chickering’s theory and vectors as a guideline to addressing student needs rather than trying to assess sequentially where the student is and where the student “should be going” as their next stage of development. As indicated in the below article, “A longitudinal Study of Chickering and Reisser’s Vectors: Exploring Gender Differences and Implications for Refining the Theory” by John D. Foubert, Monica L. Nixcon, V. Shamim Sisson, and Amy Barnes, it is important to understand that applying Chickering’s vectors sequentially to a very diverse population of students, in this case males vs. females, may not be as useful since students develop differently at different rates and many times, these differing rates of development could be connected to factors like gender, race, and sexual orientation.

Annotated Bibliography

Foubert, J., Nixon, M.L, & Sisson, V.S. (2005). A longitudinal study of Chickering and Reisser’s vectors: Exploring gender differences and implications for refining the theory.  Journal of College Student Development, 46, 461-471. doi: 10.1353/csd.2005.0047

This article examines Chickering’s and Reisser’s theory and seven vectors as they apply to students depending on gender.  The author’s partially support the theory that student’s develop along these vectors during their college experience. However, they go on to question the validity of the theory being sequential and attempt to establish the theory that student’s develop through these vectors at different rates, in different “orders”, based on factors such as race, ethnicity, and particular to this study, gender. They found that women tend to develop through the vector of mature, interpersonal relationships before they experience the vector dealing with autonomy and interdependence. In fact, their findings suggest that women actually enter college more “developed” than their male counterparts and because much of their development is in developing inter-personal relationships, women are more tolerant of others differences and more accepting of diverse populations than men generally speaking. The authors suggest that this finding indicates that student affairs personnel consider programs that focus on facilitating men’s development in areas of stereotyping, language, and the value of diversity. They conclude that this study confirms that examining the diversity of the college student population in relation to Chickering’s and Reisser’s vectors is essential to its proper application.

References

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (1st ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Foubert, J., Nixon, M.L, & Sisson, V.S. (2005). A longitudinal study of Chickering and Reisser’s vectors: Exploring gender differences and implications for refining the theory.  Journal of College Student Development, 46, 461-471. doi: 10.1353/csd.2005.0047

Additional Readings

Chickering, A.W. (1969).  Education and identity.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W. & Reisser, L. (1993).  Education and identity (2nd ed.).  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.