Schlossberg's Theory of Transition Written by Bobbi Davis

Explaining theory in my own words:

Dr. Nancy Schlossberg’s Theory of Transition is a psychosocial model of development that examines life events which affect various aspects of an individual’s life and their societal roles.  The person’s perception of the transition is as important to understanding how a person is affected by his/her changing life events as much as the type, context and impact of the transition itself.  Types of transitions include anticipated, unanticipated, event, non-event and chronic or “hassles”.  Anticipated transitions are those that are seen as occurring predictably in one’s lifetime, whereas unanticipated are just the opposite where the individual did not expect them to occur.  Those transitions that a person counted on to happen and did occur are called events.  A non-event is defined as a transition a person counted on to occur, but did not happen as hoped.  Chronic transitions are changes in one’s roles and routines that occur due to an anticipated, unanticipated, event or non-event transition.  Context of transition refers to the relationship the person has with the transition (i.e., personal, interpersonal, or community) and the setting where the transition occurs.  Impact would be assessed by understanding how much a person’s daily life has be altered.  Schlossberg outlined the transition process with the terms of “moving in”, “moving through” and “moving out”.  Methods for coping with transition, whether positive or negative, come from assessing a person’s assets and liabilities in the four areas which Schlossberg termed as the 4 S’s – situation, self, support and strategies. 

Example of how used in higher education:

The main use of Schlossberg’s transition theory is with adult learners and their return to higher education.  Compared to traditional students, non-tradition students are generally at many different points in their life due to the various types of transitions they have undergone.  Programming developed on the 4 S’s can help adult learners to recognize and draw upon their assets in coping with the perception of moving into the challenge of returning to school instead of only seeing what their limitation might be.  However, the entire transition process of moving in, moving through and moving on can be used as a guide in student affairs to facilitate all stages of college student development, not just adult learners, in how they interpret their college experiences and use that knowledge to further develop.

A.B.:

Rayle, A. (2007). Revisiting first-year college students’ mattering: Social support, academic stress, and the mattering experience. Journal of College Student Retention, 9(1), 21-37.

Using Schlossberg’s transition theory as a framework, Rayle investigated if any relationships existed between mattering to family and college friends and the degree to which students felt they mattered to the college community and level of academic stress for first-year college students.  Rayle administered three assessment measurements to 533 students enrolled in freshman level courses in the College of Education.  The researcher found that across the sample, social support from family and college friends significantly impacted mattering to the college community, as well as strongly predicated the level of academic stress students’ experienced.

References

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. 2^nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking Practice with Theory.  New York, New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1989). Overwhelmed: Coping with life’s ups and downs. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

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.