During Spring, 2006 Professional Development Week, the College explored the idea of a first-year experience as an institution-wide response to improving student learning, persistence and success. Our Institutional Research data on persistence of first-time college-level students show that about half of our full-time students and about a third of our part-time students who start in the fall semester return the following fall (IR Report #154). For those students who discontinue their enrollment, approximately 43% in recent semesters earned GPAs below 2.0 (IR Report #154). For those students who do persist, we can testify to the many successful initiatives in place, which engage them in learning and lead to successful outcomes. What makes the difference between these students and those who choose to depart or are dropped for poor or insufficient progress? We all know there are many variables that enter into the success equation. Using student development theory and college impact models to understand our first year students as they make the transition to college addresses a piece of the equation.
In Student Development in the First College Year: A Primer for College Educators, Tracy Skipper provides a description of psychosocial and cognitive development theories as well as two retention models as “a starting point for understanding and relating to first-year college students” (p. 10). An excerpt from the book detailing an overview of the primer is reprinted below (with permission). —Susan Tobia
Skipper, T. L. (2005). Student Development in the First College Year: A Primer for College Educators (pages 8, 10-11). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. 119 pp. $20 (paper).
In their studies on the effects of college on students, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) identify four types of theories or models of student change: (a) psychosocial, (b) cognitive-structural, (c) typological, and (d) person-environment interaction. All provide important insights into how students approach their work in college and how they are changed by it. However, this primer focuses primarily on the first two categories, because typological and person-environment interaction theories do not describe change or development (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Many of the theories described here are stage theories, which assume that development occurs across the lifetime in a series of age-related, sequential stages (Evans et a1., 1998).
Psychosocial theories of development typically focus on how individuals relate to themselves and others. These theories examine changes in feel ings, beliefs, and values over time and developmental processes related to identity, vocational goals, life purpose, and relationships (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Polkosnik & Winston, 1989). Chickering and Reisser suggest a series of developmental tasks that occupy college students throughout their early adulthood, and their model will be the launching pad for examining psychosocial development among college students. Theorists and researchers who have sought to revise this theory, especially in the area of identity development for women and racial and ethnic minority students, are also included.
Theories related to cognitive development examine changes in the ways students view the world or make sense of their experiences. Cognitive theories are not only concerned with how students “structure values, beliefs, and assumptions” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 2) but also examine the acquisition of a host of problem-solving and analytical skills (Polkosnik & Winston, 1989). William Perry’s scheme of intellectual development launches the conversation on cognitive development. Three major theories – Belenky,Clinchy,Goldberger, and Tarule, 1986; Baxter Magolda, 1992; and King and Kitchener, 1994 – built on and expanded Perry’s work. These theories are also examined in some detai1. Closely related to intellectual development is the ability to make decisions among morally ambiguous choices. Lawrence Kohlberg’s and Carol Gilligan’s examination of the development of moral reasoning concludes this section.
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) also note that college impact models are important frameworks for understanding the changes that students experience in college. Unlike models of individual development, college impact models are concerned with “the origins and processes of change” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 52). So while theories of student development may help institutions understand and design interventions to help individual and groups of students succeed, college impact models help institutions identify and change the institutional structures that enhance or inhibit student learning and development. For example, a central concern for colleges and universities is retaining college students. While students certainly leave college for reasons related to personal development, college impact models help explain the institutional factors that contribute to student departure. Specifically, Astin’s model of student involvement and Tinto’s model of student departure are explored. Particular attention is paid to Tinto’s work and the attempts to validate and revise his thinking.
The theories presented here are a starting point for understanding and relating to first-year college students. They are largely descriptive, and it is important to acknowledge that they do not illuminate the realities of all – or perhaps even most – of the students on college campuses today. Several of the theories presented here were developed more than three decades ago based on largely White, middle-class males attending highly selective colleges. As such, their ability to describe the experiences of women and racial and ethnic minorities has been challenged. Social and cultural shifts that have occurred since these theories were initially developed may also limit their ability to describe the experiences of even those students who resemble the original research subjects. Moreover, the theorists themselves warn that an overreliance on stage theory might lead to oversimplified and incomplete pictures of who our students are (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Given the inadequacies of these theories, are they of any use to higher educators? Yes. In spite of their shortcomings, these theories identify some of the major issues and concerns individuals address in young adulthood and provide a framework for faculty and administrators to develop their own mini-theories for teaching and advising first-year college students. Moreover, these theories inform the work of student affairs professionals. Having a basic understanding of such theories provides faculty and student affairs professionals with a common language to discuss how best to address the academic mission of the institution (Kuh, 1996) and to explore the rationales behind curricular and cocurricular design and implementation (Stage, 1996). Finally, the theories provide developmental hallmarks that can be translated into course or program goals and, thus, guide assessment efforts.
For theory to be of any real value, it should inform practice. To this end, the primer offers a model for moving from theory to practice. The description of the model is followed by three examples of using the theory-to-practice framework to inform decisions in the individual classroom, in a residential setting, and in a learning community. Because an important aspect of moving from theory to practice is evaluating the impact of the intervention, issues related to assessing learning and developmental outcomes are briefly discussed.
The structure of the primer separates issues related to identity and psychosocial development from cognitive development. In many ways, this is also a reflection of the traditional organization of higher education—with student affairs administrators being primarily concerned with students’ psychosocial development while faculty focus on intellectual growth. Increasingly, theorists and practitioners are recognizing that this distinction is artificial. Certainly, students do not experience learning and development in the compartmentalized chunks that modern higher education attempts to deliver them. Thus, a final section of the primer briefly explores the notion of adopting a holistic view of learning and development, describing the ways in which the theories presented here intersect and inform each other. Approaching student learning and development from this holistic perspective provides educators with a richer understanding of students and a greater array of options for helping them succeed in college.
If you are interested in obtaining information on how to order the book, you can link to http://www.sc.edu/fye/publications/bb/index.html#student_development
References
Chickering, A.W. & Reisser, L. (1993) Education and identity, (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
©Copyright 2006. Contact author for permission
Maintained by Jay Howard,May 2006