Running head: FINAL REFLECTION ESSAY 1

Final Reflection: Philosophy of Student Development

Caressa Nguyen
FINAL REFLECTION ESSAY 2

Students situate themselveswho they are and what they determine to be their identity

within the context of psychosocial, interpersonal and cognitive dimensions. They come to

understand themselves because of their internal thoughts, the impact of their environment, and

the opinions of other individuals. When I engage in student development theory, I find that I

consistently position myself to understand what identity entails. Josselson (1987) declared

identity as a primarily unconscious process that unites personality and links the individual to the

social world (as cited in Jones et al., 2012). Although I find this statement to be true, I agree

with Jones et al. (2012) who recognized that identity is assumed as a one-dimensional concept

when instead, it can be viewed as multi-faceted development that intersects the varying lived

experiences of a specific individual. Students have multiple identities, and the ways in which

they engage the world and make meaning push me to think about the influences of paradigms

that shape they way they come to understand the world.

I believe that the sociocultural influences that students have cause the development of

their identities to be fluid, changing based on factors in the environment and situation. The

understanding of ones own identity is always changing, especially in the unique setting of

American higher education, and students seek ways to understand the process of the changes

they sense in themselves. Student development theory helps me to understand that student affairs

professionals should examine the differences between acknowledging, analyzing, and verbalizing

in identity development of students and how it applies to the way they interact with their

surroundings. As a practitioner, I am enabled to prompt students with questions that can assist

students to position themselves through their own words and thoughts.

My philosophy is shaped by Jones integrated model of multiple dimensions of identity,

Magoldas theory of self-authorship, and Kohlbergs concepts of cognitive dissonance and plus-
FINAL REFLECTION ESSAY 3

one reasoning. Because of how I view sociocultural effects and multiple identities, the core of

my philosophy relies on the multiple dimensions of identity. Jones et al. (2012) reports that more

salient identities in an individual are closer to the core of oneself and the saliency of identities

also shifts based on context. Different identities of an individual student are at different

developmental positions. Knowing this, I am equipped with the knowledge that theory is to be

used as a guiding tool. Because a student acts in a certain way with me does not mean that the

student acts the same way in another context. I must also be aware of the constraints that

privilege and oppression contribute to our interaction. This challenges me to consider a wider

range of perspectives that are at play and to think critical about the students diverse identities

that affect how they make meaning. Jones et al. (2012) enables me to think about the student as

a whole, showing that meaning-making capacity acts as a filter between contextual influences

and identity salience such that more complex meaning making, or a filter with greater depth and

less permeability, would result in greater resistance to external influences (p. 701).

The filter a student uses impacts how they choose to process the world, motivating me to

listen to their story, thoughts, and feelings on any given situation. I can gain a better sense of

where the student is at, bringing together aspects of psychosocial and cognitive theories rather

than keeping them apart. Filters then provoke students to seek the ability to express their

authentic self. Authenticity could be constructed as being a constant variable, an aspect of our

core, but Jones et al. (2012) provides me with the context to be accepting of the idea that

inconsistencies in authenticity transpire because of the tensions of privilege and oppression. This

awareness can cause identity dissonance in students and as a practitioner, I can frame identity,

core, and authenticity for the student to understand the changes occurring within themselves.
FINAL REFLECTION ESSAY 4

Jones et al. (2012) also points out issues with authenticity stem from self-definition. To

me, self-definition is a fundamental component of how students understand themselves. Self-

definition requires individuals to tell themselves and take ownership of who they are. Intentional

development occurs best when self-proclaimed self-definition takes place. Recognizing that

student development can occur in students even when they lack depth in their cognitive thinking,

plus-one reasoning provides me with a basis to look at the whole picture and patiently work in a

slow progression towards self-definition if necessary (Evans et al., 2010). Utilizing Kohlbergs

plus-one reasoning will make me conscious of how I interact with the student in the present. My

purpose is to offer more depth to their development rather than rush or force the student in ways

that could hinder positive outcomes for themselves.

Students may also need to resituate themselves when come across an experience that

compels them to reevaluate their identities. Kohlbergs concept of experiencing dissonance helps

me take into consideration when students previous judgments are challenged (Evans et al.,

2010). Dissonance is also connected to Magoldas theory since she postulates that students often

begin by follow formulas influenced by external stimuli, affecting their internal voice (Baxter

Magolda, 2009). How a students internal voice is influenced affects their ability to make

meaning or self-define their authenticity. The formulas can be disrupted, causing cognitive

dissonance where students are challenged to think about their sense of self, their relationship to

others, and possible contradictory values and experiences. Through the use of theory, students

can orientate themselves to see that they have a decision to makea crossroads. The college

experience is filled with crossroads, both of which are intentional impactful and unconsciously

significant based on how salient certain identities present themselves. The decisions that result

from these crossroads reveal development. Through my philosophy, I do not aim to place
FINAL REFLECTION ESSAY 5

students in theories, but use the holistic frameworks to identity smaller points of development

that require plus-one reasoning.

I also acknowledge that my own development and lived experiences inform my personal

interpretation of student development theory. When I reflect on instances of development in my

college experience, I remember feeling like a chameleon depending on the wide array of

environments and subcultures I associated with. I used to think that because I altered how I

acted that I was not acting with integrity, an attribute that Jones et al. (2012) would postulate is at

my coreof the utmost importance of what is central to myself. I questioned whether or not I

was truly authentic because I could feel myself changing depending on the situation. Reflecting

on my former thoughts, I can now articulate that my perception of integrity pressured me to think

I needed to act the same in every situation whereas my knowledge of authenticity accounts for

societal and social factors that influence my reactions and interpersonal relationships.

Even today, I see how I show up differently depending on the space. In the first

encounters of understanding my own development, I was pressed to reflect on who I was in that

moment and how it affected me. I went from viewing dissonance in a dichotomous fashion to

interpreting multiple perspectives. This makes me think about the dissonance that students can

encounter in college and how it prompts them to explore their own identity more critically.

Furthermore, my undergraduate degree in human development background exposed me to

understand the importance of the sociocultural context and how it affects people. As a result, I

easily identify with Jones model concerning multiple identities because it allows me to consider

contextual influences and meaning-making filters when working with student development.

My philosophy encourages me to engage outside of the prescriptive lens that student

development theory can perpetuate in practice. I understand how I am subject to getting lost in a
FINAL REFLECTION ESSAY 6

cycle and need to distinguish between fitting the student to the theory in contrast to utilizing the

theory to inform me about the student. Using my perspective of student development theory

positions me to understand the possibilities of what a student may be experiencing before I tackle

the equally pertinent theories that prominent scholars have shared. I also am conscious of how to

manage how my perception of the student and how that affects the theories I may use when

interacting with the student. Taking into consideration Jones and Magolda leaves space for

fluidity not only in the students social identities, but also for me to be fluid in how I negotiate

various approaches to the students development.

FINAL REFLECTION ESSAY 7

References:

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). The activity of meaning making: A holistic perspective on

college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 621-639.

Evans, N., J. Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R., Choe Kim, Y., & Cilente Skendall, K. (2012). (Re-) Framing authenticity:

Considering multiple social identities using autoethnographic and intersectional

approaches. Journal of Higher Education, 83, 698-724.