Running Head: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 1

Student Development Theory

Lizz Giordano

HED 602-01

October 13, 2017

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 2

The Seven Vectors Theory (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) allows students to reflect and

assess their experiences. Chickering and Reisser later reevaluated the theory to better relate it to

students present and future, and provided higher education professionals with a general theory

that can be used with all students regardless of gender. It is important to note that Chickering’s

theory is flexible, is not linear; students can move from vector one to vector four, and back to

vector two. I found the most salience with Vector 2, Vector 4, Vector 5, and Vector 6 during my

undergraduate career.

Vector 2, managing emotions, refers to a time when students are found struggling to self-

regulate emotions or regressing emotions. Chickering and Reisser (Chickering & Reisser, 1993,

p. 90-97) discuss that there are emotions that are positive and some that can be negative or at

times toxic to the student’s development. Some toxic feelings include anxiety, anger or

aggression, depression, and guilt. One toxic emotion that affected my undergraduate experience

was depression. Reisser states that depression involves negative emotions, negative behavior

patterns, and physical problems. It is also stated that to be more aware of this emotion an

individual must not only notice, but also identify the felling and intensity level. Within this

vector it is important for students to understand how to effectively manage and integrate

emotions into everyday life.

Vector 4, developing mature interpersonal relationships, is a very important vector for

student development. It encompasses the tolerance and appreciation of differences in others and

the capacity for intimacy. For me this vector was important to my development, because I started

to learn what it means to form relationships with people that were long lasting and more mature.

Within this vector, Chickering states that empathy is an important component of development.

Students are learning the differences between their peers, can recognize that although there are
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 3

differences, there are still similarities. Students also find that although someone is different from

you, they still have value and their experiences are just as important to their development as your

experiences are to your development. This vector discusses maturity as a key component to the

development within this stage. Students develop maturity by observing peers, instructors, and

mentors.

Vector 5, establishing identity, is a vector that I related to the second half of my

undergraduate experience. Chickering described this vector as having comfort with body and

appearance, comfort with gender and sexual orientation, sense of self in social, historical, and

cultural context, clarification of self-concept roles and life-style, sense of self in response to

feedback from valued others, self-acceptance and self-esteem, and personal stability and

integration. This vector has a lot of pieces to it and is described as assembling the jigsaw puzzle.

One piece of this vector that I did not find to have much weight is the idea of comfort with

gender and sexual orientation. I felt that Chickering and Reisser inserted this into the chapter

with no regard for how it would affect students in the future. Since the theory was revised in the

early 1990’s, it is understood that the discussion about non-binary genders and sexual orientation

was not in the forefront of development at that time. For my experiences Vector 5 allowed me to

put part of the jigsaw puzzle together; I feel that I am currently still in this vector.

Vector 6, developing purpose, was salient for me during the last year of my

undergraduate experience. In this vector, students develop an increased ability to be intentional,

vocational plans and aspirations, personal interests, and interpersonal and family commitments.

This vector is the most salient for me now in my life, because I am in graduate school and

developing more of my vocational plans and aspirations, as well as discovering more of my

interpersonal and family commitments.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 4

The Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development, Perry discusses the typical course of

development of students’ patterns of thought. Perry determined that the theory should have

positions as opposed to stages, because he understood that “students are in motion and did not

want to imprison them in stages.” (Patton, Renn, Guido-DiBrito, & Quaye, 2016) Perry describes

the theory in four positions, dualism, multiplicity, relativism, and commitment in relativism.

Dualism refers to a time where students are confined to the dichotomy of meaning making. For

example, if a student had a paper due, they would do well, or they would do poorly. The student

in this position does not think about the spectrum of good and bad or right and wrong. Things in

dualism are black and white, there is no gray area; students see knowledge quantitatively and

seek information from authority figures. The next position is multiplicity; in this position,

students begin to see that there are diverse opinions and that their peers have valuable

knowledge. For students in the position of multiplicity, they see that they do not have to seek

answers from one source, thoughts and ideas can come from many places. Students in the

multiplicity view realize that they can think independently from “experts.”

The next position in Perry’s theory is relativism. In this position, students begin to realize

that not all opinions hold the same weight and can be of little value. Students begin to grasp

knowledge in a more qualitative sense. In my opinion, the position of relativism is crucial for

student development, because in this position, students can form their opinions, understand that

although other individuals have opinions, they are not always right, and they are not always

important in meaning making. The final position is commitment in relativism. In this position,

students start making choices in the world. This is the point in the theory when students initiate

ethical development as opposed to building on their cognitive complexity. This position expands

upon relativism and allows students to make firm decisions.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 5

In the Theory of Women’s Moral Development (Patton, Renn, Guido-DiBrito, & Quaye,

2016), students develop and identify with care and responsibility. Gilligan structured the theory

into levels with transitions in between. The first level is the orientation to individual survival; in

this level, the student is self-involved, focused on survival, and is unable to distinguish between

need and desires. The individuals in this level are focused on preserving the self. (p. 347) The

first transition is from selfishness to responsibility; students in this level are starting to create

attachments and connections with others. Students start to realize that there is a responsibility in

doing the right thing, and they begin to integrate responsibility into decision-making. The second

level is goodness as self-sacrifice; within this level, students move away from self-centeredness

to relying on others and being accepted socially. Students in this level withhold any feelings of

conflict and deal with those issues privately. The second transition is from goodness to truth;

individuals are beginning to wonder why they help others at the expense of themselves. They

examine ways they can incorporate their own needs into their responsibilities. The third and final

level is morality of non-violence; this level is described as “transformed understanding of self

and a corresponding redefinition of morality.” (Gilligan, 1977 p. 504) This individual realizes

that even though they want to help others it is important to also look out for your needs.

The next theory is Schlossberg’s Theory of Marginality and Mattering (Schlossberg,

1989). Schlossberg describes marginality as feeling “out of things.” Individuals can feel a sense

of marginality when experiencing a transitional period in life, or as more of a personality type. If

someone experiences marginality as a personality type, the student has a more permanent form

of marginality. This student is possibly living with a cultural identity that is not quite accepted by

society, but is a piece of their identity that is very salient for them. Schlossberg describes

mattering as a “feeling that others depend on us, are interested in us, are concerned with our fate,
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 6

and experience us as an ego-extension.” There are a few forms of mattering including: attention,

importance, ego-extension, dependence, and appreciation. In this theory, individuals are

motivated to be in a state of mattering. As a student I felt that I entered college marginalized,

although partly self-marginalized, and graduated feeling like I mattered.

Another theory from Schlossberg is the Transitional Model and 4s System for Coping

(Schlossberg, 2011). In the Transitional Model it is important to understand transitions which

include: an anticipated or expected transition, an unanticipated or unexpected transition, and a

non-event transition. A non-event transition means that the individual was expecting a transition,

but the transition failed to occur. When identifying transitions, Schlossberg realized that there

was a need to evaluate how an individual will cope with those transitions. The 4s System for

Coping focuses on the situation around the transition, and asks the individual if there are any

other stressors surrounding the transition. It focuses on the self, the attitude and the inner

strength of an individual to cope with the transition; another piece of the coping system is

support, which is critical for the well-being of the student. The final piece of the system is

strategies, how can the individual reframe or change the situation surrounding the transition and

how can the individual reduce stress. This theory is important to student development, because it

is important to understand the differences between marginality and mattering, identify the

transitional stages that occur, and learn how to cope with those transitions.

I began my undergraduate education at Salem College in 2009. At that time, I was

undergoing an anticipated transition from high school to college and from living at home to

living out of state on campus. I have always struggled with friendships, but living with someone

that I had never met and that had a very different childhood experience, was a challenge for me.

It was very hard to learn to live with someone that was used to sharing so much and just taking
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 7

and using what they wanted whenever they wanted. I was not super involved on campus my first

year; I worked in the admissions office doing phone calls and data entry, I was in the marching

band at Wake Forest, and I was a Chemistry major doing decently well in classes. I had been

depressed for majority of my life, undiagnosed, so that was always a part of my identity.

Looking back on that first year, I was maladjusted/maladapted to my new environment, since I

did not have the support system I was used to; however, I did seek the help that I really needed,

but it was not as helpful as I needed it to be at the time. I feel that during my first year of my

undergraduate experience I was primarily in dualism, Vector 2, Level 1 of Gilligan’s theory, and

marginalization.

In my second year of my undergraduate experience I became a Resident Assistant, which

I was not prepared for. I was still in marching band, and started to get more involved in the

College Democrats and the on-campus Yearbook staff. I had an unanticipated loss of the friends

I had made during my first year, because I was maladapted to this environment and I made poor

decisions when it came to those friends my first year. That year I lived alone as an RA so my

depressive state and homesickness increased. My grades were still decent, except for Organic

Chemistry, which was a very difficult course. I sought out counseling, but this did not help that

much, because I was not as open to the help as I needed to be, and my previous counselor was no

longer in the office. I continued to marginalize myself in some aspects of my experience;

however, I did matter when it came to the clubs that I was in and my position as RA, even if I did

not see it that way. I was still in Vector 2 and Level 1 of Gilligan’s theory.

After my second year at Salem College an unanticipated transition occurred. My financial

situation drastically changed. My father experienced hardships in his small business, causing him

to file bankruptcy; however, on the FAFSA my estimated family contribution was much higher
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 8

than it had been in the previous years. The college expected my family or myself to take out a

loan that would put a burden on myself or my family, causing me to elect to transfer to another

college. It was too late for me to transfer to a four-year institution in Florida, so I finished my

Associates Degree at a local junior college for a year. I was very marginalized because of the

location, my depression increased due to the change in school that I did not choose, and I felt like

I was missing out on all the experiences I was looking forward to at Salem College. I was in

Vector 2, dualism, and I had a poor attitude related to the situation. After a few months I elected

to enter counseling, which changed my outlook drastically, and I finally had a diagnosis of

Chronic Low-Grade Depression that I desperately needed to change my attitude about my

situation. The counselor put the mental illness into a perspective that I understood, finally giving

me a purpose to move forward and heal that part of my identity.

After completing my Associates Degree in the summer of 2012, I transferred to the

University of North Florida. I knew immediately that for me to be successful and matter, I

needed to get involved on campus. I reached out to two organizations that I was interested in,

and immediately became Treasurer of the College Democrats club within the first week of my

first semester there. I joined Kappa Alpha Theta, women’s fraternity, and became the

Community Projects Director of the Rotaract Club. I felt that this was a good change for me, and

I started to move into the 1st transition of Gilligan’s theory, multiplicity, and Vectors 4 and 5. In

my second semester at UNF, an unanticipated transition occurred. I failed two of my three

biology courses causing me to be on academic probation. I then had to reevaluate my major and

career path. It was a struggle being in my 8th semester of college, having to change my major and

reevaluate a dream I had since kindergarten.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 9

In my 5th year of college I had a non-event a change in major from Biomedical Sciences

to Public Health. In retrospect, it was the best decision I ever made, because it was the catalyst to

me entering Student Affairs. At that time, I was still determined to work in the health field, but I

was unsure if I would still be a doctor or Physician Assistant. I considered becoming a public

health educator, mental health counselor, or substance abuse coach. I was still involved on

campus, working a part time job, and reevaluating my career path. I felt that I mattered a great

deal to my organizations, I was in level 2 of Gilligan, between multiplicity and relativism, and in

Vector 5.

My final year of my undergraduate experience was a huge milestone. I was involved,

working, and doing well in school. My internship opened my eyes to another side of the health

field, and I found that I enjoyed the health field in other ways that just clinical. I was mattering in

classes, my internship, work, and in organizations that I was a part of, and I felt very appreciated

and important. I was in Vector 6, relativism, level 2 and transition 2 of Gilligan, and it was an

anticipated transition to graduate and get a job. I was offered full-time employment at my

internship site, and I learned a great deal from that experience.

I feel that each of these theories can be utilized within the student affairs field. I think that

while some were not designed around all students, each have value in different ways. For

example, when interviewing student affairs professionals for a project, I found that all of them

discussed Chickering’s Vector Theory when I asked about student development. I find that

Chickering’s Vector Theory and Schlossberg’s Transitional Model and 4s System for Coping are

most important when working with students. In my work in the Career Center, the staff focus on

Chickering’s Vector 6, because it relates to vocational plans and aspirations. When working with

students it is also important to identify if a student is in the positions of Perry’s theory, because
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 10

the way a professional will interact with a student who is in the dualism position, and the way a

professional interacts with students who are in relativism will vary significantly. One theory I

have a hard time relating closely with all students is Gilligan’s Moral development theory. While

I find saliency with this theory by looking back on my undergraduate experience, I do not feel

that this theory translates to all areas of student affairs and student development. I also feel that

the fact that it was focused only on women will affect the way many see this theory. Overall, I

feel that each of these theories provides student affairs professionals with a foundation to better

understand students and their development.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 11

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass .

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in

college: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand.

Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New

Directions for Student Services, 1989(48), 5-15. doi:10.1002/ss.37119894803

Schlossberg, N. K. (2011). The challenge of change: the transition model and its applications.

Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(4), 159-162. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1

920.2011.tb01102.x