Running head: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 1

Student Development Analysis

Blaze Kissell & Ashley Morrison

Miami University

EDL 675
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 2

The following student development analysis focuses on two key aspects of

transformational development. The first section of this report will discuss the current theorized

positionalities of the various students within the case. We will give a very brief overview of the

stage we are proposing the student(s) are located. We will then suggest evidence given the

student(s) behaviors and statements which led us to believe the proposed position for their

current development. We will do both of these for three different and unique theories.

For the second portion of this report, we will suggest potential application and

intervention strategies. Given the complex and delicate nature of the situation we were given, as

well as the varying positionalities of every student given different developmental theories, we

will be working through our analysis of the students to provide action steps to help some of the

students further in their development through this situation. We will describe what questions we

may ask or next steps we would suggest for the students. Given limited time and wanting to aim

for realistic scenarios, we will be mainly focusing on the desired developmental conversations

we would want to have with this case study’s two key students, Tim and Dillon. Finally, to end

our analysis, we will describe how these suggestions and conversations with Tim and Dillon are

incorporating Baxter Magolda’s Learning Partnerships Model for student development.

For our first theory to analyze some of the students’ current development, we will be

using the Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (RMMDI) (Jones & Abes,

2013). The RMMDI will assist us in discussing some of the ways in which students are making

meaning of this situation. The RMMDI attempts to give some explanation to the ways in which

context, developmental capacity, and identity work together to shape the experiences and

meaning making processes of college students. In this model, context is filtered through a

meaning-making capacity screen. Students who are more complex in their development will
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 3

have smaller holes in this metaphorical screen, allowing less of the context to impact the way

they make meaning of their social identities, while students with a “primarily external meaning-

making capacity, context [will] directly [shape] identity perceptions” (pg. 106).

Each of the students is filtering this situation, or context, with varying levels of

complexity, which in turn causes them to think about their own identities in different ways. For

example, Dillon’s current understanding or lack thereof of race and racism, as well as his own

white identity, does not allow him to filter this context with a particularly high level of

complexity. As such, he perceives Tim’s reasonable desire to center his Black identity as an

attack on his own [Dillon’s] White identity. Now that Dillon perceives his White identity as

being challenged, an identity which typically remains centered and unquestioned, he is becoming

uncomfortable and defensive. Dillon’s has not yet made internal meaning of this identity, which

is also leading to his discomfort in this situation.

While we don’t have enough information to know if John is fully internally defined, he

seems to have a somewhat more complex and internally defined understanding of his racial

identity in this context. John says that he “[feels] fine in the College of Engineering.” He

expresses that he thinks that Tim wants him to agree with him because his family is from China,

but John says, “it’s just not the same”. John’s discomfort is coming from the tension between an

external expectation (Tim’s) that does not match John’s own experience or understanding of his

identity. John’s level of meaning-making complexity and capacity means that he is able to hold

firm in his own understanding of his experience and identity (“it’s just not the same”) even while

others hope or expect him to have a different reaction.

Another key theory grouping which could be used to explain the different stages of

development in this case study is Racial Identity Development by Cross (1995) and Helms
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 4

(1990). We chose this collection of theories to include in our analysis because we believe it most

successfully addresses the positionality of the executive members. These theories also account

for a more in-depth explanation of differences given their racial identities and backgrounds. To

elaborate, this theory allows us to analyze the differences between Dillon and Madelyn, two

white students in different stages of their understanding of racial identity. It also highlights the

impact of their White identities. These theories also allow us to better understand the

positionalities of Tim and John, who have very different perspectives and understanding of their

identities as a Black student and Chinese American respectively.

In analyzing Tim’s current development using Cross’s model of psychological

Nigrescence (1995), Tim is likely in the encounter or immersion/emersion stage. Given Tim’s

identity as a Black male in a major with few Black students at a PWI, it has been difficult for

him to feel connected to the major. Tim could be on the cusp of immersion/emersion. He states a

desire to surround himself with other people and symbols representative of his racial identity.

However, he has not yet begun to accomplish this. In addition, Tim also seems to want to avoid

symbols of whiteness. Because he is situated in a major and at an institution in which he is

unable to explore his identity and engage in immersion/emersion, he may either regress into

encounter, or his time in the immersion/emersion stage may be prolonged.

Even though John is also a student of color, he does not describe experiencing similar

concerns as Tim. This is likely due to the different lived experiences and perceptions

surrounding race. As mentioned prior, John is a Chinese American student, and Tim is a Black

student in the college of engineering. Because of this key difference, if John were assessed given

the same racial identity theory, he would appear more developed. John exhibits beliefs which

align with the internalization stage. This stage is representative of feelings of security within a
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 5

racial identity while simultaneously being open to connections with white symbols. We believe

John would be in this stage due to his comments regarding how he feels comfortable in the

college. However, John also makes comments about how he doesn’t see how racism impacts

him, and that he doesn’t feel any connection to his Chinese identity. Given the vast difference

regarding Tim and John in their development, we don’t believe this theory is the most

appropriate to compare both of their experiences and development. We also wanted to highlight

the dangers of doing this as a student affairs professional.

Given that both Tim and John are students of color in a college which is overwhelmingly

white, they have very different perceptions about how they are treated and represented in the

college. A large portion of this perception could likely be due to actual differences in the way

they are both treated in the college. Another possibility is that the difference is partly related to

the difference in the ways they chose to engage with their racial identities while in the college of

engineering. To add some more complexity to the situation, we will now evaluate and

hypothesize on the positionality and development of the two White executive members and how

their development differs given their understanding of race and their own White identities.

Dillon is exhibiting beliefs and sentiments aligned with some of the lower stages of

development relating to Helms’s model of White Racial Identity Development (1990). While he

has potentially already engaged in conversations with other Black students given his comment

that he is “fine with Black people”, his actions and comments fit within the contact stage. The

contact stage is represented as someone who adheres to a “colorblind” rationale of racial

differences. The primary rationale to explain Dillon’s location in this stage is due to the recent

challenge he endured. As described in the contact stage, individuals in this stage may move into

the disintegration stage if they are confronted by a real-world experience or knowledge which
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 6

elicits/highlights their privilege. This is exactly what occurred when Dillon and Tim began

arguing about moving finances for the ball into a diversity event. While disintegration is

typically denoted by feelings of guilt, I believe some of Dillon’s aggression and defensiveness

are a result of his transition into this guilt and disintegration stage. However, he doesn’t seem to

be fully transitioned into the guilt of disintegration yet. This is exhibited by his racially charged

comments about how students of color have more scholarship opportunities instead of “people

like him”.

Madelyn appears to be a little bit further in her identity development. Madelyn is located

in what is known as the pseudo-independence stage. Madelyn is conflicted in how she can be

both white and promote non-racist ideals. She recognizes her privilege and whiteness to an

extent but relies on people of color to uncover racism instead of doing so herself. Evidence for

this positionality is Madelyn’s statement about learning about racism and understanding the

rationale for Tim’s idea, but being busy, unsure, and not wanting to “rock the boat”.

To end our analysis of these four students on the Student Leadership Board for the

College of Engineering, we will be focusing on their developmental journey and position using

Baxter Magolda’s theories on interpersonal maturity as they relate to self-authorship (2000).

Since self-authorship is such a broad and all-encompassing theory which includes cognitive,

interpersonal, and intrapersonal development, we wanted to focus on one of the three. We

believe that by focusing on the students’ interpersonal development, we will be able to construct

a more substantial analysis. We will focus primarily on Baxter-Magolda’s theory of

Interpersonal Maturity.

In this model, Baxter-Magolda posits that students move through four distinct stages on

their journey to becoming self-defined. These four stages are External Definition, Internalizing
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 7

External Self-Definitions, The Crossroads, and Internal Definition. In short, these four stages can

be understood as the following, respectively: students are externally defined and allow others’

perceptions and expectations of them to dictate their own sense of self without knowing that this

is happening; students believe that the external definitions of the self are actually internal;

students realize that they had been internalizing external definitions and have the desire to be

internally defined but are not yet able to accomplish that; students are internally defined.

Most of the students’ behaviors and comments lead us to believe they are located in

either internalizing external self-definitions, or the crossroads. For example, Dillon appears to be

internalizing external self-definitions. When Dillon talks about his priorities and where he can

“leave his mark”, he primarily cites E-Ball as his opportunity. Dillon does not appear to have a

personal tie to this event; he instead talks about the other people who are counting on them to

deliver this event. At one-point Dillon even says, “everyone expects it”. He points directly to

Dean Pawleski’s comments about liking this event as a reason why it cannot fail. Dillon has

internalized others’ beliefs and expectations about the event and has adopted them as his own.

He does not seem to realize that he may not actually be attached to E-Ball for his own reasons.

Tim and Madelyn both appear to be at the Crossroads. Tim regularly talks about his

desire to change majors, demonstrating an awareness of himself and his goals. This alone

demonstrates that has moved out of internalizing eternal self-definitions. Although Tim is aware

that Engineering may not be the right path forward for him, fears about not being able to find a

job are keeping him from making a change. These fears are reinforced and may stem from his

parents. This demonstrates that he has not yet fully transitioned into the internalized self-

definition stage. However, in standing up to his peers to advocate for a cause in which he has

created meaning further demonstrates his journey into internal self-definition. These
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 8

contradictions between wanting to be self-defined, yet not having the capacity to do so, indicates

someone who is in Baxter-Magolda’s Crossroads stage.

Similarly, to Tim, Madelyn is struggling to take ownership of her own self-definition.

Madelyn voices support for Tim’s idea and supports her position with previous life experiences

and knowledge. Madelyn claims that she wants to support Tim but does not know if she can.

Despite wanting to support Tim and believing in his cause, she is still actively looking for

outside validation to act on this. She is looking to both her best friend and to us (as her advisors)

to tell her what she should do. She likely wants us to affirm that it is okay for her to act on the

knowledge she has gained, and to do what she thinks is best. Madelyn brings both knowledge

and experience into the conversation, then dismisses her own knowledge (“I just don’t know

what to think”). She wants to act, but also says she does not know what to do. This tension and

contradiction is typical for someone in the crossroads stage. While Madelyn needs guidance in

some of her logical fallacies and in developing a more nuanced understanding of race and

gender, she is also looking for affirmation to act in an authentic way and become more internally

defined.

Now that we have assessed the positionality of the students using various student

development theories, we now want to explain how we would use this information to inform our

conversations with them. To start off, we would want to work with Dillon on two different

fronts. First, we would want to move him into the crossroads stage of Baxter-Magolda’s theory

by prompting some self-reflection on his motivations. We would also want to encourage him to

reflect on why he felt threatened and attacked by Tim’s proposal.

To prompt him to think about his attachment to E-ball, we would ask him some reflective

questions about why E-Ball is so important to him. We would also want him to consider whether
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 9

or not other people's expectations of him are making him adjust his actions and personal beliefs.

We would ask questions such as: “why is E-Ball important to you?” “If other people weren’t

interested in or expecting E-Ball to happen, would you still feel this attachment?”, “Will $3000

cause E-Ball to fail?” “Is spending $50,000 on E-Ball, a singular event, really the best way to be

good stewards of these funds?” and “Are there different ways to leave your mark? Is there a way

to leave your mark that aligns better with your goals?”.

Our expectation is not that Dillon would have answers to all of these; in fact, given where

we have placed him developmentally in relation to Baxter-Magolda’s theory, we fully expect he

would not have good answers to any of these questions. The purpose in asking is to prompt

Dillon to think about his involvement and attachment to E-Ball in a new light, and to hopefully

get him to see the value in Tim’s idea.

To prompt growth and development in his racial identity, we would take a similar

approach by using questions to elicit conversation and reflection. Here, we would ask more

questions about Dillon’s personal experience with racial minorities. We would want to start to

prompt him to think about some of the differences in his experiences as a white person and the

experiences of people of color. We could ask things like, “do you believe there is a difference

between your experience and Tim’s?” “Do you see the value in having an event for people of

color who are underrepresented in this faculty and at this school?”. We could also choose to call

on one of the principles of Critical Race Theory, that White people act on racial inequity only

when they can see value in it for themselves and ask Dillon if he thinks that supporting Tim’s

initiative could leave a bigger legacy for Dillon than just rehashing E-Ball.

To support and challenge Tim, we would call on Cross’s Theory of Black American

Racial Identity. As we have noted, Tim is on the cusp of immersion/emersion. The primary thing
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 10

holding him back from fully entering that stage is to take action to seek out symbols and

community of his own racial identity. We would prompt him to take that action through asking if

he thinks it would be valuable. If he says yes, we can offer to support him however he needs -

perhaps through helping him find resources on campus, making introductions to people using our

network, or simply providing affirmation for Tim wanting to explore his own identity, and social

justice in general. We would also want to verbally support his efforts to create his event and

would create space for him to talk to us about how he was feeling.

Learning partnerships are characterized by an effective integration of challenge, support,

connection, and autonomy. There are three assumptions and three principles of learning

partnerships model. The three assumptions are that knowledge is complex and socially

constructed, the self is central to knowledge construction, and authority and expertise were

shared in the mutual construction of knowledge among peers. The three principles which should

lead educational practice include validating learners’ capacity to know, situating learning in

learners experience, and mutually constructing meaning (Baxter Magolda, 2004).

As the two primary key figures involved in this case, we wanted to focus most of our

efforts during this time on demonstrating how we would assist Tim and Dillon in their personal

development through this situation. Given the proposed questions we would be asking Dillon

regarding his thoughts about the E-Ball event, we would be leaving space for him to be more

reflective about his own perceptions and goals related to the event and the organization as a

whole. This would situate him as central to the decision and outcome, and hopefully allow us to

construct meaning from his experience and his beliefs which will help him develop.

The hope of this is to make him reflect more on his personal goals, and better identify

external influences. Through our questions, we are challenging him to be more autonomous and
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 11

identify himself as a creator of knowledge. We are also hoping that through these continued

conversations, and challenges, he may enter the crossroads and become less externally defined.

When applying the LPM to our interactions with Tim, we are taking a slightly different

approach. Given that Tim is struggling less with being externally defined, and more with finding

comfort and acceptance in his racial identity, we will be using this to inform our interactions and

support for him. Tim seems to be located in a position in which he needs more support given his

identity and surmountable challenges he is facing due to his identity at college.

We will try to get Tim connected with more groups and people who he can relate to and

help him temporarily escape from White symbols. We will support him in his efforts to host the

diversity event, and suggest he seeks out ways to get involved in fields he may have an interest

in to explore this as a possibility. We would likely encourage him to take some social justice

courses as electives or as a minor, to see if he would be more satisfied. By doing this, we will be

working together to have him take ownership of his life and academic career. This may either

satisfy his needs to explore either fields. He may find that he wants to switch majors, stay with

the engineering major, or do both in some capacity. Regardless, he would make that decision by

himself. He would be taking ownership over his own academics and our conversations would

hopefully allow him to better see himself as the holder of knowledge regarding what is best for

him.
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 12

References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2000). Interpersonal maturity: Integrating agency and communion.

Journal of College Student Development, 41, 141-156.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model: A framework for promoting

self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships:

Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship, 37-43.

Cross Jr, W. E. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revising the Cross model.

Chicago

Helms, J. E. (1990). Toward a model of white racial identity development. In black and white

racial identity: Theory, research and practice, 49-66.

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing

frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity, 97-121.