Artifactc2 Galam Educ-5130-Integrated-Case-Study

Running Head: INTEGRATED CASE STUDY - UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT
LEADERSHIP
Integrated Case Study - Undergraduate Student Leadership

Bianca Galam
Seattle University
August 11, 2017
EDUC 5130: Adult Learning
Stacey Robbins, Ph.D.
INTEGRATED CASE STUDY - UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT LEADERSHIP 2
Introduction
Higher education institutions strive to provide a holistic experience for their
students. There are several opportunities in which undergraduate students can develop
themselves as leaders. In addition to having academic goals, students are striving to gain
practical knowledge and skills for their future careers and lives after graduation. One
avenue many students take is to hold a leadership position in a student organization. This
analysis will discuss developmental and learning theories that are relevant to this
population, and examine the settings, barriers, and current issues that impact the practices
of student affairs professionals who work with this population.
Developmental Theories
This section will examine the developmental theories that are applicable to
undergraduate students who hold leadership positions in student-run organizations on
college campuses. The theories discussed will be Kegan’s Constructive Developmental
theory, Phinney’s ethnic identity theory, and integrated developmental models. A review
of these implications will inform higher education administrators of the contexts in which
undergraduate students leaders operate from, and provide guidance for student affairs
professionals in working with this population.
Kegan’s Constructive Developmental Theory
Constructive Developmental Theory focuses on how individuals make meaning
from their experiences. Kegan’s theory consists of five stages of consciousness, also
called the “Five Orders of the Mind” (Berger, 2006). According to Kegan, as we progress
through each stage we do not disregard what we had learned in a previous stage. Rather,
our understanding of past experiences transforms (p. 3).
During the first stage, which is where young children operate from, individuals
are tied to their perceptions. This may mean that they cannot distinguish between what is
real and what is fantasy (Eriksen, 2006). Children in this stage will make decisions based
on what authoritative figures in their lives consider good, bad, right, or wrong. Stage 2 is
where adolescents begin to realize their own needs and interests (Eriksen, 2006). Here,
individuals become more independent as they develop a sense of self-sufficiency. They
discover that they have their own emotions, thoughts, and beliefs; and while they
recognize that others have feelings as well, they do not yet have empathy (Berger, 2006).
Furthermore, children in this stage become aware that other people have notions about
them. Undergraduate student leaders would have passed this stage of development.
Stage three, known as the “socialized” mind, is where undergraduate student
leaders are operating. During this stage, adults make sense of the world through their
relationship with others. Because of this, we find that this is where adults seek direction,
want approval from their social groups, and are not yet able to formulate their own belief
system (Eriksen, 2006). While the reasons for pursuing a bachelor’s degree will vary
amongst students, their actions to do so are based on a societal norm in which attending
college is expected, or is assumed to be the best path towards a better career or higher
pay.
Those in stage four–coined the “self-authoring” mind– have created a sense of
self that does not rely on any relationship to others (Berger, 2003). Individuals in this
stage have their own value system, which is used to make choices. It is during this stage
that empathy for others becomes fulfilled. Nontraditional graduate students, typically age
25 or older, are assumed to operate from this stage. However, it is important to also note
that the transition between stages three and four is where many adults are operating
(Eriksen, 2006).
Finally, those in stage five, the “self-transforming” mind, are considered to have
reached interdependence. It is rare for adults to be in this stage, though this is where
individuals look for the similarities within a diverse population or setting.
While each of these stages is distinct from one another, it is important to note that
individuals may operate from various stages during different moments in life. For
example, an undergraduate student leader may operate from stage three when they are
new in their leadership role –seeking approval from their peers when planning meetings,
and creating annual goals. This same student leader could operate from stage four in their
final year of college as they are planning the steps to take post-graduation.
It is important for student affairs professionals to notice the social factors that
influence an undergraduate student. Those that join student-run organizations and assume
leadership roles are likely to seek approval from their peers, their organization members,
and parents. While the same social groups influence all student leaders, there are varying
degrees of influence on traditional students versus nontraditional students. Traditional
student leaders want approval from fellow classmates, parents, and student affairs
practitioners; and nontraditional students will seek approval more from their personal
friends, colleagues, and immediate family members (i.e., spouses, children, siblings).
Contrary to what is typically put into practice, student affairs practitioners manage
and interact with each student they work with differently. Traditional student leaders who
have just begun their leadership role will be operating from stage three of Kegan’s
Development Theory – seeking approval from their peers, and relying on the guidance of
student affairs practitioners. When working with traditional student leaders, practitioners
will need to spend more time helping these students to determine next actions and
priorities. More supervision is needed for traditional student. Nontraditional student
leaders, however, will view student affairs professionals more as peers rather than
supervisors. In this relationship, practitioners will need to earn the trust from
nontraditional students so that they can effectively support them in their leadership roles.
Phinney’s Ethnic Identity Development Theory
Ethnic identity is defined in various ways, and there does not seem to be one
agreed upon definition amongst research studies (Phinney, 1990). Generally speaking,
ethnic identity development theories focus on how an individual self-conceptualizes
based on what they have learned from a social group that they identify with. Phinney
makes a point that “the term ethnic identity has sometimes been used synonymously with
acculturation” (p. 501) and it is important to distinguish the difference between those two
terms. Acculturation occurs when attitudes and behaviors of a group change when
coming in contact with another cultural group. The focus of ethnic identity is on the
individual, rather than a group of people.
Phinney suggests that there are three stages of ethnic identity development. The
first stage, known as “unexamined ethnic identity” (Phinney, 1990) is where adolescents
are. She also says that adults who have not had to deal with ethnic identity issues are also
in this stage (p. 502). There are various characteristics within this stage. Those in a
minority population may find themselves preferring to identify with the dominant
culture. Adolescents may not have thought about or have an interest in ethnicity. Or,
individuals may have a positive perspective of their ethnicity and not display any
preference for a dominant group.
The second stage is known as “ethnic identity search.” During this stage, one will
experience an “intense process of immersion in one’s own culture…” (Phinney, 1990).
This immersion occurs through various methods, including discussions with others,
reading, and attending cultural events. Through this process, individuals in this stage
become connected to their ethnicity and develop an appreciation for their ethnicity.
This is when, according to Phinney, people reach the third stage, known as ethnic
identity achievement. It is at this stage when ethnic minorities resolve two issues: (1) the
stereotyping of the dominant population toward the nondominant group, and (2) “the
clash of value systems between a nondominant and dominant groups…” (Chavez &
Guido-DiBrito, 1999). Though an individual may have achieved ethnic identity, they may
choose to not involve themselves in their ethnic traditions and beliefs. Achievement may
simply mean that a person acknowledges their ethnicity. For example, because there are a
number of student-run organizations that identify themselves with a specific ethnicity,
students have several opportunities to learn about the ethnic identity that they connect
with the most. Or, they may choose to immerse themselves in an ethnic organization that
do not identify with, but have a preference for.

Undergraduate students begin to create a sense of self and belonging while in
college. Without having ethnic traditions being imposed on a student on a daily basis
from family members, traditional students find the freedom to choose to continue
following their ethnic customs or not. Student leaders, who are typically in their third or
fourth year of college, are in further along in the process of developing their ethnic
identities compared to first or second year students. This is especially true when they are
active participants in organizations that have an ethnic connection.
As leaders, these students also provide an example for their peers who are
beginning to self-define their own identities. Being informed about student leaders are
seen by their peers will influence the practices of student affairs professionals. Rather
than viewing all students as needing guidance and direction, student leaders become
collaborative partners to administrators in creating inclusive environments, advocating
for students in various ways, and executing campus-wide initiatives and projects.
Integrated Approach
Integrative models of adult development take a holistic approach. These
development models are concerned with how a person’s biological (body), psychological
(mind), and sociocultural environment influence one another (Clark & Caffarella, 1999).
In some models, spirituality is also included.
The biological perspective recognizes that we are physical beings, who
experience physiological changes. These changes occur as a result of aging or our
personal health practices. From a psychological viewpoint, we focus on the internal
processes of development. The concepts included within this perspective include

cognitive development, relational development, and ego identity development (Clark &
Caffarella, 1999). The sociocultural framework concerns the social and cultural
influences that impact an individual’s development. We concentrate on a person's social
role, and society's’ definition of those social roles. Sociocultural factors that impact
development include race, gender, and sexual orientation.
The spiritual perspective, while not always included in integrated approaches,
deals with faith development. Faith and spirituality do not necessarily have a religious
context. Elizabeth Tisdell (1999) suggests that culture influences spiritual development.
For example, as Tisdell explains, Catholic symbols are integrated in Mexican American
culture (p. 91). Therefore, in order to confidently identify with their culture, Mexican
Americans would also need to acknowledge Catholicism to a certain degree.
Rather than focusing on one of these factors, an Integrated approach to adult
development looks at the intersection of all these factors. This is applicable to
undergraduate students who assume leadership roles, while also pursuing a degree, as
they often do so to complement their formal learning. This displays that undergraduate
students are looking to develop themselves more than academically. Because student
affairs professionals typically work with students outside of the classroom, it would be
beneficial to understand how one perspective influences the other three. Whether it be to
gain field experience, learn or enhance a skill, or network with a group who share a
similar interest, student leaders have a desire to develop themselves in more than one
aspect of life.
Conclusion of Developmental Theories

There are numerous developmental theories, and while some share similar themes
and characteristics, they are all different. Student affairs practitioners work with students
who are at different stages in comparison to their peers. It is important for them to
consider the differences and similarities of how each student self-develops and create
their identity. Because student leaders may be a traditional or nontraditional student, it is
critical to for higher education administrators to foster an inclusive and respectful
environment for all students.
Learning Theories
In the following pages, learning theories that are relevant to undergraduate student
leaders will be discussed. The three theories that will be examined are humanism,
constructivism, and Fenwick’s experiential learning theory. These theories will be
described, and implications for student affairs professionals working with this case study
population.
Humanism
Merriam and Bierema (2014) describe humanism as focusing on the whole person
and the “potential of humans for growth and development” (p. 29). Rather than focusing
on just the cognitive development, humanism is concerned with an individual's mind,
body, and spirit. While the reasons vary for why students join student-run organizations,
the choice is often self-initiated. Whether it be to complement in-classroom learning or to
gain practical experience, students choose to participate in cocurricular activities to fulfill
personal desires outside of a classroom.

Many undergraduate students have interests beyond their field of study. For
example, a student majoring in biology who also has an affinity to help fight
homelessness may join a volunteer and service organization on campus. This student’s
interests will not be acknowledged nor fulfilled in one learning setting. In Carl Rogers’
student-centered learning approach, he says that a learner is aware of whether or not an
experience is meeting her needs or fulfills her desire to know about a particular subject
(Merriam & Bierema, 2014). When undergraduate students recognize that what they are
learning from lectures or reading text books will not satisfy another need, such as the
biology students’ desire to fight homelessness, they will turn to other environments in
which their needs are satisfied.
College campuses provide several opportunities in which students can fulfill on
personal and professional goals, and because of that the humanist theory applies to the
experience of student leaders. David Hall notes that “We desperately need bold attempts
to design and to use programmes (sic) of study in which pupils are placed in situations
where they have time and space to become active builders of their own intellectual
structures…” (p. 323). Undergraduate students, both traditional and nontraditional, have
the opportunities to participate in organizations where they can create, experiment with,
and guide their own learning experiences. It is imperative for student affairs professionals
to acknowledge this, and to promote student involvement that allows students to
experiment with and drive their own learning. Humanism manifests itself here, as
Merriam and Bierema (2014) note “people are free to make choices and determine their
behavior” (p. 29).

With this approach, student affairs professional recognize the importance of
creating spaces in which undergraduate students have the freedom and creativity to
expand their development. It is also imperative, however, for administrators to be aware
that the motivations for involvement vary between traditional and nontraditional students.
Traditional students do not typically have to readjust to being a full-time student as they
begin college within a year or two after graduating from high school. They are familiar
with managing a full-time student schedule of attending class, studying, and completing
assignments. They also would have the time to manage participation in student-run
organizations.
Nontraditional students, on the other hand, have more readjusting to do as they
transition to being a student again. They often have families, full-time jobs, or other
financial responsibilities to take care of in addition to pursuing a degree. Furthermore,
their need to participate in student-run organizations may be less prominent as they have
already established activities to fulfill their personal interests. To encourage student
involvement for nontraditional students, student affairs professionals could create a
professional development program, such as a business leader speaker series. The school
of business and center for student involvement could collaborate to host this speaker
series, and also recruit nontraditional students who are majoring in business to serve on
the planning committee.
Undergraduate student leaders become partners of student affairs professionals in
providing meaningful experiences for their peers. They know from their own experiences
that their organizations benefit from activities that fulfill social, cognitive, physical, and
spiritual needs. Student affairs professionals, especially those who advise student
organizations, should contribute to creating spaces that promote the development of all
students outside of the classroom.
Constructivism
Constructivism, as described by Merriam and Bierema (2014), assumes that
“learning is the construction of how people make sense of their experience” (p. 36). In
comparison to learning theories that concentrate on behaviors, constructivism focuses on
an individual’s development and deep understanding of their experiences (Fosnot &
Perry, 2005). With this approach, students are called to make sense of their experiences
based on prior situations and knowledge.
It is important for students to also gain “hands-on practices for learning and
interpreting [course material]” (Hussain, 2012). Activities inside and outside of the
classroom allow students the opportunity to interpret and connect their studies to their
real life situations. Constructivism also considers the social contexts in which learners
create meaning to their experiences (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Expanding on the
humanistic theory, student leaders seek out experiences outside of the classroom to
develop personal and professional goals. However, we must also remember that formal
classroom settings, where students interact with instructors and fellow classmates, are
also social settings where meaning is constructed. It is within all social environments that
students develop confidence and social skills (Hussain, 2012).
Student leaders, who are typically in their third or fourth year of college, use what
they have learned inside and outside of the classroom to guide their actions and beliefs.
Nontraditional students who assume leadership roles have gained knowledge and skills
from situations outside of a college campus. Whether it was from situations within their
families or current job, they have years of meaningful experiences. Traditional students,
who also have years of experience, are influenced by experiences that have occurred on
campus during their first two years as an undergraduate student.
It is significant to note that with the increasing number of nontraditional student
enrollment on college campuses, undergraduate student population dynamics are shifting.
With this in mind, student affairs practitioners and adult educators are charged with the
task of creating all-inclusive spaces and experiences. Acknowledging and catering to
diverse student populations is detrimental to the operations of college campuses. It would
be beneficial for the ever-changing student population if student affairs practitioners
created a mentorship program in which students, specifically student leaders, feel like
they have someone that they can identify with. Because not all students can relate to a
staff or faculty member, other students or community members could also be brought in
as a mentor for students. Without a commitment for inclusivity from higher education
administrators, undergraduate student leaders will not be able to create meaningful
experiences that would prepare them for life after graduation.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory acknowledges that learning occurs in social settings.
Through the observation of others, people develop their own skills, beliefs, and attitudes
(Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Albert Bandura, one of the main theorists of this idea, states
that people learn by “direct experience or by observing the behavior of others” (Bandura,
1971). His triad model recognizes the individual, the environment, and learning as an
interactive process - each component influencing the others (Merriam & Bierema, 2014).
As people observe the actions and behaviors of others, they will determine whether the
consequences of those actions resulted in a positive or negative outcome. If an outcome is
deemed positive and workable, a person will model similar behaviors and actions to
obtain similar results. When there is a negative result, people will take different actions
than what they had observed.
This theory applies to undergraduate student leaders as they are influenced by
several social contexts. Prior to obtaining leadership roles, students were participating
members of their organizations. They watched their predecessors become advocates, plan
events, and make decisions to fulfill the goals of the student-run organizations.
Regardless of whether or not they agreed with the beliefs and behaviors of prior student
leaders, they will model their actions after their predecessors.
Additionally, students will observe how their instructor guides a class, and may
model instructors when they speaking in front of people. The actions of college
administrators who students see on a regular basis will greatly impact student leaders’
behaviors as well. For example, student leaders who are beginning to recruit new
members of their organizations may model their actions after those of college admissions
counselors.
The leadership styles and practices among student leaders will vary, however,
their fellow leaders will influence those within the same organization. Traditional
students are likely to mirror their actions to those of former student leaders, their peers,
and college administrators or faculty. Nontraditional students, on the other hand, are
likely to model their leadership styles after colleagues, supervisors or managers, and
professional mentors. Keeping this in mind, student affairs professionals may find
themselves serving as mentors for traditional student leaders more than for nontraditional
student leaders.
Mentoring, which takes place outside of the classroom setting, is essential to the
growth of all student leaders. They will seek out mentors and advisors with whom they
have share salient identities with. For example, students leaders of the Pacific Islander
organization will turn to peers, faculty, or staff that identify as Pacific Islander for
mentorship and guidance. Nontraditional students leaders, however, may seek the advice
from their families or colleagues before connecting with student affairs professionals.
Conclusion of Learning Theories
Humanism, constructivism, and social cognitive theory call for experiences and
environments on a college campus that allow students to develop all aspects of their
identities. Humanism focuses on a holistic approach to learning. Developing one’s mind,
body, and spirit allows students to reach their fullest potential. Constructivism
acknowledges that learners create meaning based on their experiences, and that learning
is guided by hands-on experiences to understand a topic. Finally, social cognitive theory
asserts that learning occurs in social environments. These three theories pertain to the
case student population as student leaders are complementing their academics with
cocurricular activities.
Student affairs practitioners are accountable for promoting involvement in which
students to acquire practical knowledge and skills. It is also important to recognize that
student leaders choose to participate in cocurricular activities and take on leadership roles
as a way to fulfill personal goals. Taking these theories into consideration will allow
practitioners creating inclusive environments and activities that allow student leaders to
to become stakeholders in their personal development. This contribution to student
success will also prepare student leaders to become active participants, problem solvers,
and leaders in their careers, families, and all aspects of their lives after graduation.
Learning Setting and Barriers
The intention of this section is to examine the learning setting and factors that
impact the setting in which undergraduate student leaders face, and what factors impact
the learning setting. I will also examine the challenges that this population is presented
with, and possible implications for educators working with these student leaders. The
barriers that will be discussed are institutional barriers, situational barriers, and
dispositional barriers.
Learning Setting
The learning setting for undergraduate student leaders is the student center on a
college campus. The college is a four-year, liberal arts university with a religious
affiliation. A model of this setting would be Saint Martin’s University. This center houses
the office of student involvement. There are offices that belong to the directors and
support staff of the student involvement department. The student government offices are
also located within the student center, and mailboxes for student organizations are located
within the building. There are also conference rooms and meeting facilities, which are
used for meetings and events.
The student center provides several resources for student clubs and
organizations. This includes office supplies, banner paper, and equipment to create
promotional materials. There are also computers that are for students to use to fulfill on
their duties as student leaders, such as sending emails, creating electronic promotional
materials, etc.
Institutional Barriers
Institutional barriers refer to the policies and procedures set by college and
universities that impact college students’ ability to partake in educational activities
(Osman, Bergman, & Cumberland, 2017). It is also defined as the factors that limit or
discourage a student from learning and receiving a degree. The factors that hinder
undergraduate student leaders include dealing with challenging faculty or staff, lack of
support, and environments that do not promote personal and professional growth.
Leadership, according to Astin and Astin (2000), “is a process that is ultimately
concerned with change.” Student leaders, whether they recognize it or not, are change
agents, meaning that they have the ability to foster change. They have the opportunity to
be advocates for their organizations and its members. Whether it is to raise funds for a
cause, influence policies to be made, or impact social change, leadership implies
intentionality (Astin & Astin, 2000). Whatever the student leader’s’ purpose is, it is
assumed that their goals come from their personal values and beliefs.
The mission statements of liberal arts colleges share commonalities, which
includes providing a holistic education, producing lifelong learners and leaders, and
fostering a commitment to positively contribute to their communities (Jaschik, 2017).
Though these goals are often met, as graduates of liberal arts colleges report to have been
more engaged throughout their undergraduate experience than graduate from larger or
research institutions (Baker, Baldwin & Makker, 2012), we must also understand that the
policies put in place by college administrators prevent student leaders and student
organizations in achieving their goals.
For example, the student government at Saint Martin’s University may
collectively decide to advocate for the student health center to provide contraceptives for
the students. However, because the university holds a Roman Catholic affiliation, in
which abstinence is placed above any contraceptive, this would create strife between the
student leaders and college administrators. While students may continue to advocate for
contraceptives in the student health center because they want to ensure that they and their
peers are safe and protected from sexually transmitted diseases, which would be a huge
benefit, college administrators could push back and ultimately deny the student
government’s request.
Student affairs practitioners are tasked with supporting student leaders, and to
create environments where they can fulfill their personal goals. However, practitioners
are also challenged with the fact that they, too, are the ones to enforce university policies
and procedures that may prevent students from achieving their goals. It is important for
student affairs practitioners to provide opportunities in which student leaders are allowed
to become agents of change without hindering their development as well. To do this,
practitioners could assist student leaders in connecting with community organizations that
would help them to reach their goals. By helping to create partnerships with community
organizations, such as a community health center, practitioners would provide a space for
student leaders to gain real world experience and to be change agents.
Situational Barriers
College students are faced with various situational barriers as they begin and
continue to pursue a bachelor’s degree. These barriers include financial, familial, and
career responsibilities (Osman, Bergman, & Cumberland, 2017). While higher education
administrators and practitioners can remove the institutional barriers described in the
section above, situational barriers are unique to an individual (Hardin, 2008).
Financial barriers may be considered one of the most prominent barriers for
undergraduate students, particularly nontraditional students. Nontraditional students do
not depend on anyone else to provide financial support for their education. They may also
be financially responsible for children and families (Hardin, 2008). In order to support
themselves to attend college, they will keep full- or part-time jobs in addition to
managing a full course load. This situational barrier would creates a stressful experience
for nontraditional students in particular, and also traditional students who may not receive
financial support from other sources.
Situational barriers extend beyond financial constraints. Another barrier students
are faced with is gender. Osam, Berman, and Cumberland (2017) note “Roles and duties
that are usually linked to males and females have been shown to play some part in the
type of barriers that are faced by each gender.” The roles that women and men hold in a
household are often transferred to learning settings and the experiences of undergraduate
students. For example, women tend to be the ones to pay bills and provide childcare.
How this may be translated to an undergraduate student’s experience looks like female
student leaders being left with the budgeting responsibilities, and providing emotional
support to their organization’s members; while male student leaders are tasked with
negotiating with administration or public speaking. This barrier may cause conflict for
those that 1) want to break out of the mold of gender stereotypes, and 2) do not identify
with a female or male gender.
Situational barriers result in emotional and mental stress for student leaders. In
addition to being a full-time student, these stressors add another challenge and cause
them to become distracted from their academic coursework, and progression to
completing their degree (Osman, Bergman, & Cumberland, 2017). Student affairs
practitioners must recognize when the student leaders they work with a lose sight of their
academic goals when they become engrossed in fulfilling their extra- and co-curricular
goals, and vice versa.
One way that student affairs practitioners can combat situational barriers is to
provide resources that help students to deal with their unique situations. Services that
support students, such as health and wellness programs, counseling services, and
financial competency trainings, should be available to students (Hardin, 2008).
Promoting a safe and supportive space is detrimental to the success of student leaders,
and something that student affairs practitioners and institutions should provide.
Dispositional Barriers
Dispositional barriers, like situational barriers, are specific to an individual
(Osman, Bergman & Cumberland, 2017). A fear of failure, lack of self-confidence, or
negative beliefs are dispositional barriers. These barriers are internal, and though students
may turn to family and friends for emotional support, they must overcome these barriers
individually.
Being in college is an experience that is nerve-wracking for both traditional and
nontraditional students. Traditional students who move away from home and into a
residence hall on campus will become homesick, and yearn for the closeness of their
families and friends. With this, thoughts stopping their education to return home will
arise. It is important for college campuses to promote opportunities in which students are
able to create a new “home,” whether it be within a residence hall or with a student
organization on campus.
Nontraditional students, who are often returning to academia after already
mastering a career field, will deal with being novices once again (Hardin, 2008). They
may doubt their abilities to succeed in the classroom. However, as student leaders
nontraditional students have the self-confidence in their leadership roles, which their
traditional student counterparts lack. As nontraditional students transition to being a
student once again, they will also feel isolated from the rest of the college community.
Though the individual tends to overcome dispositional barriers alone, student
affairs practitioners can encourage participation in group discussions and activities, such
as open forums. They must also be conscious of the life transitions that students are
dealing with. This requires practitioners to gain the trust of student leaders by building
authentic relationships. Even if practitioners cannot directly help a student, they may
provide other resources, such as campus or community services, that support students to
overcome these barriers.
Conclusion of Learning Setting and Barriers
Undergraduate student leaders are faced with several barriers throughout their
college career, including institutional, situational, and dispositional barriers. These
barriers affect undergraduate student leaders as they balance a full course load, leadership
responsibilities, and the challenges that barriers present.
While encouraging students to become critical thinkers and change agents,
institutions will also find that these same students may begin to challenge the policies that
have been set by the institution. Student affairs practitioners are accountable for fostering
spaces and experiences that allow student leaders to succeed as students and leaders.
Recognizing the factors that may hinder student success is also important for
practitioners. With this recognition, those that work with this case study population are
able to provide students with the resources to support students in achieving their
academic, personal, and professional goals.
Current Issues Application
This section will discuss the current issues that are relevant to undergraduate
student leaders. The first issues that will be examined is that of power. The second issue
is the relationship between time management, academic performance, and student

involvement. Implications of practice will explore how student affairs professionals can
support student leaders and contribute to their success when faced with these trends.
Power
Merriam and Bierema (2014) define power as “the ability to influence others or to
bring about change” (p. 241). Undergraduate student leaders take on leadership roles with
the intentions of advancing an organization. Their leadership practices happen within
their relationships with others. Whether it be with their peers, professors, or other student
affairs professionals, student leadership is involves other people.
In their roles, undergraduate student leaders are in a position to become advocates
for their organizations and the student body. They serve as a bridge between the student
population and student affairs professionals. Taylor Moore (1978) encourages student
leaders to help others by asking their fellow students, professors, and administrators what
they see is a problem on campus. She asserts that it is the responsibility of the student
leaders to find out what the current problems are, rather than attempting to address
problems that do not exist (p. 225S). As student leaders, they are partners of
administration in regards to addressing student issues, university affairs, and institutional
governance (Ptacek, 1957). Their leadership roles are not taken lightly by themselves or
their peers, as they are expected to be the ones to speak up to and advocate for student
needs.
Members of a student veteran’s organization may notice that there are not many
campus events that appeal to them or make them feel included, as many are
nontraditional students who have families with young children. The student leaders of the
organization are in a position of power to influence administrators and student council to
host more campus events that are family-friendly. In response to this request, traditional
student leaders may also assess their organization's efforts and determine whether it
would be appropriate to alter any of their annual events to be inclusive for to all ages to
benefit their nontraditional classmates. Both types of student groups, because of their
leadership roles, have the ability to create change for their campus community.
Student affairs professionals who work with nontraditional students, regardless of
whether they are veterans or not, will also need to advocate for resources that support
students with families. In this case of wanting more family-friendly events on campus,
student affairs practitioners have the choice to encourage or discourage the student
organization to move forward with an event that would, to some extent, make the
institution liable for the safety of children. In this circumstance, student affairs
practitioners are in a position of power. Like student leaders, they also bridge a gap
between two populations: the student body and higher education administrators. Student
affairs practitioners have the ability to either 1) influence the student leaders as
mentioned above, or 2) influence administration to support a family-friendly event or not.
By having the ability to exercise power in both relationships, student affairs
professionals are viewed as privileged by students and institution administrators, such as
the dean of students. Their unique positioning leaves them vulnerable to criticism if there
is a disagreement between students and administration. Additionally, student affairs
professionals risk losing the trust from the student leaders they advise, and also from their
superiors in higher education administration.

While criticism is not completely avoidable, student affairs practitioners would
benefit from collaborating with student organizations and student leaders to establish
their annual goals. Instead of being someone who just approves or declines requests from
students, student affairs professionals are in a position to create a partnership with student
leaders. Practitioners and students share the common goals of creating inclusive
environments for all students. By collaborating to create goals and strategies, student
leaders feel supported by student affairs professionals. They are then able to empower
student leaders to use their leadership roles and exercise power to support their peers and
to also contribute to student involvement and development.
In addition to collaborating with student leaders, practitioners should collaborate
with college faculty and administrators as well. Silverman states, “...student personnel
workers have the opportunities to be central figures for campus improvement….” (as
cited in Garland & Grace, 1993). By thinking creatively and being adaptable, student
affairs professionals can collaboratively merge student development efforts with an
institution’s advancement (Garland & Grace, 1993).
It is also significant to note that the ever-changing student population requires
student affairs professionals to lead a university’s efforts to support a diverse student
population. Garcia and Serrata note that new college students “will be increasingly
nonwhite, first generation, and low income” (2016). Garland and Grace’s implications of
student affairs professionals from their 1993 report, New Perspectives for Student Affairs
Professionals, still holds true in that practitioners must hold a wide skill set to effectively
serve students and their development (p. 5). Regardless of what their focus area is on a
college campus (i.e., student activities, academic advising, athletics), student affairs
professionals will need to participate in professional development opportunities in a wide
variety of topics. A training opportunity that practitioners would benefit from attending
would be the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NAPSA) Mental
Health Strategies Conference. The purpose of this conference is to provide practitioners
with the knowledge to effectively address the mental health of college students (National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators [NAPSA], n.d.).
By attending this conference, practitioners will be able to increase and promote
the mental health services for students. They will also be able to better serve student
leaders with their ability to identify mental health issues, which is something students
may not be comfortable talking about. For student affairs professionals who do not have a
background in counseling, this training opportunity would provide them with a skill set
that they otherwise would not posses. By expanding their own capacities, practitioners
also influence student leaders to do the same.
Time Management, Academic Performance, and Co-curricular Involvement
Research shows that there is a link between student involvement and academic
performance (Garland, 2010, Hawkins, 2010, Webber et. al, 2013). Higher education
administrators encourage student involvement in co-curricular activities, though the
effects that student involvement has on academic performance has gained much attention
in the higher education field. Student engagement is known to generally enhance a
student’s college experience as it develops leadership, communication, and social skills
that will be carried into the rest of a their life. Involvement in co-curricular activities also
allows students to put their coursework into practical use. However, there is also the
assumption that participation in co-curricular activities may distract students’ academic
performance.
Undergraduate students involved in student organizations are challenged with
balancing their time spent on academic coursework versus co-curricular activities. Those
that hold leadership positions are susceptible to spending more of their time outside of the
classroom working on projects and tasks for their organizations, rather than studying,
participating in academic discussions, and completing course assignments. In Student
Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education, Astin (1984) suggests that a
student’s ability to reach any developmental goal depends on the amount of time and
effort that they spend on activities that contribute to the achievement those goals (p. 522).
There is a significant amount of research that supports student involvement, because it
contributes to student success.
Though there is evidence that participating in co-curricular activities does not
negatively impact academic performance, it is significant for student affairs professionals
to recognize how much time students are spending in co-curricular activities versus
academic involvement. Though overall GPAs may not be affected, there may be times
when students fall behind in their studies. In this case, student affairs practitioners may
support student leaders in prioritizing tasks. Astin (1984) suggests that students can keep
a journal to log how they spend their time. This can help student affairs professionals to
help students to determine whether academic difficulties come from competing priorities,
lack of motivation, etc. (p. 527). The activity of journaling and self-reflection allows
student affairs practitioners to effectively support students by encouraging them to utilize
resources on campus, such as peer tutoring and academic advisors, or assist them in
creating efficient time management practices and prioritization skills.
Because student involvement, especially for student leaders, develops
self-efficacy and self-confidence, student affairs practitioners are also tasked with
creating experiences that appeal to students and encourages their participation. Providing
enough leadership opportunities, as well as leadership development, is significant for
practitioners working with this case study population. Dugan and Komives’ 2007 report,
Developing Leadership Capacity In College Students: Findings From a National Study,
suggests that leadership programs and trainings be integrated into the environments in
which students are already involved (p. 18). I agree with this suggestion as it may be a
challenge for students leaders to find more time to attend trainings outside of their
already busy schedules. By integrating leadership programs and development
opportunities in places where students are already involved, such as places of student
employment, academic advising, and recreational clubs, practitioners are fulfilling on the
institution's goals of providing a holistic education.
Current Issues Conclusion
Undergraduate student leaders face several challenges. One of the issues that
student leaders are confronted with is their position of power, which is the ability to
influence others and promote change. Another issue is the relationship between time
management, academic performance, and co-curricular involvement. Finding the balance
between participating in co-curricular activities and completing academic coursework is a

challenge for all undergraduate students. By recognizing how these trends impact
undergraduate student leaders, student affairs practitioners can contribute to providing a
holistic education for this population, while also setting them up to be effective leaders in
all aspects of their lives.
Final Conclusion
Undergraduate student leaders are developing themselves in every aspect in life
by participating in co-curricular activities. Student affairs practitioners recognize the
importance learning outside of the classroom, and contribute the personal development of
students. Student demographics are constantly changing, and the needs of students
between traditional and nontraditional student leaders vary. Practitioners can improve
their work by being adaptable and flexible when working with student leaders. While this
can be done when working with students one-on-one, it is challenging to put in practices
that cater to all student leaders on a campus. By following some of the recommendations
in this analysis student affairs practitioners can support student leaders in succeeding
academically, personally, and professionally.

References
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40( 5), 518-529. (Reprinted from Journal of College
Student Personnel, 25( 4), 297-308, July 1984).
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in
social change. Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Baker, V. L., Baldwin, R. G., Makker, S. (2012). Where Are They Now? Revisiting Breneman's
Study of Liberal Arts Colleges. Liberal Education(98)3. Retrived from
https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/where-are-they-now-revisiting-br
enemans-study-liberal-arts.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Press Learning.
Baumgartner, Lisa M. (2001). Four Adult Development Theories and Their Implications for
Practice. Focus on Basics, 5(B), 29-34.
Berger, Jennifer Garvey (2006). Key concepts for understanding the work of Robert Kegan.
Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+kegan+constructive+developmental+theory+b
erger&oq=robert+kegan+constructive+developmental+theory+berger&aqs=chrome..69i5
7.286j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.
Chavez, A. F., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1999). Racial and ethnic identity and development. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1999( 84), 39-47.
Clark, M. Carolyn, & Caffarella, Rosemary S. (1999). Theorizing adult development. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1999( 84), 3-8.

Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students:
Findings from a national study. A Report from the Multi-Institutional Study of
Leadership. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Eriksen, Karen (2006). The constructive developmental theory of Robert Kegan. The Family
Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 14( 3), 290-298. Retrieved
from
http://journals.sagepub.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1066480706287799.
Fosnot, C.T., & Perry, R.S. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New
York: Teachers Press College.
Garland, A.M. (2010). Assessing the relationship between student involvement and academic
performance in higher education (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/search?q=student+involvement+and+academic+performance&o
q=student+involvement+vs+academic&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l3.8110j0j4&sourceid=chr
ome&ie=UTF-8.
Garland, P. H. & Grace, T. W. (1993). New perspectives for student affairs professionals:
evolving realities, responsibilities and roles. ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report, 7.
Hall, D. (1990). The national curriculum and the two cultures: Towards a humanistic
perspective. Geography, 75(4), 313-324.
Hardin, C. J. (2008). Adult students in higher education: A portrait of transitions. New Directions
for Higher Education(144), 49-57.
Hawkins, A. L. (2010). Relationship between undergraduate student activity and academic
performance (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/search?q=student+involvement+and+academic+performance&o
q=student+involvement+vs+academic&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l3.8110j0j4&sourceid=chr
ome&ie=UTF-8.
Hussain, I. (2012). Use of constructivist approach in higher education: an instructors’
observation. Creative Education, 3(2), 179-184.
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (n.d.). 2018 NASPA Mental Health
Conference: A NASPA Strategies Conference. Retrieved from
https://www.naspa.org/events/2018scmh.
Osam, E. K., Bergman, M., Cumberland, D. M. (2017). An Integrative Literature Review on the
Barriers Impacting Adult Learners’ Return to College. Adult Learning, (28)2, 54-60.
Phinney, Jean S. (1990). Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults: Review of Research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108( 3), 499-514.
Ptacek, P. H. (1957). A university's attempt to counsel student leaders. The Journal of Higher
Education, 28(3), 137-142.
Tisdell, Elizabeth (1999). The spiritual dimension of adult development. An Update on Adult
Development Theory: New Ways of Thinking about the Life Course, 1999, (84), 87-95.
Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of
college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6),
591-611.

Artifactc2 Galam Educ-5130-Integrated-Case-Study

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Artifactc2 Galam Educ-5130-Integrated-Case-Study

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Running Head: INTEGRATED CASE STUDY - UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

Integrated Case Study - Undergraduate Student Leadership

Higher education institutions strive to provide a holistic experience for their

of student affairs professionals who work with this population.

undergraduate students who hold leadership positions in student-run organizations on

college campuses. The theories discussed will be Kegan’s Constructive Developmental

professionals in working with this population.

Kegan’s Constructive Developmental Theory

Constructive Developmental Theory focuses on how individuals make meaning

our understanding of past experiences transforms (p. 3).

individuals become more independent as they develop a sense of self-sufficiency. They

Stage three, known as the “socialized” mind, is where undergraduate student

Those in stage four–coined the “self-authoring” mind– have created a sense of

individuals look for the similarities within a diverse population or setting.

degrees of influence on traditional students versus nontraditional students. Traditional

priorities. More supervision is needed for traditional student. Nontraditional student

Phinney’s Ethnic Identity Development Theory

ethnic identity development theories focus on how an individual self-conceptualizes

individual, rather than a group of people.

preference for a dominant group.

experience an “intense process of immersion in one’s own culture…” (Phinney, 1990).

number of student-run organizations that identify themselves with a specific ethnicity,

do not identify with, but have a preference for.

Undergraduate students begin to create a sense of self and belonging while in

active participants in organizations that have an ethnic connection.

collaborative partners to administrators in creating inclusive environments, advocating

Integrative models of adult development take a holistic approach. These

In some models, spirituality is also included.

The biological perspective recognizes that we are physical beings, who

experience physiological changes. These changes occur as a result of aging or our

personal health practices. From a psychological viewpoint, we focus on the internal

processes of development. The concepts included within this perspective include

influences that impact an individual’s development. We concentrate on a person's social

development include race, gender, and sexual orientation.

The spiritual perspective, while not always included in integrated approaches,

Americans would also need to acknowledge Catholicism to a certain degree.

Rather than focusing on one of these factors, an Integrated approach to adult

development looks at the intersection of all these factors. This is applicable to

Conclusion of Developmental Theories

their identity. Because student leaders may be a traditional or nontraditional student, it is

critical to for higher education administrators to foster an inclusive and respectful

environment for all students.

constructivism, and Fenwick’s experiential learning theory. These theories will be

on just the cognitive development, humanism is concerned with an individual's mind,

the choice is often self-initiated. Whether it be to complement in-classroom learning or to

gain practical experience, students choose to participate in cocurricular activities to fulfill

personal desires outside of a classroom.

student-centered learning approach, he says that a learner is aware of whether or not an

which their needs are satisfied.

College campuses provide several opportunities in which students can fulfill on

to acknowledge this, and to promote student involvement that allows students to

behavior” (p. 29).

With this approach, student affairs professional recognize the importance of

expand their development. It is also imperative, however, for administrators to be aware

Nontraditional students, on the other hand, have more readjusting to do as they

financial responsibilities to take care of in addition to pursuing a degree. Furthermore,

already established activities to fulfill their personal interests. To encourage student

involvement for nontraditional students, student affairs professionals could create a

the planning committee.

Undergraduate student leaders become partners of student affairs professionals in

students outside of the classroom.

Constructivism, as described by Merriam and Bierema (2014), assumes that

comparison to learning theories that concentrate on behaviors, constructivism focuses on