Running head: APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 1

Applying Student Development Theory in Higher Education

Jessica Avila-Cuevas

Loyola University Chicago

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 2

Applying Student Development Theory in Higher Education

The role of a student affairs professional is essential in the development of the student. If

it were not for literature on student development theories, practitioners would not have an

understanding of the lived experiences students have prior, during, and after college. Moreover,

it is best to utilize student development theories to inform our practice than the anecdotal

experiences we gather in our professional settings. After reflecting on my role in the profession,

this paper will provide an overall history of student development theory. I will address how

practitioners can utilize theory into practice when applying some of the theories we discussed in

my Student Development Theory class. Additionally, I will tackle a few topics for which I

consider areas of focus within social identity development that have greatly impacted my

understanding of student development theory. Finally, I will provide implications and

recommendations that student affairs scholars should consider when serving students in this

profession.

Reflecting on My Role in Higher Education

In my opinion, the student affairs profession is a multifaceted field that ultimately brings

people towards one purpose – to better serve students in a college setting. Many people in the

profession may consider themselves as student affairs professionals. However, it is difficult to

assess our practice without actually measuring it and not utilizing literature to understand how

we can better serve our students. I have been in the higher education field for over five years in

college admissions. While in my tenure, I can attest that there were moments where I did not

know how to best serve my students as I did not have a theoretical foundation to justify my

practice. Furthermore, I had the preconceived notion that student development theory would

only apply to college students and not to the prospective students I serve in my function area of
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 3

college admissions. However, the Student Development in Higher Education course exemplified

the varied theories and frameworks that can support how we better utilize our practice to

different student populations from their adolescent to early adult years. Therefore, it is best to

utilize literature to inform our practice than the anecdotal experiences we gathered in the

profession. This course has been instrumental in my learning and development as a professional

in higher education. The course readings and discussions have helped me to get a grasp of how

my role can be best utilized when serving students at any setting in higher education.

Student Development Theory

I did not come to the realization that student affairs professionals began to question what

their role was at an institution of higher learning until after World War I when colleges and

universities noticed an increase on enrollment (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016).

Essentially, the goal of a student affairs practitioner shifted in order to support the development

of the holistic student and advance the mission of the institution. The Student Personnel Point of

View (SPPV) is a report that was published in 1937 that recognized student affairs professionals

to “guide the ‘whole student’ to reach their potential and contribute to society’s betterment”

(Patton, et al., 2016, p. 10). This resulted in redefining the role in which higher education plays

to the student experience. The SPPV still brings truth to today and how institutions of higher

education carry their mission based on student development.

According to Patton et al. (2016), the evolution of student development theory is defined

as a body of knowledge in which is broken down into three waves. Jones and Stewart (2016)

further explain how higher education has been transformed through such waves. The first wave

was centered on student services where the majority were all white men from affluent

backgrounds. The second wave had a focus on student development and the realization
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 4

that identities were socially constructed. The third wave, which is where higher education and

student affairs are currently situated, emphasizes student learning and critiques the ideology

derived from the first and second waves. Jones and Stewart (2016) concluded that:

Scholars need to practice intentional and consistent interdisciplinary engagement by

directing our theorizing toward liberatory and healing ends. This has always been the

commitment of student development theorists, although in differing sociohistorical

contexts, and continues in the promise of third wave perspectives. (p. 25)

Understanding the history of student development theory is crucial as it can help us get an idea

how far scholars have gone. Moreover, it can help us critique or rectify research toward new

approaches of student development theory.

Applying Theory into Practice

After learning about some of the student development theories, the class concluded that

no one uses one theory or theorist, as we each take a little bit of everything to create and/or

develop our own model to understand students’ needs. When we create an environment for

student inclusivity, we could then assess ourselves on a personal and on an institutional level. As

Coomes (1994) states, “the use of core concepts of student development can provide a useful

guide for the formulation, implementation, and analysis of campus policy” (p. 436). We need to

remind ourselves why our roles matter in our varied function areas and how we can apply student

development theory into our practice. For this reason, practitioners can utilize one or more

theories and frameworks to better inform our practice. I will discuss some of the theories that

best resonated with my understanding of student development.

Psychosocial Identity Development

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 5

In order to understand students’ development and how they see their own development at

a college setting, it is important to consider psychosocial identity development. Such theories

can speak toward examining “the important issues people face as their lives progress, such as

how to define themselves and their relations with others, and what to do with their lives” (Patton

et al., 2016, p. 287). It is essential for student affairs professionals to have an understanding of

the changes in development students have in their adolescent to early adult lives.

Chickering’s Seven Vectors. Chickering and Reisser (1993) proposed seven vectors of

development in which students may experience through the course of their college lives. As a

college admissions counselor, who is helping prospective college students in the college process,

I witness the development of the student during their senior year of high school. It is my role to

guide them through the emotional process, whether if they are excited to attend the institution or

discouraged because they didn’t receive a scholarship. One of the vectors that truly resonates to

this particular process is Managing Emotion. Chickering and Reisser (1993) explain the second

vector as:

Some students come with the faucets of emotional expression wide open, and their task is

to develop flexible controls. Others have yet to open the tap. Their challenge is to get in

touch with the full range and variety of feelings and to learn to exercise self-regulation

rather than repression. As self-control and self-expression come into balance, awareness

and integration ideally support each other. (p. 144)

This is a vital tool when working with any student, whether if I meet them in the recruitment

process or see them at orientation. As student affairs professionals, we are equipped with

knowledge and theories to help students “recognize and accept emotions, as well as appropriately
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 6

express and control them” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 298) no matter what the circumstances are in

their development before or during college.

Self-Authorship

The concept of self-authorship is essential in order to understand students’ ability to

make meaning of the world and their lives around it (Patton et al., 2016). This theory is widely

used in order to see the process of student development and how students can be the author of

their own lives. Hence, Baxter Magolda (1998) defines self-authorship as the internal capacity to

define one’s beliefs, identity, and social relations and answers the three following questions:

How do I know? Who Am I? How do I want to construct relationships with others? Through

these questions, students would make meaning of their lives. Although I do not work directly

with current college students, I must be aware about the importance of how students’ journeys

may be affected on a college setting. Patton et al. (2016) further explain that:

Baxter Magolda (2002) stressed the need for students and educators to work together to

develop student self-authorship, demonstrating respect for each other and actively sharing

ideas and viewpoints. Opportunities for self-reflection in these settings also assist

students in becoming clearer about what they know, why they hold the beliefs they do,

and how they want to act on their beliefs. (p. 374)

As students encounter various phases of Baxter Magolda’s self-authorship theory, they will be

able to define their own beliefs and acceptance of who they are. In order to develop a strong

internal foundation, students need to trust the internal voice and build an internal foundation

(Patton et al., 2016). As I think about the students I may serve outside my function area within

student affairs, I must be aware that they come from various degrees of their beliefs, identity, and
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 7

social relations. However, the context that they are in (college), may be redefined toward being

authors of their own lives.

Areas of Focus in Social Identity Development

Patton et al. (2016) define social identity development as “the process by which people

come to understand their social identities (ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, and others)

and how these identities affect other aspects of their lives” (p. 67). Recent literature posits how

such social identities are making meaning based on an array of contexts (Patton et al., 2016).

Abes, Jones, and McEwen (2007) discussed how Reconceptual Model of Multiple Dimensions of

Identity (RMMDI) can capture the complexity related to social identity. Making meaning

“provides a richer portrayal of not only what relationships students perceive among their

personal and social identities, but also how they come to perceive them as they do” (Abes, Jones,

& McEwen, 2007, p. 13). The following areas of social identity development are those that I

find most salient, such as ethnic and racial identity, while others, such as trans* and ability

status, are areas of growth toward my understanding of the saliency students may bring on a

college campus. The following topics will not only provide identity development models, but

ways in which student development theory is approached through the lens of such models.

Ethnic and Racial Identity

While some scholars defend the interchange of racial and ethnic identity, others consider

that either identities are related, but are different constructs (Patton et al., 2016). Both are

socially constructed, but are different as to how students may identify themselves. It is crucial

for student affairs professionals to understand the varied degrees in which students may identify

themselves as when it comes to racial and ethnic identity development. Tatum (2017) describes

how racial-ethnic-cultural identity development (REC) is cyclical “like a spiral staircase: as you
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 8

proceed up each level, you have a sense that you have passed this way before, but you are not in

exactly the same spot” (p.174). I will describe ethnic and racial identity development separately,

as I consider them to be their own respective entity. Due to my experiences as a Latinx woman,

my ethnicity is more present while race is considered secondary (Patton et al., 2016). Thus, I

will describe the variances between racial and ethnic identity.

Ethnic identity development. According to Patton et al. (2016), “ethnicity means a pattern of

culture, traditions, customs, and norms unique to, but also shared within, an ethnic community”

(p. 130). Students who arrive to college carry on their ethnic roots, where levels of dissonance

may present themselves as students attend a dominated culture different from what they know.

Torres and Hernandez’s (2007) study sought to investigate the role of ethnic identity on the

experiences students had on college campuses. Although ethnic identity is important there is a

reason why Patton et al. (2016) integrated the concept of acculturation into the ethnic identity

section of their book.

Acculturation refers to “changes in beliefs, values, and behaviors of ethnic individuals as

a result of contact with, and desired or undesired adaptation to, the dominant culture” (Patton et

al., 2016, p. 132). I can attest that through my experience at a Predominately White Institution

(PWI), my culture and heritage was not celebrated nor acknowledged, where I did not have the

opportunity to express my ethnic identity. This ultimately led into isolation and conformation to

the dominate culture. At each institution, there may be a different dominate culture on campus,

depending on the student population of the university (Patton et al., 2016). It is essential for

student affairs professionals to consider ways in which students can celebrate their unique ethnic

roots. This can be done through programming, campus organizations and institutional policies

reflecting integration and thought behind acculturation.

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 9

Racial identity development. Student affairs professionals must understand that every student

comes into our campus with varying degrees of racial development and experiences. Atkinson,

Morten, and Sue’s racial and cultural identity development (RCID) serves as a foundation for

understanding the stages and orientations – conformity, dissonance, resistance and immersion,

introspection, and synergistic articulation and awareness – in racial identity development

theories (Patton et al., 2016). For PWIs, students may encounter a new awareness than what they

knew of at home. Tatum (2017) discusses that “an individual begins to grapple with what it

means to be a member of a group targeted by racism” (p. 135). Ultimately, student affairs

professionals must have an understanding that the process of identity development can help all of

us build bridges across lines of difference. Therefore, we must be ready to have conversations

and provide spaces for students to discuss their development with race and other intersectional

identities.

Gender Identity

According to the World Health Organization, gender is “the socially constructed roles,

behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and

women” (as cited in Patton et al., 2016, p. 175). Furthermore, Patton et al. (2016) explain that

gender identity development begins in early childhood and then intensifies in early adolescence

before students attend college. However, college is also a context in which students can explore

their understanding of gender roles (Patton et al., 2016). Hence, one can infer that gender

identity is an ongoing process. The following are two concepts of gender identity that are areas

of growth for which I should consider when working with students.

Masculinity. Similar to gender identity development, masculinity is perpetuated by various

forces. Masculinity is influenced by the social interactions, social structures, and social contexts
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 10

that produces and reinforces normative expectations of masculine behavior (Harris, 2010). We

understand that gender is socially constructed, and we can infer that so is masculinity. At birth,

we are assigned a gender based on our biological sex (Patton et al., 2016) and in the topic of

masculinity, males have been assigned a specific gender by parents or their kin. Ultimately,

society perpetuates it more based on gender norms and the socialization of what it takes to be a

man. This can cause levels of “masking” masculinity, where men have to perform a certain way

in order to fit society’s expectations even if they recognize the consequences for wearing such

mask (Edwards & Jones, 2009). Ultimately, putting on this “mask” covers the true sense of self.

Higher education has a key responsibility in reconstructing masculinity, especially on the

essence of gender identity development. Patten et al. (2016) argue that colleges can serve as a

context for students to explore their gender identity, it is important to understand the implications

that higher education professionals should consider when providing an environment where

students can reassess and explore their gender identity. Although traditional gender roles and

expectations continue to play a central role in the lives of undergraduate students that is

supported by abundant and persistent evidence on gender-related phenomena (Patten et al.,

2016), applying theory to practice is essential when intervening the masking of masculinity.

Trans* identity. Like most of our culture, higher education is very binary and genderized. It is

not the physical spaces, such as bathrooms, but student organizations, programming, and

curriculum that perpetuates oppression amongst trans* students. Patton et al. (2016) state that

“trans* students may find college a place for identity exploration or for expression of a gender

identity that they had not previously named or expressed publicly” (p. 180). My profession

presumes that students belong at a certain binary, such as when they complete an application for

admission. The college application, where the institution I work for, requires for students to
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 11

answer whether if they are female or male. Nicolazzo (2017) defines this to be gender-binary

discourse, which is the overarching discourse that pervades institutions of higher education

toward a gender binary. Ultimately, this approach is presented overtly or covertly on college

campuses and can create isolation and a hostile environment to trans* students (Nicolazzo,

2017). It is essential that institutions of higher education implement policies that may not hinder

trans* students and should create a non-binary discourse on campus.

College is an ample time for students to explore their sexuality and gender and it is the

role of student affairs professionals to make sure that there is a space for these students on

campus. We have to be aware that these students have probably known this identity their entire

lives, but the consciousness of the identity is what throws these students into uncertainty.

(Patton et al., 2016). Our goal as student affairs professionals is to listen and guide students so

that they have a better sense of belonging.

Ability Status

The research of college students with disabilities has changed throughout time just as

scholars develop and/or conceptualize theories on how the historical construction of disability

moves within higher education (Patton et al., 2016). Disability has been historically

conceptualized through a medical model, however there has recently been a move that disability

is a function of the social and physical environment rather than being characterized within the

person (Patton et al., 2016). This attests that disability is socially constructed based on an ableist

point of view in which that examined characteristics and experiences of students with disabilities

without meaningful interrogation into systemic, institutional, and structural inequities and

constraints (Peña, 2014).

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 12

Higher education practitioners utilize a deficit model when approaching and assuming

ability status. We tend to think of disability as an abnormality and deficiency rather than

acknowledging it as normative (Peña, Stapleton, & Schaffer, 2016). This can trigger a harmful

experience for students with disabilities on college campuses since we see the saliency within

their disability rather than other attributes. Moreover, we tend to focus on just their disability

and not the intersectionality between their disability and other marginalized identities. “When it

comes to disability, there is a tendency to isolate the identity and oppression, and not fully

problematize or understand the complexities of an intersectional lived experience” (Peña et al.,

2016, p. 90). If higher education practitioners do not understand the complex ways in which

intersectionality come into play between disability and other identities, then we are constructing

an ableist approach in our practice and we are not fully serving the student toward their needs.

Implications and Recommendations

Much of the literature that was presented in class state that there is still work to be done

with regard to the research on student development theory. There are still limitations for student

affairs professionals to get an overarching understanding on the development and lived

experiences of students. Patton et al. (2016) state that professionals:

Must challenge themselves and their colleagues to test, refine, and extend that knowledge

base. For student affairs educators, it is particularly important to examine student

development theory critically and seek opportunities to add to the information that

already exists about how students change and grow during the college years. (p. 380)

Previous and recent literature of student development assumes that college students are

traditionally aged and recently out of high school. However, through my professional lens in

college admissions, I am seeing a growth of nontraditional prospective students seeking higher

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 13

education. These student populations range in different demographics and lived experiences that

may be hard for student affairs professionals to gauge on the recent literature that we know

exists. Therefore, it is essential to continue with this third wave or create a fourth wave of

student development theory.

The following are recommendations that Patton et al. (2016) provide to student affairs

professionals and those who are in higher education programs. Researchers should also put these

recommendation into considering for future research:

• Educators must consider development in a more holistic and less linear manner
• Examine development through a lens of privilege, power, and oppression
• Examine development independent of dominant culture models
• Give appropriate attention to underrepresented groups
• Consider development across the lifespan
• Conduct more longitudinal research to examine development over time
• Consider the impact of the environment on development
• Generate better methods to assess development
• Design interventions attuned to specific environments
• Make assessment and evaluation a part of developmental intervention
• Encourage the use of theory in educational practice and awareness of theoretical
complexities
• Take an inclusive evolutionary approach to theory
• Acknowledge contextual influences on the development trajectory
• Acknowledge the whole of students’ development

Final Thoughts

This paper provided an overall history of student development theory. It addressed how

practitioners can utilize theory into practice when applying some of the theories we discussed in

my Student Development Theory class. Additionally, I touched on a few topics for which I

consider areas of focus within social identity development that have greatly impacted my

understanding of student development theory. Finally, I provided implications and

recommendations that student affairs scholars and practitioners should consider when serving

students in this profession.

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 14

This course provided an understanding on student development theory. Moreover, this

course has helped me advance from what I have already practiced in the field, yet it will allow

me to have some sort of foundation to determine how well I am doing in my job by utilizing the

literature we read and discussed in class. Taking Student Development in Higher Education was

beneficial for me and will allow me to progress in my career by understanding how to better

serve students in the college setting. Thus, I am hopeful that I will apply such knowledge into

my practice in the future.

APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 15

References

Abes, E., Jones, S., McEwen, M. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of

identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities.

Journal of College Student Development, 48 (1), 1-22

American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. (American

Council on Education Studies, series 1, no. 3). Washington, DC: Author.

Coomes, M. (1994). Using student development to guide institutional policy. Journal of College

Student Development, 35, 428 - 437.

Davis, T. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men’s

Identity. Journal of College Student Development, 43 (4), 508-521

Edwards, K. & Jones, S. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A Grounded theory of college men’s

gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (2), 210-228.

Jones, S., & Stewart, D. (2016) Evolution of student development theory. In Abes, E. (Eds.).

New directions for student services: No. 154. (pp. 135-165). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Magolda, B.M. (1998). Developing self-authorship in young adult life. Journal of College

Student Development, 39 (2), 143-156

Magolda, B.M. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student

Development, 49 (4), 269-284.

Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Trans in college: Transgender students’ strategies in navigating campus

life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Ortiz, A., & Rhoads, R. (2000). Deconstructing whiteness as part of a multicultural educational

framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student Development, 41 (1), 81-

93
APPLYING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY 16

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

theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peña, E. V. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in

journals of higher education. Jour Journal of College Student Development, 55 (1), 30-40

Peña, E. V., Stapleton, L., & Schaffer, L. (2016). Critical perspectives on disability identity. In

Abes, E. (Eds.). New directions for student services: No. 154. (pp. 85- 96). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tatum, B. D. (2017). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other

conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Torres, V. & Hernandez, E. (2007). The Influence of Ethnic Identity on Self-Authorship: A

Longitudinal Study of Latino/a College Students. Journal of College Student

Development 48(5), 558-573.