Job Hunt: Infinity

This was quite the project, and I underestimated the amount of time and energy it would take. I had to re-read or re-skim a bunch of theories and articles, spent time Googling authors, found additional resources when the Green Book/Bible of our profession fell short of what I needed. I spent time away from doing what I normally do to re-learn and write and Tweet. I was amazed at how some of the theories I re-researched are so applicable to some of the things I’m encountering at my new job. I should just bring all of these articles with me, and say “we’re doing this wrong” and read and analyze what these authors have already said and done. I could bring Kuh, and Astin, and Tinto along with me everywhere. But they’d be discounted by others, they wouldn’t be enough, because of the hubris we’re taught within our professional cultures. I’m kind of sad that I’m wrapping this up, but proud that I made it through the month. I wish I could have written and branched out some more. For exampl

This is a long one, folks. The tl;dr is that retention and graduation are byproducts of success, and that our work should be driven by theory to implement programs and services that we know improve student success. If you’re in for a longer read than that sentence, read on, dear reader. ********* We bandy the terms retention and persistence around all the time, and often use them as the driving force behind the initiatives we create and implement. And, quite frankly, we should, at least to some extent. But here’s the thing. First, terminology. Students persist, colleges retain. The act of persisting is done by the one actually moving through a situation, while colleges work to retain students at a given institution. They are not the same term, and should not be used interchangeably. Second, focus. Retention and persistence (and, ultimately, graduation) are byproducts of student success. Kuh and Pascarella (and Astin, and Levine, and Padilla, among others) touch on this in their writing

By working between two theoretical frameworks, queer theory and constructivism, Abes explored power structure and research within student affairs. She studied ten lesbian college students longitudinally over four years using a constructivist theoretical approach, meaning in-depth interviews. However, one of the themes to come out of the research was that the students needed to grapple with heterosexism, and a constructivist approach would not have allowed Abes to explore that type of power structure. Abes then incorporated queer theory to explain the struggle with heteronormativity, and re-examined the interviews using a queer theory lens. Neither theory provided a complete framework to understand the experiences of the students, but by using both, educators can better understand those experiences. Title of theory: Theoretical Borderlands Year theory was published: 2009 Students originally studied: 10 lesbian students and two major theoretical approaches to research Background of the

There are Four S's of transition: Situation, the 5 W's of the transition. Self, personal/demographic characteristics and psychological resources of the person going through the transition. Social support, which is pretty self explanatory. Strategies, how a person responds to the transition. There are also three parts of a transition: moving in, moving through, and moving out. Title of theory: Transition Theory Year theory was published: 1981 Students originally studied: Dr. Schlossberg has done a lot of research on adults, adults through transitioning, and counseling Background of the author: Dr. Nancy Schlossberg is a Professor Emerita, Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, College of Education at the University of Maryland. She's a recognized expert on adult transitions among other topics. She has many articles that focus on adult transitions, including focusing on retirement. How theory can be used now: We can use this as one way to understand how we, along wi

Based off a lot of other literature and research of students, Pascarella found that there are a variety of influences that affect informal student-faculty contact. One of the first ones is that informal contact happens when faculty and students are similar - the hold similar interests and/or values, for example. Another factor is how faculty members believe education happens. If a faculty member believes learning is an "interactive process between teachers and learners". A third factor is the culture of the institution; if an institution has strict power structures and peer groups students will abide by those groups. This means that if a more prestigious institution develops a student culture that does not interact with faculty outside of the classroom, then students will likely follow and perpetuate that culture. Institutional size is yet another factor. Title of theory: Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes Year theory was published: 1980 Students originally

Kuh did a study to learn about 3 things: Did students learn from experiences outside of the classroom? In what ways have they changed since starting college? Do the outcomes considered by students to be important differ by type of institution attended and student background characteristics? Kuh found that what happens outside of the classroom does contribute to student learning. They also found that students describe the changes that happen in college mostly in terms of what they learned from or skills gained within the classroom, but students also test the theses outside of the classroom. A third finding was that all students went through similar learning and development, regardless of background - with one exception: gender. Their final finding was that development and changes differed based on the type of institution and mission of the institution. Title of theory: In Their Own Words: What students learn outside the classroom Year theory was published: 1993 Students originally studi

I like Tinto’s theory because it basically describes what we should all be doing for all of our students - building community, helping students integrate into that community, and then helping them achieve their academic goals. Basically, boiled down to one sentence: Tinto thinks that students leave higher ed for reasons beyond economic ones. His model is below. Tinto talks about community, clear goal setting, clear pathways to achieve goals, and integration into the campus community. Bascially, if we treat the act of dropping out as only an economic one, we're cheating and not holding ourselves accountable for making every other effort to make sure the student can complete their academic goals. (from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Tintos-Model-of-Student-Retention_fig1_327020984 ) Title of theory: Why students leave (ok, this isn't the actual title, but he's published a lot on this, so find a few articles you like), but his model is called Tinto's Interactionalist

I was introduced to Bean & Metzner through David Vacchi, who researches and writes about student veterans and their success. I enjoy working with the theory because it provides a framework for understanding why older students leave or stay on our campuses. They developed a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. They defined non-traditional as older than 24, not a residential student, and/or a part-time student. They found that the primary reasons for these student to attend are primarily academic, instead of both academic and social. They developed a model to better understand the different factors that contribute to dropping out of or remaining in college. When I talk about this theory, usually when discussing student veterans, I describe Bean & Metzners findings based on two axes. The first axis has Academic Variables on the x-axis and Environmental variables on the y-axis. Good academic variables = supportive department, flexible scheduling; Good

To me, engagement is the heart of our work. At the core of student success is this concept of engagement. Don’t believe me? Let me Google that for you . A mere 173,000,000 hits come back in just over 0.5 seconds when you search “engagement in higher education.” In our work, we (ideally) focus on how we: 1. Engage with our students 2. Create opportunities for our students to engage with each other 3. Encourage our students to engage with their studies 4. Ensure our students engage with faculty and staff (besides ourselves) 5. Identify and model how our students should engage civically, beyond the borders of the academy While there’s no secret sauce to student success, persistence, or graduation, there is a key ingredient theory tells us – and research confirms – is necessary: engagement. The kicker is, however, that it has to be quality engagement. Folks like Astin, Graham & Bradley, Kuh, and Jacoby, among countless others, all stress the need for students to have high-quality int

I really like Astin’s theories and research. I think it lends itself incredibly well to the student affairs field. I also think some people within the field cling to this theory like a life raft while totally ignoring most of what Astin says. Astin agrees with all of us, that co- and extra-curricular acitivites and engagement leads to student retention and success (measured by a few different features). BUT! Astin also talks about community - which involved way more than just student affairs professionals. It’s all of us. It’s us working together, building trust among us, and creating an environment where students want to participate in our community. Astin studied student development and his research included a measure described as "Lack of Student Community", which really meant infrequent interaction among students and a general apathy from students. This lack of community "has a stronger effect on satisfaction than any of the other 150 institutional characterist

Why do students stay on campus even when they’re failing? Why do students leave even if they’re successful? What does a student mean when they say our campus isn’t a good fit for them? Educational Ethos can help explain some of decisions. Graham & Bradley based their research off of 5 characteristics of positive educational ethos from Graham (1998): 1 - Students are involved in their school's academic and social life 2 - Accessible officials take teaching and learning seriously 3 - Students interact with peers whose values and aspirations are compatible with the institution's educational purposes 4 - students are exposed to effective teaching 5 - Students feel they belong and are valued as individuals They found that being involved in authentic groups can allow nontraditional students to connect the learning that happen on campus to real-life experiences. Educational Ethos affected outcomes for students. Educational Ethos directly affected Career Development. “In every sing

Hi. You have some sort of sexual orientation that you identify with. You might struggle with naming it, or might not name it. You might not tell people, maybe let them assume something about you. Or maybe it’s not safe for you to identify publicly. You’re still valid. Our students might be in any of those situations above. They’re still valid. How we explore, how we identify our sexual orientation, how we decide to define that to ourselves or others is like many other identity development processes. Since we are surrounded by people, not just students, we need to be empathetic to those processes. Sexual orientation is an invisible identity. Be kind.

Mueller and Cole’s research they found four themes when a student identified as heterosexual: 1 - it means not being homosexual. 2 - it may mean being in conflict with one's faith. 3 - it means distancing oneself from homophobia. 4 - It means being invisible. There was a fifth theme that provided context for all of the other themes, which were precursors to meaning-making. Title of theory: Heterosexuality Identity Year theory was published: 2009 Students originally studied: 14 undergrad and graduate heterosexual students, ages 20 to 24. The study was done through exploratory interviews, which occured three times over a 3- or 4-week period. They wanted to know how students understoof their heterosexual identity and how they made meaning of that identity. Background of the author: Dr. John Mueller is a professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. He has served in leadership roles within ACPA, including the directorate of the Standing Committee for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Awareness

I went to undergrad at Ithaca College. It’s a pretty liberal small liberal arts college next to a pretty liberal town in the middle of almost nothing. It’s beautiful. Like, take-your-breath-away beautiful. It also attracts people from many different walks of life. A good friend of mine helped push the idea of gender neutral housing into existence in 2008 (maybe 2007?, I might be a year off). There were entire weeks, maybe a full month, of Pride events. The campus flew (it might still, I haven’t been back in a while) the Pride flag 24/7/365. I was introduced to the idea of someone being pansexual my junior year. I grew up in a fairly liberal-minded but rural community. We knew about being gay. We were taught safe sex, for all types of sexual experiences. But, once I was in college I had friends who were openly out, openly themselves, openly participating in Pride events. Eventually I’d attend two gay weddings. But some folks from where I grew don’t understand. Some don’t want to u

Understanding how our identities are formed, what is needed to help that development happen, and how our own identities may shape how we view others is important to being ethical and empathetic professionals. I don’t know if I’m the right person to look at these theories. Or if my analysis goes deep enough. Or even if I should be critiquing the work. I don’t know if I have the right words. Or if they’ll land in the right way. But I want to try. I want to learn. I want to attempt to understand. I started with White Identity Development not because it’s the most important, but because most practitioners (at least here in the Northeast) are white. We need to understand how our development as while folk happened and how it shapes us. We need to truly understand our biases when it comes to racial identity development and to do that we need to look inward. Once we’ve explored where we are, how we got there, and how it influences our work and views, we should be able to better understand how

Ethnic Identity in children has five components. 1 - Ethnic self-identitification, this is when children identify themselves with their ethnic group. 2 - Ethnic constancy - children understand that their identity is constant and unchanging. 3 - Ethnic role behaviors - children engage in behaviors that align with their ethnic group. 4 - Ethnic knowledge - children realize that certain knowledge or behaviors are specific and relevant to their ethnic group. 5 - Ethnic feelings and preferences - children develop feelings about their belonging within their ethnic group. Children develop within the framework gradually and is dependent on learning about themselves in social settings. Title of theory: Development of Mexican American Identity Year theory was published: 1993 Students originally studied: 45 Mexican American children between the ages of 6 and 10. Both of their parents were of Mexican descent. Background of the authors: Martha E. Bernal was the first Latina to receive a PhD in psy

There are five stages, which are progressive, but individuals spend varying amount of time in each stages. Ethnic Awareness is the first stage, which occured prior to elementary school for all subjects, and the reference point for their racial identity was their family. White Identitification is the second stage, and occured when there was an increase in contact with white people and racial prejudices. Awakening to Social Political Consciousness (ATSPC) is the third stage, and is when the subjects realized they were a minority within American society and that they were not personally responsible for their minoritized status. Redirection to Asian American Consciousness (RTAAC) is the fourth stage and is described as when subjects were able to identify as Asian American. Incorporation is fifth and is when the subjects were able to identify with multiple groups without losing their identity as an Asian American. Title of theory: Asian American Identity Development Year theory was publishe

There are five influence on American Indian consciousness. They are outlined below, directly from Perry Horse's chapter in New Directions for Student Services, no. 109. However, there isn't a defined standard for how someone may define themselves as American Indian or Native American. In the Chapter in New Directions for Student Services, he also discusses white privilege and how that plays into American Indians learning about their own identities and how they choose to identify themselves. Identity as an American Indian or Native American is personal, found through personal journeys, and is also political. His model is not a typical identity model. Title of theory: Native American Identity Development Year theory was published: 2001 Students originally studied: This identity development theory is based on personal experiences and observations of other American Indians. Background of the author: Dr. Perry Horse (Kiowa) assisted in founding the American Indian Higher Education C

There are six sectors: Early black identity development, pre-adolescence, adolescence, early adulthood, and adult nigrescence. A good explainer can be found at https://studentdevelopmenttheory.wordpress.com/racial-identity-development/ . Identity development begins within the family, then to learning from the black adults in the child's life, then to beginning to develop an idea of what being black means to oneself, moving into early adulthood where internalized racism, establishment of peers with the same values happens, developing into Adult Nigrescence, which is four different stages, and concluding with Nigrescence Recycling. Title of theory: Model of Psychological Nigrescence Year theory was published: 1978 Students originally studied: William E. Cross created the sectors while observing his own life and the life of the Black Americans around him. Background of the author: William Cross is an African American who grew up during segregation. His father was a Pullman por

The next set of theories is going to look at racial identity development. I’m going to look at Helms, Cross, Horse, Kim, and Barnel & Knight. I think it’s important to dedicate some space to these identity development models, and I think it's important to look at white identity development given the current state of things. The basic gist is: white people start by not recognizing the differences in the experiences of white and black people, either due to ignorance or due to being so immersed in the culture that it is accepted. They then travel through phases, including wanting to believe oneself is not racist while still holding racist ideology, beginning to understand or recognize differences, exploring personal meaning of racism, and then becoming increasingly aware of how one's Whiteness plays a role in cultural beliefs and increasingly knowledgeable about the differences of others. https://mss.boisestate.edu/tunnel-of-oppression/inside-the-tunnel/helms-white-racial-

So, cognitive development. I have talked about Baxter Magolda, Piaget, and Kolb. I’ve left out quite a few, like Vygotsky and Bloom. And most of these don’t actually fall into a student affairs group of development theories, not in what we might consider typical college student development. It’s not like they’re developing their identities or anything (they are, but shhhh). But it matters because they’re in college to learn. Learning is the primary goal. We should be adding to the learning going on. And in order to do that, we need to understand how learning happens. We should be building programs based on how learning happens. We should be aware of what the light-hearted, socialization, play, trial-and-error programming teaches our students and how it teaches them. We should be able to articulate what and how the students are learning from us. Here is where we could discuss a co-curricular transcript - because it should document the learning happening outside of the classroom. But, I’

I recently discovered Kolb, I don’t remember reading about Kolb (or Kolb & Kolb) in grad school, although it’s entirely possible I’ve forgotten. I recently stumbled upon the theory of the learning cycle and corresponding learning theories through doing reading for my role running the tutoring center. There are four stages in the cycle of learning and four learning styles. These are not the disproven learning styles like auditory, visual, and tactile. The four learning styles are based on how a learner processes (abstract or concrete) and how they react to the process (active participation or reflective observation). The learning process is a true cycle, and can be started at any point. Here is a diagram of the learning cycle from https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html : And a quick reference summary of the learning styles also from https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html : 1. Concrete Experience - (a new experience or situation is encountered, or a reinter

Ok, again this is cheating a bit since Piaget really studied children and his model ends at “11+”, but! I think it’s important for all of us to know how learning happens (theoretically), so that we can continue the development and learning process. Piaget believed that all children, regardless of background, go through the same four prescribed stages. Children progress through the stages after multiple experiences and stimuli. Here’s a nice chart to summarize his theories from https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/piaget-stages/ : Title of theory: Stages of Development Year theory was published: 1936 Students originally studied: He studied children after helping grade intelligence exam and realizing young children answered certain questions differently than older children or adults. He even studied his own three children. Background of the author: He was born in Switzerland and was interested in zoology and biology. He began studying mollusks at just 10 years old and published his research

I rediscovered Baxter Magolda in the past few months as I’ve been doing reading for my new role as Coordinator of Tutoring. I wanted to dive into the literature of learning and tutoring, and boy have I done that. I’ve gotten through two full books, several articles, and am now into the “additional reading” portion of the Oxford’s Guide for Writing Tutors. The past couple of months have been busy with implementing changes and the new year, but I hope to increase my reading time soon. I have learned or re-learned a whole heck of a lot, which is kind of a fun twist now that I’m writing about learning. Baxter Magolda came up with three principles of learning, outlined here from https://www.geneseo.edu/tlc/baxter : "Validate Students as Knowers" - Students reported they learned better when professors conveyed a caring attitude, which ranged from taking an interest in their extracurricular activities, to talking with them rather than at them, to creating test formats that per

I tend to use the research by Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. in my research/theory/whatever on student veterans. Something like 66% of student veterans are first-generation students, so it’s pretty applicable. I also really like that they studied co- and extra-curricular activities, such as reading books not assigned (extra) and visiting the library (co). It’s one of the theories or bits of research I also like to pull out when people talk about engagement off campus. Students who have families or other community connections *are* still engaged, just not in the way we like to count. Title of theory: First-Generation College Students: Characteristics, Experiences, and Cognitive Development Year theory was published: 1996 Students originally studied: They studied 210 students who volunteered and participated in an original data collection and a follow up data collection, throughout their first year in college. Each student was in at least 6 credit hours

Perry is one of my favorite theorists when it comes to student development. I really like the way he describes the thinking process that happens, and how people are challenged. I see it a lot in some of the people I interact with regularly, and try to think of their thought process through Perry’s lens. During this time of polarizing politics and us vs them rhetoric from prominent politicians, I try to remember Perry. I try to remember that not everyone can hold two truths and reason out which one to believe. I try to remember not everyone has experienced the process of cognitive dissonance and many have never become comfortable with it. Here’s a good explanation of the stages from https://organizations.missouristate.edu/guide/125687.htm : Perry's Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development: 1. Basic Duality- Seeing the world dichotomous: good-bad, right-wrong, black-white, facts, authorities have correct answers 2. Multiplicity Prelegitimate- Seeing there may be other answers,

Right, so these three people who wrote about psychosocial identity development of students back before some current professionals were born. Why do they matter? What does it matter? Do we actually use these theories? Do theory-to-practice professionals think: Aha! I know why you’re struggling here, you’re in Chickering’s third Vector! Maybe some people do think that, I can’t say I ever have. I do think about some of the struggles students go through and try to use frameworks to better understand 1) how they might be feeling 2) what this means for their success and 3) how I can help them through the struggle. I was at a party recently and I was talking with some folks about homeschooled students who are pushed through high-level academics at young ages. Yeah, I know, you totally want to go to these parties. Homeschooling is a common practice around where I live, especially in the rural areas. To be clear, I’m not disparaging homeschool students or families. This is just an example of us

I haven’t really thought about Josselson’s theory since graduate school. I found it difficult to get my hands on an article about this specific theory that I had access to, and I didn’t have time to read a full book. I used the power of Google to learn bits and pieces, along with the textbook by Komives and Associates. I might actually add her book to my (out of control) Amazon wish list. Enough of this nonsense, you might be thinking, I want to know about Day 4’s topic. Ok, that’s fair. Josselson studied women in their senior year of college to determine how their psychosocial identity develops during their college years. She eventually defined this development into four different types of identity development, all of which are related to where the woman’s beliefs fall compared to her family’s values, especially the beliefs and values of her mother. Women develop the most due to crises in relationships. Here is an explanation of each type from https://organizations.missouristate.edu/

Chickering is where many student affairs development theory classes and conversation start. I think of it as the foundational theory of where we started to really look at how college students develop. It provided a framework to think about the changes students experienced and how we can use that framework as professionals. Chickering believed that going through identity development is the main type of development during young adulthood, which is when (at the time) most white men attended college. The vectors are based in Erikson's theory. The seven vectors include: Developing Competence, Managing Emotions, Moving Through Autonomy, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, Establishing Identity, Developing Purpose, and Developing Integrity. Students go through the stages sequentially, starting with developing competencies, such as intellectually and interpersonally, learning to create a positive self identity, creating clear purpose and commitments, and then to developing a “pe

This first theory is kind of cheating, because it isn’t just student development, it’s person development. Erikson’s theory, with contributions from his wife, developed a life-long theory to explain and better understand, what happens to people as they are exposed to new things while they age. The stages of development have a set developmental task that is then built upon toward the next stage. Title of theory: 8 Stages of Development Year theory was published: 1959 Students originally studied: Montessori students Background of the author: Was born in Germany, and studied at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Institute, he fled Nazi Germany for the US with his small family. His wife assisted him with developing his life stages theory. His background is quite interesting and complicated, I recommend reading the link below. How theory can be used now: Stages are determined by the internal struggles a person is going through and how those struggles interact with external stimuli. This can help us

As student affairs enters our annual Month of Recognition , and we share all of the Warm and Fuzzies of the jobs we do, we should also recognize the knowledge we need to function as competent professionals. Our jobs aren’t just fun and games - we’re also often trained in development, risk and crisis management, and mental health awareness. We should be doing more this month than trying to recruit people and tell everyone how wonderful our jobs are - and how they can just remain in college the rest of their lives. Over the next month, I, along with a few friends (hopefully), will go over psychosocial, cognitive development, racial identity development, sexual identity development, engagement, and success theories. This isn’t going to be an exhaustive list, and I had to make choices, right or wrong, of what to include. I’m hoping to hit the main ones that most of us reviewed in grad school, along with some we may have forgotten. As a side goal, I wanted to make sure I had a wide scope