Overview of Selected Student Development Theories
Developed by the:
California Alumni Association
Student Services Department
Abraham Maslow
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Students share other needs common to all people. Abraham Maslow (1954) places human needs into a hierarchy of needs. Usually this theory is presented in a pyramid form and is labeled from the bottom up as follows:
1. Physiological needs. These are the basic needs for sustaining human life itself, such as food, water, warmth, shelter, and sleep. Until these needs are satisfied to the degree necessary to maintain life, other needs will not motivate people.
2. Security, or safety needs. These are the needs to be free of physical danger and the fear of loss of a job, property, food or shelter.
3. Affiliation, or acceptance, needs. Since people are social beings, they need to belong, to be accepted by others.
4. Self Esteem. According to Maslow, once people begin to satisfy their need to belong, they tend to want to be held in esteem both by themselves and by others. This kind of need produces such satisfactions as power, prestige, status, and self-confidence.
5. Self-actualization. Maslow regards this as the highest need in his hierarchy. It is the desire to become what on is capable of becoming-to maximize one's potential and to accomplish something.
In addition, most traditional college-aged students are at a stage in their development characterized by a reaching out for new values, ideas, motivations, and purposes.
Arthur W. Chickering
Education and Identity – Seven Vectors of Student Development
Chickering (1969) emphasized the importance of developing interpersonal competence – the ability to work cooperatively and productively with others-and of recognizing and accepting interdependence as an essential reality of living. According to Chickering, students progress through seven developmental vectors. “They are called vectors of development because each seems to have direction and magnitude-even thought the direction may be expressed more appropriately by a spiral or by steps than by a straight line (Chickering, p.8).” Students may be making significant progress on one vector but significantly lacking in another. Taking in concert all seven vectors presents a snapshot to the advisor on the student’s current state of being. Considering many of the vectors require in-depth conversation or a series of conversations to build trust between the advisor and the student, individuals working with students should be cautioned against rushing into a developmental assessment after only one meeting.
The Seven Vectors
Achieving Competence –
a. intellectually (The “Thinking Me”) – The development of critical thinking and an intellectual curiosity, evidenced to some extent in the above average drive to learn independently, outside of the formal classroom.
b. physically and manually (The “Physical Me”) – The development of the ability to handle one’s self in physical and manual activities and the recognition of the roles that these activities play in the release of emotion and energy.
c. interpersonally (The “Aware Me”) – The development of the ability to be a part of a cooperative effort, understand the motives and concerns of others.
Managing Emotions –
(How do I feel?) is reflected be an increasing awareness, integration and healthy control of the feelings that one experiences during the growth period, particularly sexual and aggressive feelings.
Becoming Autonomous –
(Myself and an Independent Person) is evidenced in the growth of self-sufficiency, less need for approval of others (peers, friends and family), and finally, the recognition of interdependence (role of self in the larger community/society/campus).
Establishing Identity –
(Who Am I?) involves clarifying one’s concepts concerning: the body, appearance, and sex identification roles and behaviors. The process also involves knowing the kind of person one wants to be and obtaining a sense of balance and perspective of the self in relation to others.
Freeing Interpersonal Relationships –
(Myself and Others) is evidenced by increasing: tolerance of a wider range of people; capacity to respond to people in their own right rather than stereotypes; and a shift in the nature of relationships toward greater trust, independence and individuality.
Clarifying Purpose –
(Where Am I Going?) is the clarification of vocational plans and inspirations; putting recreational interests into perspective; and the making of decisions concerning lifestyle. The process is typified by: evidence of deep involvement in a major interest; increasing ability to accept advice and criticism; and interest in practical, concrete achievement.
Developing Integrity –
(What do I value?) is the development of a personally valid set of beliefs and values that provide a guide to behavior and emotions. Behavior is affected by the context of the situation, dominant interests, occupational plans, and lifestyle considerations, i.e. acting in accordance to values and priorities.
Several theorists have helped us understand how we develop more complex ways of reasoning and thinking. The theories of Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) and William Perry (1970) show us that students move from thinking in a narrow, compartmentalized way to a more broad and integrated manner over the course of their college years. Kohlberg discussed the premise of developing "+1" environments to stimulate higher order thinking. This will help to ensure growth. To stimulate this growth, we must know at what level students are thinking, so that we can assist them in reasoning and thinking at the next higher level. So try to understand where a person is, and then strategize how to work with him/her successfully.
Lawrence Kohlberg
Theory of Moral Development and Cognitive Stages
Lawrence Kohlberg began his career as a developmental psychologist and later moved into study of educational theory, basing most of his research on students at Harvard University. He sought to develop a model that illustrated the progressive nature and sequence of individuals making moral choices. At the heart of this system is a concern for cognitive process rather than social normativity, which is to say that Kohlberg is interested in how individuals develop their capacity to make moral choices, not how groups of individuals agree upon values.
Basics of Theory
According to Kohlberg, an individual progresses through a stage process consisting of three levels; each level is comprised of two stages for a total of six stages. The primary concern at each stage is with the principle of justice. Kohlberg distinguishes between a “rule,” which proscribes action, and a “principle,” which affords “a guide for choosing among behaviors.” An individual progressing through each of the stages uses a different set of principles and a new sense of justice.
The progression from Stage One to Stage Six (which very few people actually reach) is best described as a steady movement outward from the self. Picture a student standing in front of a crowded lecture hall. She begins alone in front of the class with Stage One and takes a steps forward until she reaches Stage Three, when she is sitting among other learners. If she keeps moving from her initial spot, at Stage Five she’ll eventually leave the lecture hall and be standing out on campus, a part of the whole university.
The details of Kohlberg’s Six Stages are as follows:
Level A: Preconventional/Egocentric
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment
Right is literal obedience to rules/authority in order to avoid reprobation.
Purely egocentric: the actor does not consider the interests of others and is focused only on him/herself and the physical consequences of choices. Authority’s perspective is confused with the actor’s own.
Stage 2: Individualism and Moral Reciprocity
Right is serving one’s own needs and making fair deals in terms of concrete exchange.
Egocentric with an individualistic perspective: the actor separates his own interests and points of view from those of authorities and others while still retaining a belief in their preeminence. At this point, the actor becomes aware that everybody has individual interests and that these often conflict; right comes to be understood as utterly relative. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”
Level B. Conventional/Sociocentric
Stage 3: Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships and Conformity
Right is playing a good (nice) role, being concerned about other people and following rules and expectations.
Microsocial: the actor is aware of his/her relationships to other immediately connected individuals. A sense of shared feelings, agreements and expectations take primacy over individual interests. Visible adherence to the social code (and the reward/approval attached to it) becomes a primary impetus in decision-making. The “good boy” mentality.
Stage 4. The Stage of Social System and Conscience Maintenance
Right is doing one’s duty in society, upholding the social order and maintaining the welfare of the larger group.
Macrosocial: the societal differentiated from the interpersonal. The actor takes the viewpoint of the system, which defines roles and rules. He or she considers individual relations in terms of place in the system.
Stage 4.5 - Level B/C. Transitional Level
Choice is personal and subjective, based on emotions. Conscience is seen as arbitrary and relative, as are ideas such as “duty” and “morally right.” The perspective is that of an individual standing outside of his own society and considering himself as an individual making decisions without a generalized commitment or contract with society. One can pick and choose obligations, which are defined by particular societies, but one has no principles for such choice.
Level C. Postconventional/Ontocentric
Stage 5: Social Contract
Right is upholding the basic rights, values and legal contracts of a society, even when they conflict with the concrete rules and laws of the group.
Pre-societal: awareness of values and rights that existed prior to social attachments and contracts. The actor integrates perspectives by formal mechanisms of agreement, contract, objective impartiality and due process. He or she considers the moral point of view and the legal point of view, recognizes they conflict, and finds it difficult to integrate them.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles
Right is guided by universal ethical principles that all humanity should follow.
Post-societal: identification with the moral point of view from which social arrangements derive or on which they are grounded. The perspective is that of any rational individual recognizing the nature of morality or the basic moral premise of respect for other persons as ends, not means.
Basics of Practice
Educators play a role in urging students to the next level of moral cognitive development. As did Piaget, Kohlberg believed that transition from stage to stage was driven primarily by social interaction, especially interaction with authority figures or those on higher stages.
Development is not merely the result of gaining more knowledge, but rather consists of a sequence of qualitative changes in the way an individual thinks. Within any stage of development, thought is organized according to the constraints of that stage. An individual then interacts with the environment according to their basic understandings of the environment. However, the child will at some point encounter information that does not fit into their world view, forcing the child to adjust their view to accommodate this new information. This process is called equilibration, and it is through equilibration that development occurs. Early moral development approaches to education, therefore, sought to force students to ponder contradiction inherent to their present level of moral reasoning.
The most common tool for doing this is to present a “moral dilemma” to students and require them to determine and justify what course the actor in the dilemma should take. Through discussion, students should then be forced to face the contradictions present in any course of action not based on principles of justice or fairness.
There is also a need to offer experiences for students to operate as moral agents within a community. To meet this, Kohlberg and his colleagues developed the just community schools approach towards promoting moral development. The basic premise of these schools is to enhance students’ moral development by offering them the chance to participate in a democratic community. Here, democracy refers to more than simply casting a vote. It entails full participation of community members in arriving at consensual rather than “majority rules” decision-making.
William Perry
Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development
Perry (1970, 1981) has developed a model that holds much explanatory power in suggesting how students make sense out of the information, theories, experiences, and opinions that confront them in college classrooms. The descriptions below summarize many of the differences in student thinking.
Dualism
("All things are right or wrong, black or white.")
§ Knowledge is seen as existing absolutely.
§ Student’s minimal right for opinion is a “receptacle” for truth.
§ Little capacity for dealing with conflicts and truth.
Multiplicity
("Everyone is right…no one is wrong.")
§ Recognize there are multiple perspectives to problems
§ Unable to evaluate each perspective adequately.
§ No criteria to merit one’s own opinion.
Relativism
("Well, everyone has his or her own opinion and could be equally right.")
§ Knowledge is relative and contextual and is not connected to “rightness” or truth.
§ Detachment and objective examination of one’s own values and thoughts.
§ Knowledge and truth are relative to one’s experience.
Commitment to Relativism
("Some ideas are more right that others. One has to look carefully at the claim, supporting evidence, and other factors.")
§ Students accept responsibility of a pluralistic world and through acts of commitment establish their identity.
§ Commitment is based upon life’s goals and choices.
The "Involvement Theory" by Alexander Astin is also of importance in our work with college students. Alexander Astin has researched the factors which influence college success of failure with over 200,000 students and has formulated what has come to be called an "Involvement Theory". Basically it states: people who are involved, who feel connected to their institutions in some way, are more likely to have a successful college experience than those who are not.
Many of the theories described above are based on studies done on traditional-aged white male students. The theories listed below try to look at differences in development that exist in other samples.
Student Development for Persons of Color
Student development theorists have been criticized for not fully explaining the development of persons of color. Most critics would acknowledge that students of color are in many ways similar to other students in development. However, these same critics would argue that existing developmental theories make certain assumptions about the commonalty of environment, culture, and backgrounds of students that simply are not valid. They would also argue that being raised in a minority culture in a majority society created different developmental outcomes for youth of that minority culture. Parental roles, child-rearing practices, cultural values, community commitments and obligations, and other culturally related factors might combine to produce different developmental dynamics for minority students. Many developmental theories assume that culturally related factors are constant, and they ignore cultural differences in explaining minority student development. The cultural differences are too strong to be ignored.