8/7/2019 chikering

1/4

Student Development Theories

Arthur Chickerings (1969) theory of identity development consists of seven

vectors: developing competence, managing emotions, developing autonomy, establishing

identity, freeing interpersonal relationships, developing purpose, and developing

integrity. The three key vectors for delivering academic advising according to Gordon

(1988) are developing competence, autonomy, and purpose.

Developing competence includes intellectual competence, physical and manual

skill, and interpersonal competence. Intellectual competence involves acquisition of

knowledge and skill related to a subject matter. Physical and manual skill comes from

athletic and recreation activities, attention to wellness, and involvement in artistic and

manual activities. Interpersonal competence includes skills in communication,

leadership, and working effectively with others.

Developing autonomy consists of an increase in emotional independence. It is

important to also develop instrumental independence which includes self-direction,

problem-solving ability, and mobility. Finally it is important to recognize and accept

interdependence and an awareness of the interconnectedness with others.

Developing purpose consists in developing clear vocational goals, making

meaningful commitments to specific personal interests and activities, and establishing

strong interpersonal commitments. Chickering (1969) noted that students move through

these vectors at different rates, that vectors can interact with each other, and that students

often find themselves reexamining issues associated with vectors do build on each other;

8/7/2019 chikering

2/4

leading to greater complexity, stability, and integration as the issues related to each

vector are addressed (Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998).

Vincent Tinto (1975, 1993) believed that students enter a college or university

with varying patterns of personal, family, and academic characteristics and skills,

including initial dispositions and intentions with respect to college attendance and

personal goals. These intentions and commitments are subsequently modified and

reformulated on a continuing basis through a longitudinal series of interactions between

the individual and the structures and members of the academic and social systems of the

institution. Satisfying and rewarding encounters with the formal and informal academic

and social systems of the institution are presumed to lead to greater integration in those

systems and thus to student retention. Negative interactions and experiences tend to

reduce integration, to distance the individual from the academic and social communities

of the institution, promoting the individuals marginality and, ultimately, withdrawal.

Ernest Pascarella & P. Terenzini (1991), in a review of findings and insights from

studies conducted over a twenty year period concluded: the greater the students

involvement or engagement in academic work or in the academic experience of college,

the greater his or her level of knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development

(p. 616). There seemed to be ample evidence suggesting developmental advising and its

intervention techniques could lead to greater student engagement, knowledge acquisition,

cognitive development and psychosocial change.

Alexander Astin (1984) views the purpose of higher education as one of talent

development. He believes that Students learn by becoming involved. He created five

8/7/2019 chikering

3/4

postulates of involvement: involvement requires the investment of psychological and

physical energy; involvement is a continuous concept; involvement has both quantitative

and qualitative features; the amount of learning or development is directly proportional to

the quality and quantity of involvement; and educational effectiveness of any policy or

practice is related to its capacity to induce student involvement (Astin, 1985, pp. 135-6).

The student plays a central role in determining the extent and nature of growth according

to the quality of effort or involvement with the resources provided by the institution.

There are many other theories and models of student development. Models for

individual groups including women, racial and ethnic groups, gay, lesbian and bisexual

groups, transfer student, freshmen, undecided, remedial, students, etc. These models

each look at a specific group and identify how they develop and integrate into higher

education.

References:

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1985).Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W. (1969).Education and identity. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991).How college affects students: Findings and

insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research.Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

8/7/2019 chikering

4/4

Tinto, V. (1993).Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition

(2nd ed.). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.