RUNNING HEAD: College Student Development Theory

College Student Development Theory and Analysis: An NYU Undergraduate and Cedric Jennings Lindsay Possiel New York University

College Student Development Theory INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the following paper is to analyze two individuals from multiple perspectives. The first individual is a female freshman student attending New York University, hereafter referred to as Jessie; this student will be analyzed first using King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model and second using Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model. The second individual is Cedric Jennings, the main character of Ron Suskinds novel, A Hope in the Unseen: An American Odyssey from the Inner City to the Ivy League; Cedric will be analyzed Chickerings Identity Development Theory. A critique of the three theories will follow the analyses. Next, using King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model as a basis, an educational program will be outlined with the goal of bringing the New York University undergraduate student from her current stage to the subsequent stage of the model. Lastly, the authors bias will be explicated. The reader can find the reference list, interview protocol, and interview transcription in the appendix.

KING AND KITCHENER REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT MODEL ANALYSIS The following analysis is based on the response by Jessie, the undergraduate female student, to three ill-structured problems and various prompts regarding each problem. The illstructured problems were centered on whether chemically-altered foods were safe, whether the pyramids could have been built without modern technology, and whether news reporters could be unbiased (for full protocol, see appendix). Based on the interview and her responses, Jessie is currently in the quasi-reflective stage of King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model as she expressed several ways of thinking that match the quasi-reflective stage, including expressing that ones opinion cannot be more valid than anothers opinion, that perspectives are based on

College Student Development Theory

different interpretations of evidence, and that she knows what is right for herself but is unwilling to evaluate others ideas. Based on King and Kitcheners Model of Reflective Judgment, persons arguing from a quasi-reflective perspective, may not know directly or with certainty, they may know within a context based on subjective interpretations of evidence, and perceptions and perspectives of the person making the interpretation determine what is known, (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 46); therefore one persons opinion cannot be more valid than another persons opinion. Jessie articulates these views multiple times throughout the interview, claiming that, I dont think its necessarily one opinions more valid. I think its just a difference of opinion (see appendix). At first, Jessie seemed to articulate that correct opinions were conditional on who was providing the opinion. For instance she said: I think it depends on who its coming fromIf theyre both groups of scientists then I dont know if one group would necessarily be more valid, but I guess it depends on where theyre getting their information from and how theyre drawing their conclusions. (see appendix) From this answer, knowledge is seemingly based on the evidence and how the opinion is formulated; however, Jessie is unable to claim that one opinion can be more right than another. In addition, her conditional stance on correctness does not hold true when it comes to historians or non-experts; when asked how historians can have differing opinions, Jessie says that it is, one historian just looking at it and saying thats not possible and the another one saying it happened even if you dont think its possible (see appendix). In the question prior, Jessie draws on her own knowledge from school:

College Student Development Theory

Its just knowing thatthe pyramids are there. They were built and they werent built recently, so they didnt have the technology and the tools that we have, so I think its just background knowledge and ya know what I learned in school about the time period. (see appendix) Despite her own belief that the pyramids were built in the past without advanced technology, she still cannot claim that her opinion or the historians with the opinion that matches her stance is more correct than the other historians. Lastly, it is all a matter of opinion for Jessie when people disagree about bias in the news; when asked if one persons opinion could be more correct than another, Jessie claims: I dont think thats something that can be more or less correct. I think thats just totally a matter of opinionCause its not something you could look at and say this person is being biased. I mean, sometimes you can, sometimes its obvious, but I dont think its something you can really say for sure. (see appendix) Even though she seems to struggle with the absoluteness of her statement, she still claims that she cannot really say for sure that one opinion is more correct. Based on King and Kitcheners explanation of quasi-reflective judgment, a quasi-reflective person believes that knowledge is subjective, and one opinion cannot be more valid than another. With that in mind, Jessie claims multiple times that one opinion cannot be more valid or correct; therefore, Jessie is in the quasireflective stage. King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model poses that quasi-reflective thinkers believe knowledge is subjective and contextual also because, an awareness develops that different perspectives are based on different types of evidence or varying interpretations of the evidence (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 46). Jessie says that she would need to form her own

College Student Development Theory

opinion by looking at the evidence if she felt strongly about the subject because, Im sure that they both have good evidence for their sides, but for me I think Id have to just look at it myself and decide instead of listening to everyone else (see appendix). She continues by saying that one opinion could not be more valid than another because, it depends on where theyre getting their information from and how theyre drawing their conclusions (see appendix). In another scenario, Jessie claims that interpreting bias in a news report can be difficult, and essentially says that people may or may not see bias: its not something you could look at and say this person is being biased. I mean, sometimes you can, sometimes its obvious, but I dont think its something you can really say for sure (see appendix). To Jessie, opinion is all about how you interpret the evidence, and everyone has different interpretations; therefore knowledge is subjective and contextual to Jessie, a key characteristic of a person thinking from a quasireflective perspective in the Reflective Judgment Model. Another characteristic of a person in the quasi-reflective stage is the unwillingness to evaluate others ideas. Quasi-reflective thinkers, according to King and Kitchener, may claim to know what is right for them but are frequently unwilling to evaluate or judge others behaviors or ideas (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 46). For example, as referenced above, Jessie expresses that the pyramids were built without using advanced technology in the past, saying that, they were built, and they werent built recently, so they didnt have the technology and the tools that we have, so I think its just background knowledge andwhat I learned in school about the time period (see appendix). However, in the next question about whether a historians opinions can be more valid than another, she does not assert that the historian that she agrees with is more valid; she claims that she doesnt, think its necessarily one opinions more valid. I think its just a difference of

College Student Development Theory

opinion (see appendix). Despite her own opinion, Jessie does not believe her opinion is more valid than others. Similarly, in response to other scenarios, Jessie asserts her opinion but refuses to judge anothers viewpoints. She says: It sounds like artificially adding things to food, it cant really be healthyI guess I have to hear what those scientists think to really understand, but to me I feel like natural, organic things would be healthier than adding different chemicals. (see appendix) Since she does not know what evidence was used, she cannot judge their opinion; she claims that, its just people drawing that conclusion, but I dont think theres enough data to definitively say that these chemicals are causing cancer (see appendix). Lastly, in the scenario about bias in the news, Jessie asserts that news reporters can show bias: I think its really hard to do it completely objectively because even if youre just saying the facts of what happened, even like the expressions on their faces or the inflections in their voice, its going to give something away to how theyre feeling about it. (see appendix) Despite this opinion, she still claims that the opinions of people arguing over the bias in reporting were not more or less correct; she said before that news reporters show bias in their reporting, but she would not say that the people who believed in unbiased reporting were wrong. Based on King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Theory, those arguing from a quasireflective perspective will claim to know what is right for them but will be unwilling to judge anothers views. Jessie articulates her opinions on the various scenarios, but she would not say that the opposing opinion was wrong or less valid; therefore Jessie is in the quasi-reflective stage.

College Student Development Theory

In conclusion, based on several characteristics of quasi-reflective stage in the in King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model, the interviewee Jessie is thinking from the quasireflective perspective. King and Kitcheners theory posits that the quasi-reflective thinker does not believe that one opinion is more valid than another; Jessie articulated this point several times when answering prompts relating to the ill-structured problems. Secondly, Jessie expressed her belief that knowledge is based on interpreting the evidence, and everybody interprets evidence differently, which aligns with King and Kitcheners theory as well. Lastly, Jessie is unwilling to evaluate others opinions even though she expresses her own opinion; Jessies unwillingness to judge others opinions fits within King and Kitcheners definition of a quasi-reflective thinker. The combination of these characteristics supports the idea that Jessie thinks from a quasireflective perspective.

KOHLBERG MORAL JUDGMENT DEVELOPMENT MODEL ANALYSIS The following analysis is based on the response by the same first-year undergraduate female student, Jessie, to three moral dilemmas and various prompts regarding each dilemma. The moral dilemmas were about stealing food for a starving family, reporting on a strong political candidate with a troubled past, and stealing cancer-curing drugs for a sick spouse (for full protocol, see appendix). Based on the interview and her responses, Jessie is currently in the conventional stage of Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model as she expresses several ways of thinking that match this stage, including that one should obey rules, fulfill their role as a family member, and be good and show good motives. Based on Kohlbergs theory of Moral Judgment Development, an individual at the conventional level has a desire to maintain rules and authority which support[s] stereotypical

College Student Development Theory

good behavior, (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 552) and so the laws of society must be upheld in order to be a good person. Jessie states in several responses that the characters in the moral dilemmas should do whatever they could not to break laws; therefore, Jessie is acting within the conventional stage. Even though Jessie comes to the conclusion that a father should steal to save his starving family, she struggles to acknowledge this decision: He has an obligation to find food somehow to take care of his family and if he can do that in another way without stealing, that would obviously be better, but if he cant then stealing food wouldnt be the worst thing. (see appendix) In addition, she says that she doesnt, think that he necessarily should steal food, but if he doesnt have any other options, he shouldnt let his family starve either (see appendix). When asked about the Heinz dilemma and whether Heinz should steal a life-saving drug for his dying wife, Jessie does not think that Heinz should steal the drug: Its kind of like the first one where he needs to do whatever he can to help his wife stay alive, but in a situation like that I think stealing drugs is a little bit more serious, and I dont really think that he should steal the drug I mean its hard because I think that his wife needs it and he wants to help her but I dont think that he should break in and steal the drugs. (see appendix) Although she eventually comes to the conclusion that if the drug was a cure-all, then the man should steal the drugs for his wife, but Jessie struggles to say that these people should break the law if there is another option. Even to avoid outright stealing, Jessie decides that the husband should steal, if thats the only way that [his wife is] gonna livebutI think he should still pay as much as he can (see appendix). In moral judgment development, those in the conventional stage believe in upholding laws of society as a part of being good; since Jessie stated that the

College Student Development Theory

characters in the moral dilemmas should do all that they could before breaking the law, she is working from a conventional stage. Based on Kohlbergs theory of Moral Judgment Development, an individual at the conventional level also believes that living up to what is expected by people close to you or what people generally expect of people in your role as son, brother, friend, etc. is the right thing to do (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 552); conventional thinkers are aware of shared feelings, agreements, and expectations which take primacy over individual interests (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 552). Jessie states in several responses that the characters in the moral dilemmas should do whatever they can to help their family; therefore Jessie is acting from the conventional stage. Even though Jessie struggles to acknowledge that people should steal for their loved ones, family obligation and fulfilling ones role is paramount. When asked if a father should steal food for his starving family from a rich man, Jessie says, I mean, its not ethical to take the food, but in a situation like that, I mean, you need to do what you need to do to take care of your family (see appendix). In addition, Jessie explains that finding food another way is the best option, but stealing is acceptable if he cannot obtain food legally: He has an obligation to find food somehow to take care of his family and if he can do that in another way without stealing, that would obviously be better, but if he cant then stealing food wouldnt be the worst thing. (see appendix) Additionally, Jessie responds that the father does not have an obligation to steal the food from the rich man, but she thinks, to be a good father would just be finding a way to take care of his family and make sure his kids arent hungry all the time (see appendix). In this scenario, Jessie makes her point multiple times that the father should care for his family and fulfill his role as a good father. Similarly, in another moral dilemma, Jessie concludes that a husband should steal

College Student Development Theory

drugs to save his wife because he cares for her. Keeping their families well and sustaining good interpersonal relationships is essential for Jessie when thinking through moral dilemmas; therefore she is in the conventional stage of Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model. Lastly, Jessie is in the conventional stage of Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model based on her responses that aligned with Kohlbergs (1976) description of conventional thinkers: being good is important and means having good motives, showing concern about others (p. 552). When asked whether or not a news reporter should report on a story about a strong political candidates troubled past, Jessie answers that she should report on the story to be a good reporter, adding that she shouldnt be holding things back because that could be seen asbeing biased and trying to protect him (see appendix). Jessie feels that the reporter has an obligation to report the story because, if she has that information then she needs to be sharing it and not holding things back that she knows, and because, as a journalist or reporter she should be able to be unbiased and just say what she knows and just give people the facts (see appendix). In addition, Jessie emphasizes the importance of good motives; she explains that the reporter should formulate the story exposing the troubled past of the political candidate by discussing his good deeds and downplaying the negative past because he has changed the direction of his life: I dont think that [his troubled past] should wreck his chances because it was a minor offense. So I think the best thing to do would just be not make a big deal about it, but justput it out there somewhere so that people do know that he did have those problems, but also emphasize everything hes done since then and that its not defining who he is now. (see appendix)

College Student Development Theory

10

In this case, presenting the issue was necessary for the reporter, but the reporter should demonstrate her good motives by explaining the candidates positive qualities. In another moral dilemma, being good and demonstrating good motives are also highlighted by Jessie. Jessie explains that Heinz should steal the drug for his wife or even a stranger because he has good motives. When asked if Heinz should steal the drug for a stranger, Jessie says, if its something that he feels strongly about and he wants to help this person, then sure (see appendix). She elaborates more when asked whether he should steal the drug for his wife even if he does not love her. I dont think it really makes a difference because its like the stranger, he probably doesnt love the stranger, he probably just feels an obligation to help the person get better. So even if he didnt love his wife, then he still doesnt want to see her die. (see appendix) Typically when a respondent claims that Heinz should steal the drug even for a stranger, the respondent is coming from a post-conventional stage; however, Jessies response is still conventional because she is speaking from a personal and community standpoint, not a societyas-a-whole stance. For Jessie, Heinz should steal the drug for the stranger because he has good intentions to save that stranger and shows concern for him. Based on Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model that asserts people in the conventional stage will expect people to do good and act from good motives, Jessie is operating from the conventional stage of moral judgment. In conclusion, Jessie is currently acting from the conventional stage perspective in Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model based on several responses to moral dilemmas which indicated she believes that one should obey rules, fulfill their role as a family member, and

College Student Development Theory

11

be good and show good motives. According to Jessie, Heinz should not steal the drug for his wife and the father should not steal the food for his family because those actions go against the established rules; they should find other legal ways to obtain the needed items first. Jessie also cited family obligations in her discussion of the moral dilemmas; to be a good father, the man should find food somehow for his family and to be a good husband, Heinz should find a way to care for his wife. Lastly, being good and demonstrating good motives were a significant argument for Jessie; the reporter should report on the candidates troubled past even though he is the most promising candidate because a reporter should not be biased. To show her good motives, the reporter should mitigate the negative story by discussing positive qualities of the candidate. Heinz also had good motives to steal drugs for his wife or a stranger because he shows concern for both of them. Based on these responses, Jessie is acting from the conventional stage of Kohlbergs model.

CHICKERING IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT THEORY ANALYSIS The following analysis using Chickerings Identity Development Theory is focused on Cedric Jennings, the main character of A Hope in the Unseen by Ron Suskind. The analysis will focus specifically on one vector of Chickerings theory: managing emotions. Chickering and Reisser (1993) state that, development proceeds when students learn appropriate channels for releasing irritations before they explode, dealing with fears before they immobilize, and healing emotional wounds before they infect other relationships, (p. 46). Cedric has many moments of unruly emotions, and his task is to develop flexible controls, (p. 46) on his emotions throughout his college experience. By the end of his first year, he starts to gain an understanding

College Student Development Theory

12

of how to appropriately express his emotions and how to handle disagreements without outright anger. Throughout his first year experience, Cedric encounters frustrations and disagreements that get out of control with his roommate, his classmates, and his friends. One important relationship for Cedric in learning how to control his emotions is with his roommate, Rob; after a month of frustration over Robs messiness and feeling like he is Robs social secretary, Cedric twice forgets to pass messages onto Rob which results in an argument. Cedric first apologizes but then reacts strongly to what he believes is condescension in Robs voice, saying, dont you talk to me like Im a child or something, (Suskind, 1998, p. 207) and quickly escalates to threats of physical violence against Rob. Cedric is exhibiting what Chickering and Reisser (1993) identify as anger leading to aggression, where, students...lose their temper when they feel victimized by what they perceive as arbitrary authorities (p. 92). Cedric again loses his temper after two fellow residents write a comment with sexual overtones on his whiteboard on his door; Cedric had told his friends calmly that he was uncomfortable with their banter earlier, but he explodes when he reads the whiteboard. Cedric bangs on his door and yells at his friend Ira; Ira denies writing that comment, and residents start to stare at Cedric yelling in the hallway. Fear takes over as he realizes that he is a spectacle, and he freezes as, his ringing ears are shutting off everything, and he asks himself, how the hell did he end up here? (Suskind, 1998, p. 219). Fear and anxiety took control, and Chickering and Reisser (1993) posit that, too much [anxiety] leads to a freeze-up (p. 91). Cedric again cannot restrain his anger, and ends up yelling at his friend LaTisha after a church service; when he and LaTisha disagree over the meaning of Bishop Longs sermon, they begin screaming at each other as the argument elevates (Suskind, 1998, p.

College Student Development Theory

13

271). Cedric struggles to control his emotions, continually allowing his fear and anger to lead to screaming arguments with friends. Along with fear and anger, Cedrics guilt and shame manifests in his social withdrawal. Although Cedric interacts with fellow residents in the building during orientation and sporadically through the fall semester, he is mostly a hermit during his first few months at Brown University. College is one of the first times Cedric has spent a lot of time with White students, and he goes back and forth between looking for other Black students with which to connect and making friends with White student because it is new; despite his search for connection with Black students, he is not proud of his racial identity. During the diversity discussion in orientation, he says, Your identity, I think, should be something that you are proud of, (Suskind, 1998, p. 176) and clarifies by saying, the things that make up our identity are deeper things than skin color or whatever. Things, I dont know, like character and faith or how we treat other people (Suskind, 1998, p. 177). To Cedric, identity is something he is proud of, but race is not part of that identity for him. He keeps to himself, but worries: his blackness and his standoffishness, his unwillingness to party with them, seems to make everyone worry that theres an unspoken racial subtext, (Suskind, 1998, p. 206). One manifestation of his shame of his racial identity or not fitting in with the other students might be his social withdrawal, as Chickering and Reisser (1993) highlight social withdrawal as a sign of depression. Cedric also withdraws when he is home in Southeast D.C. for winter break; he slowly realizes that he does not fit in with his hometown anymore after visiting his high school. He peers into a few classrooms, thinking that everything seems the same but weirdly far off, like hes watching it on TV (Suskind, 1998, p. 267). Cedrics mother comments that, over the winter break, Cedric didnt say much at all. Everything was cordial, and it was nice to have him with her at

College Student Development Theory

14

churchbut the privacy zone that once extended to the borders of his small bedroom had grown to envelop a whole mysterious life in Providence (Suskind, 1998, p. 286). Cedric feels like he no longer belongs in Southeast D.C. and begins to withdraw from his mother. In spring semester, Cedric again keeps to himself, but this time under different circumstances; he and his good friend Zayd have a falling out after an argument over money Cedric owed him. Cedric is again alone but has a revelation: its been a strange, solitary month, different from the bitter isolation and ostracism of the fall, where he felt out of control, and that his current exile mostly selfimposed, (Suskind, 1998, p. 293) is not what he wants. Cedric had to tie his identity to that notion of separateness; it was the only way he could stay on course and keep his sanity but now for him, being alone doesnt seem to be working (Suskind, 1998, p 293). After his social withdrawal caused by shame and guilt about his racial identity, not fitting in, and arguments, Cedric finally starts to see that he needs connections, which leads to more control over his emotions. A turning point for Cedric leads him to have more control over his emotions and connect more with others. One of the first times that Cedric acknowledges the need to appropriately express his emotions is during a meeting with a professor; he writes an epic poem full of emotion about his time spent in an inner-city high school during his education course instead of an objective analysis of his experience. His professor says that Cedric needs to know how to channel his outrage, and he responds, Im understanding more about that all the time. I really am, (Suskind, 1998, p. 303). As Chickering and Reisser (1993) explain, Cedric needs integrate his emotions so that, feelings do not take charge but instead add depth and texture to selfexpression (p. 107). Cedric begins to understand how to exercise flexible control (Chickering

College Student Development Theory

15

& Reisser, 1993, p. 107) of his emotions, and he notices the difference in interacting with other students: Everything seems to be getting easier. He recalls last semester, when whatever the other kids said or did, the way they acted and addressed himor, for that matter, ignored himfelt like some form of slight. A judgment on his unworthiness. Cedrics not sure what, specifically, has changed, but actions and words, in the dorm or the cafeteria or the classroom, seem to carry less weight, less personal charge. (Suskind, 1998, p. 321) Again, Cedric is learning to control his emotions and reactions; he can now detach himself from the situation and realize that there is no negative charge to the words of his fellow students (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). After learning how to manage his emotions, Cedric is now able to be confident in his social interactions; he thinks that, like going to the Underground with the white kids a few days ago, he finds that being here doesnt alter who he is, thats hes becoming sure enough of himself that he can get right up close, feel the pulse, smell the air, see what there is to see, and not lose himself (Suskind, 1998, p. 333). The shame and guilt that led to social withdrawal is no longer evident; he can spend time with white and black students and feel confident in who he is without his past fears and anxieties. Based on Chickerings Identity Development Theory as discussed in Chickering and Reisser (1993), Cedric moves through vector two by learning how to manage his emotions throughout his first year in college. At various times in his first semester, his anger and aggression lead to screaming arguments with his roommate, his friend from home, and fellow residents in his dormitory. He also withdraws from residents in the dormitory and his mother because he is ashamed of his racial identity and he does not feel like he fits in. Cedric hits a turning point after his education course observing a class in an inner-city school and writing a

College Student Development Theory

16

poem about his experience. From then on he begins to react differently to friendsnoticing that he does not find a personal or negative charge to their words or behaviorand he begins to feel more comfortable in his own skin. Through his interactions with classmates, friends, family, and professors, Cedric learns how to manage his emotions.

THEORY CRITIQUE Even though these theories can be used to describe reasoning, behavior, and development in both Jessie and Cedric, each theory has limitations and criticisms. As for King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model, the theory itself is considered universal in its application, yet the theory is based on interviews with less than two thousand students (Love & Guthrie, 1999). The theory itself has been tested and retested by other researchers in the field; nevertheless, declaring this theory as universal does not take into consideration the individuality of students backgrounds. Additionally, the general developmental differences between students today, students twenty years ago when the theory was posited in King and Kitcheners book, and students thirty years ago when the research took place are not accounted for within the theory. In the same vein of individuality of students, the ill-structured problems used to assess a students reflective thinking do not take into account the students previous knowledge on the subject; a student might have a different reaction to an ill-structured problem regarding bias in the news if they are a communications major, which could skew the results of the test. Despite the applicability of this theory to the interviewed student Jessie, King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model has some limitations. Similarly, Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model also has criticisms and limitations despite the analysis using Jessie. One criticism is that the theory claims that a person

College Student Development Theory

17

cannot think at a higher stage than the one they are currently in; therefore, students cannot be in transition from pre-conventional to conventional or conventional to post-conventional (although they can be transitioning from stage 1 to 2 within pre-conventional, stage 3 to 4 in conventional, etc.) (Kohlberg, 1976). Students must go through some sort of transition before thinking fully from another perspective as this change cannot happen overnight. Additionally, Kohlberg does not link moral reasoning to moral behavior; even though the subject of an interview or DIT test may score high, the person may not act in the same manner. Rest (1994) claims that moral judgment is just one factor impacting moral behavior, and Kohlberg does not discuss these other determinants in his Moral Judgment Development Model. Lastly, scoring a moral judgment interview can be somewhat subjective; despite the eight hundred page manual for scoring, an interviewer can lead an interviewee to certain answers or interpret an interviewees answers incorrectly if the interviewer does not use enough clarifying prompts. Even though Kohlbergs theory of moral judgment development can be applied to the student interview, some criticisms about the theory should be offered. Lastly, Chickerings theory of identity development can be used to explain Cedrics journey in college, this theory can also be critiqued. Chickering and Reisser (1993) explain strategically and extensively that the vectors are not stages, but rather building blocks. Students can move through the vectors at the simultaneously, at different paces, and at different sequences; however, the first four vectors are important in establishing identity, and so there has to be some sort of order to achieving these vectors so that a student can move onto establishing identity. Additionally, Kodama, McEwen, Liang, & Lee (2002) and McEwen, Roper, Bryant, & Langa (1990) propose that Asian American and African American students respectively have difference experiences in establishing interdependence and identity, among other vectors, which

College Student Development Theory

18

supplements Chickerings theory. This research is especially important since Cedric, an African American student, was analyzed using Chickerings theory. In summary, Chickerings theory of identity development along with King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model and Kohlbergs Moral Judgment Development Model can all be applied to analyzing student development, but their limitations or criticisms must be considered.

PROGRAM The following program will be developed in order to move Jessie and her classmates from quasi-reflective thinking to reflective thinking using a first-year experience course theoretically based in King and Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model. This one semester course of less than twenty students will be taught by a student affairs professional with the overall goal of exposing students to reflective thinking and encouraging them to start thinking reflectively. Students thinking from the quasi-reflective perspective have opinions and may use evidence, but students cannot judge others opinions as right or wrong because knowledge is subjective and contextual. According to the quasi-reflective perspective, opinions are different because they are based on different evidence or different interpretations of evidence; additionally, students are unable to create a well-reasoned argument using this evidence. After this first-year experience course, students will hopefully begin to formulate judgments and conclusions about ill-structured problems; arguments should be based in evidence and expert opinions. Students should also be able to recognize that opinions can be evaluated as more or less valid than others (Love & Guthrie, 1999). Through the following first-year experience course, students should move closer to reflective thinking.

College Student Development Theory

19

The first component of this first-year experience course is a career inventories survey to expose students to the process of choosing a career and field of interest. First year students should not be expected to select a career at this time, but they should be able to recognize their interests and possible career fields. Quasi-reflective thinkers may see the process of selecting a career as mysterious as they wait to see what feels right for them; however, the career inventory can open their eyes to certain career fields they have not thought about or highlight their strengths and interests they can investigate further (King & Kitchener, 1994). As a follow-up assignment to the career inventory, students will research three possible career fields, list the positives and negatives they find in each career, and then reflect on the inventory results through a journal. In the subsequent class, the instructor will guide a discussion on what the inventories produced and how the students felt about their own visceral responses. This exercise will expose students to outside opinions from an inventory about their own strengths, allow them to put together evidence supporting both sides of an argument, and encourage them to make a judgment about what field may suit their interests the best. Starting to use these skills to form an opinion about their interests and future will hopefully encourage them to use evidence when forming judgments and recognize that some opinions are more reasonable. Following the career inventory, the first half of the course will consist of weekly reading and writing assignments on current issues. Students will be given several articles with differing perspectives on one topic for each week. King and Kitchener (1994) posit that for quasireflective students, such readings can help demonstrate various types of evidence and how each is used and show how evidence can be used to draw conclusions about ill-structured problems (p. 238). Prior to each class, students will write reflective journals on the topic focusing on the use of evidence in each article and concluding with their own opinion supported by evidence.

College Student Development Theory

20

The class discussions will focus on how the authors formulated their arguments and the strengths and weaknesses of each one. An additional long-term assignment will also be part of the first half of the semester; students will choose a topic of interest to them to research and explore in a paper. After selecting a topic and identifying several articles of different perspectives, the student will meet one-on-one with the instructor to discuss their plan for the paper, including how the different perspectives will be explored in the paper and how the student will use this evidence to form their argument on which perspective is valid. The instructor can then ask questions about the argument to push the student to think more reflectively in a safe, nonthreatening environment. This meeting is an opportunity to both challenge and support the student individually; instructors can use this time to legitimize a students confusion about what is construed as evidence (King & Kitchener, 1994). Again, the goal of this section is to demonstrate how reflective thinkers use evidence and encourage them to explore how some opinions are more valid. The second half of the semester will feature presentations by professionals or experts in the career fields that the students researched in the beginning of the course. Using topics that students have already researched and showed interest in ensures a strong foundation of knowledge so that the students can be appropriately challenged in their thinking (King & Kitchener, 1994). First the experts will discuss a research topic of their own to model how they developed an argument, gathered evidence, and perhaps refuted other opinions. Next, the professionals will present an ill-structured problem in their field and lead a class discussion to encourage the students to grapple with the hard issues. When students press for easy answers to complicated questions, [professors] should find ways to retain the problematic elements of the questions (King and Kitchener, 1994, p. 236). In pushing students to consider the difficult

College Student Development Theory

21

issues of the ill-structured problems, the presenters and instructor should acknowledge the students feelings of being overwhelmed and confused. After each presentation, students will write a reflective journal on how they reacted to the discussion and the ill-structured problem. This half of the semester will model how experts develop arguments and expose students to illstructured problems in order to encourage them to form their opinions by using evidence in conjunction with their perspective, not just finding evidence to support their way of thinking. By using several different methodscareer inventories, current topics readings, evidence-based persuasive research papers, and expert presentationsthis course will challenge students to use evidence in arguments, examine all perspectives then select one to support, and acknowledge that some arguments can be more valid than others; the students will be appropriately supported with a small-class setting and one-on-one meetings as well as the use of topics that the students have an interest in prior to assignments. Assessments will be purely qualitative; the instructor will be able to examine whether students are starting to think reflectively through weekly reflective journals. Additionally, one-on-one meetings about the research paper will help the instructor gage how the student is formulating arguments; at that time the instructor can intervene to help move the student along further. A class discussion on the final day of class can help the students and instructor reflect on their progress, what they want to continue working on, and how they should continue during the next three years. By the end of the first-year experience course, students should go from thinking one opinion cannot be more valid than another because knowledge is subjective and contextual to acknowledging that some opinions are more reasonable than others because knowledge is based on information from a variety of sources. Students should also feel comfortable both constructing arguments and evaluating others arguments based on evidence. Even though a one semester course may not

College Student Development Theory

22

push students entirely to reflective thinking, this course can at least expose students to reflective thinking and ill-structured problems.

BIAS Despite my attempt at a critical analysis of Cedric and creation of a program for Jessie, my biases inevitably informed my selections and approaches. First, I selected Chickerings Identity Development Theory because the theory is practitioner-focused; the theory is logical and not as strict in the sequence of development as other theories, and so I found a connection point more easily. Studying political science and international relations in my undergraduate college career trained me to think logically using real world examples rather than abstractly with theories; Chickerings theory is broad and practitioner-based, so I can see how professionals use Chickering on a daily basis to discover at what point of development a student is in and how to challenge them to move forward, which is how I want to use theories. I am more practicefocused than theory-focused, and so I chose Chickering to describe Cedrics journey in managing his emotions, especially since this vector is one with which many college students struggle. Additionally, my bias also informed which theory I did not select to analyze Cedric; as a white, female from a stable, nuclear, middle-class family, I found it difficult to connect to Cross African-American Identity Development theory and to use it to describe Cedric, whose situation was so unlike my own. I understand how the theory fits into my friends development, but I did not want to interpret the theory incorrectly since I could not connect my own experiences to the theory. My practice-focused mindset and background impacted my selection of Chickerings identity development theory.

College Student Development Theory

23

My biases also impacted my approach to developing an educational program. I attended a small, residential university with its own mandatory first-year experience course. The course was designed to introduce students to different campus offices and orient students to campus life in order to ease the transition from high school to college; however, I think the course could have been used for more substantive purposes. Helping students think more reflectively, practice writing at a college level in a comfortable environment, and introduce effective ways to organize an argument can prepare students for the next three to four years. I also incorporated structures into the course that I consider important (and that also encourage reflective thinking), including small class sizes and one-on-one meetings with instructors. With that in mind, my own biases towards residential campuses, first-year experience courses, and class structure impacted my approach to designing an educational program.

College Student Development Theory APPENDIX A REFERENCE LIST

24

Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass. King, P.M. & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. In P.M King & K.S. Kitchener, Developing reflective judgment, 222-258. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kodama, C. M., McEwen, M. K., Liang, C. T. H., & Lee, S. (2002). An Asian American perspective on psychosocial student development theory. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), Working with Asian American college students. New Directions for Student Services, 97, 45-59. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. ASHE Reader, 549-568. Love, P.G. & Guthrie, V.L. (1999). King & Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model. New Directions in Student Services (88), 41-51. McEwen, M. K., Roper, L. D., Bryant, D. R., & Langa, M. J. (1990). Incorporating the development of African-American students into psychosocial theories of student development. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 429-436. Rest, J.R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In Rest, J.R. and Narvaez, D. (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-26. Suskind, R. (1998). A hope in the unseen: An American odyssey from the inner city to the Ivy

College Student Development Theory League. New York: Broadway Books.

25

College Student Development Theory APPENDIX B INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Ill-Structured Problem #1: There have been frequent reports about the relationship between chemicals that are added to foods and the safety of these foods. Some experts say that such chemicals can cause cancer, making these foods unsafe to eat. Other experts, however, say that chemical additives are not harmful, and actually make the foods containing them more safe to eat.

26

What do you think about this? What information did you use to come up with your opinion? How is it that experts could disagree on this issue? How do you go about evaluating expertise? Can one opinion be more valid than another? How?

Ill-Structured Problem #2: Most historians claim that the pyramids were built as tombs for kings by the ancient Egyptians, using human labor, and aided by ropes, pulleys, and rollers. Others have suggested that the Egyptians could not have built such huge structures by themselves, for they had neither the mathematical knowledge, the necessary tools, nor an adequate source of power.

What do you think about this? What information did you use to come up with your opinion? How is it that historians could disagree on this issue? How do you go about evaluating expertise? Can one opinion be more valid than another? How?

College Student Development Theory

27

Ill-Structured Problem #3: Some people believe that news stories represent unbiased, objective reporting of news events. Others say that there is no such thing as unbiased, objective reporting, and that even in reporting the facts, the news reporters project their own interpretations into what they write.

What do you think about this? What information did you use to come up with your opinion? How is it that people could disagree on this issue? Can one opinion be more valid than another? How?

Moral Dilemma #1: The small village in northern India has experienced shortages of food before, but this years famine is worse than ever. Some families are even trying to feed themselves by making soup from tree bark. Mustaq Singhs family is near starvation. He has heard that a rich man in his village has supplies of food stored away and is hoarding food while its price goes higher so that he can sell the food later at a huge profit. Mustaq is desperate and thinks about stealing some food from the rich mans warehouse. The small amount of food that he needs for his family probably wouldnt even be missed. Should Mustaq steal the food? Why or why not? Does Mustaq have an obligation to steal food for his family? Why or why not? Does stealing the money have anything to do with being a good father? Why or why not?

College Student Development Theory If the rich man was storing the food for his own family, should Mustaq steal the food? Why or why not? [this probe will work best if the interviewee says Mustaq should steal the food in the first place]

28

Moral Dilemma #2: Molly Dayton has been a news reporter for the Gazette newspaper for over a decade. Almost by accident, she learned that one of the candidates for Lieutenant Governor for her state, Grover Thompson, had been arrested for shoplifting twenty years earlier. Molly found out that early in his life, Candidate Thompson had undergone a confused period and done things he later regretted, actions which would be very out-of-character now. His shoplifting had been a minor offense and changes had been dropped by the department store. Thompson has not only straightened himself out since then, but built a distinguished record in helping many people and in leading constructive community projects. Now, Molly regards Thompson as the best candidate in the field and likely to go onto important leadership positions in the state. Molly wonders whether or not she should write the story about Thompsons earlier troubles because in the upcoming close and heated election, she fears that such a news story could wreck Thompsons chance to win. Should Molly report on Thompsons past troubles? Why or why not? Does Molly have a duty or obligation to report it? Why or why not? If Molly did not favor Thompson as the best candidate, should she report on his past troubles? Why or why not?

College Student Development Theory Moral Dilemma #3: A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the

29

drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? Why or why not? Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? Why or why not? If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Does it make a difference in what Heinz should do whether or not he loves his wife? Why or why not? Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for the stranger? Why or why not?

College Student Development Theory APPENDIX C INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION

30

Lindsay: So like I said before, I have some scenarios Id like your opinion on. Alright, so first scenario. There have been frequent reports about the relationship between chemicals that are added to foods and the safety of these foods. Some experts say that such chemicals can cause cancer, making these foods unsafe to eat. Other experts, however, say that chemical additives are not harmful, and actually make the foods containing them more safe to eat. What do you think? Interviewee Jessie: um, well I dont know too much about, ya know, chemicals and things, but to me it sounds like artificially adding things to food, it cant really be healthy. I dont, I guess I have to hear what those scientists think to really understand, but to me I feel like natural, organic things would be healthier than adding different chemicals. L: how is it do you think that experts could disagree on an issue like this? J: um, I think part of it could be, ya know, people werent adding things to their food years and years ago so they dont have the long term knowledge to show that these chemicals are definitely causing cancer. Its just people drawing that conclusion, but I dont think theres enough data to definitively say that these chemicals are causing cancer. L: So how do you go about evaluating expertise? Would it be that youre looking towards use of data or? J: I think for me, Id have to look at different data myself if it was something I really felt strong about myself instead of listening to one side and then just deciding that theyre right. Cause Im sure that they both have good evidence for their sides, but for me I think Id have to just look at it myself and decide instead of listening to everyone else. L: Okay, so then, do you think that one opinion could be more valid than another? J: I think it depends on who its coming from. Like, if theyre both groups of scientists then I dont know if one group would necessarily be more valid, but I guess it depends on where theyre getting their information from and how theyre drawing their conclusions. L: Makes sense. Okay. Scenario number two. Most historians claim that the pyramids were built as tombs for kings by the ancient Egyptians, using human labor, and aided by ropes, pulleys, and rollers. Others have suggested that the Egyptians could not have built such huge structures by themselves, for they had neither the mathematical knowledge, the necessary tools, nor an adequate source of power. What do think about that? J: I think that, I mean, it seems like they did build them because theyre there. I mean its not like they were just built in the modern times but it seems difficult to comprehend that they could do that without all the technology and everything we have today, but I dont know, I think that it happened.

College Student Development Theory

31

L: so what kind of information did you use to come up with that opinion? Where did you pull it from? J: For me its just knowing that I mean, the pyramids are there. They were built and they werent built recently, so they didnt have the technology and the tools that we have, so I think its just background knowledge and ya know what I learned in school about the time period. L: so in this case since it is two historians going against each other, do you think one opinion can be more valid than another in this case? J: I dont think its necessarily one opinions more valid. I think its just a difference of opinion. Ya know, one historian just looking at it and saying thats not possible and the another one saying it happened even if you dont think its possible. L: Great. Thank you. Some people believe that news stories represent unbiased, objective reporting of news events. Others say that there is no such thing as unbiased, objective reporting, and that even in reporting the facts, the news reporters project their own interpretations into what they write. Any opinions on this? J: I think its really hard to do it completely objectively because even if youre just saying the facts of what happened, even like the expressions on their faces or the inflections in their voice, its going to give something away to how theyre feeling about it. L: so they could pull something from their background into it? J: yeah. L: have you had experiences looking at news reports and thinking theyre unbiased or totally biased? J: well the only thing that really stands out is when people are reporting on politics. I think its really hard to report on something thats going on in the political spectrum and not have some way of showing that, ya know, if you agree with it or disagree with it. L: makes sense. And were surrounded by it all the time in the U.S. You really cant escape that. Okay, so the other two scenarios were experts and historians, but these are just like people, and we hear this argument all the timethat one side is saying that of course news is unbiased and the other saying news is biased. So in this case, people arguing with those differing opinions, could one be more correct than another? J: I dont think thats something that can be more or less correct. I think thats just totally a matter of opinion. Ya know, cause its not something you could look at and say this person is being biased. I mean, sometimes you can, sometimes its obvious, but I dont think its something you can really say for sure.

College Student Development Theory

32

L: like sometimes its hidden underneath and its hard to see? Let me just make sure this is still recording. Okay, great. Were going to move on. These are a little bit longer, so just let me know if you want to read it. I process information like that; Im more of a reader. Alright. The small village in northern India has experienced shortages of food before, but this years famine is worse than ever. Some families are even trying to feed themselves by making soup from tree bark. Mustaq Singhs family is near starvation. He has heard that a rich man in his village has supplies of food stored away and is hoarding food while its price goes higher so that he can sell the food later at a huge profit. Mustaq is desperate and thinks about stealing some food from the rich mans warehouse. The small amount of food that he needs for his family probably wouldnt even be missed. Should he steal the food? J: I mean, its not ethical to take the food, but in a situation like that, I mean, you need to do what you need to do to take care of your family. And I dont think that he necessarily should steal food, but if he doesnt have any other options, he shouldnt let his family starve either. And he knows this guy has a whole bunch of food and hes not gonna use it for good purposes then I mean he doesnt have any other option. L: so do you think he has an obligation to steal the food for his family? J: I dont think he has an obligation to steal the food, I just think its not like a horrible thing if he were to do it. I think he has an obligation to find food somehow to take care of his family and if he can do that in another way without stealing, that would obviously be better, but if he cant then stealing food wouldnt be the worst thing. L: do you think stealing the food has anything to do with being a good father? J: I dont think its necessarily a good father/bad father. I think to be a good father would just be finding a way to take care of his family and make sure his kids arent hungry all the time. L: that makes sense. And now, if Mustaq couldnt find food anywhere else and he was determined to steal the food, if the rich man was storing food for his own family instead of to make a profit, should Mustaq steal the food? J: if the rich man is going to use the food to take care of his family then I dont think that he should steal it. But I think that if the rich man has a whole bunch of food he should be sharing it, but if hes not going to do that I mean, I dont, if hes keeping it for good purposes I dont think the food should be stolen. L: alright this is a long one, sorry. Molly Dayton has been a news reporter for the Gazette newspaper for over a decade. Almost by accident, she learned that one of the candidates for Lieutenant Governor for her state, Grover Thompson, had been arrested for shoplifting twenty years earlier. Molly found out that early in his life, Candidate Thompson had undergone a confused period and done things he later regretted, actions which would be very out-of-character now. His shoplifting had been a minor offense and changes had been dropped by the department store. Thompson has not only straightened himself out since then, but built a distinguished record in helping many people and in leading constructive community projects. Now, Molly regards

College Student Development Theory

33

Thompson as the best candidate in the field and likely to go onto important leadership positions in the state. Molly wonders whether or not she should write the story about Thompsons earlier troubles because in the upcoming close and heated election, she fears that such a news story could wreck Thompsons chance to win. What should Molly do? J: thats a tough one because I think that she has an obligation to let the people know everything, all the information she has. She shouldnt be holding things back because that could be seen as, ya know, being biased and trying to protect him. But at the same time, I dont think that it should wreck his chances because it was a minor offense. So I think the best thing to do would just be not make a big deal about it, but just, ya know, put it out there somewhere so that people do know that he did have those problems, but also emphasize everything hes done since then and that its not defining who he is now. L: so in a way she has an obligation to report on this story? J: I think so. I think if she has that information then, something like that, she needs to be sharing it and not holding things back that she knows. L: now what do you think if Molly didnt favor Thompson as the best candidate, should she still report on the issue or should she not? Do you think it makes a difference? J: I dont think it really matters. I think as a journalist or reporter she should be able to be unbiased and just say what she knows and just give people the facts. L: So I think this is a tough one as well. A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Do you think Heinz should break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? J: I dont think that he should. Its kind of like the first one where he needs to do whatever he can to help his wife stay alive, but in a situation like that I think stealing drugs is a little bit more serious and I dont really think that he should steal the drug. But I think, I dont, I mean its hard because I think that his wife needs it and he wants to help her but I dont think that he should break in and steal the drugs. L: so would you say that he shouldnt steal the drug because its wrong to do so even if it meant that his wife would die?

College Student Development Theory

34

J: if its something like its a sure cure and she will live and recover fully if she has the drug, then it might be a different situation, but if its just like a risk and he doesnt even know whats gonna happen, then I dont think he needs to go that far. L: if it was a sure cure and the only way to save his wife, what do you think? J: if that was the situation, I mean if thats the only way that she gonna live then I could see stealing the drug if he had no other way, but I would still, I think he should still pay as much as he can. L: now, what would you say if it wasnt his wife, but it was just a friend? J: um, if its someone that he cares about and loves, I dont think it makes a difference if its his wife or, ya know, a friend. L: what if it was a stranger? Should he steal the drug for a stranger? J: if its something that he feels strongly about and he wants to help this person, then sure. L: okay, yeah thats fine. Would it make a difference if Heinz didnt love his wife? J: I dont think it really makes a difference because its like the stranger, he probably doesnt love the stranger, he probably just feels an obligation to help the person get better. So even if he didnt love his wife, then he still doesnt want to see her die. L: makes sense. Well, thats all I have for you today. But that was great. Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it!

College Student Development Theory APPENDIX D ORIGINAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL on next page

35