Some Chickering and Reisser

Chickering and Reisser's theory of college student development is more or less unavoidable because 1) it has been around forever, 2) it has been revised and reconfigured as needed based on research and yet 3) the underlying principles have held up to many challenges.

The strength of the theory is probably its vagueness.  Instead of identifying hyperspecific stages, the authors instead classify development along seven lines or vectors of change.  The most basic they call "developing competence."  The vagueness works because that could refer to competence in pretty much any area of life.

One key area of contention is the notion that the vectors become more complex as students grow older.  While it is not a stage theory, it does imply developmental tasks.  C&R thought, at least as recently as 1993, that higher-ordered tasks like "Developing Purpose" couldn't really occur until later in one's college career.

Foubert (1995) published one of many tests of the theory.  He used a measuring instrument that was developed for the vectors theory called the Student Development Task and Lifestyle Inventory.  He applied it to a racially and gender-mixed group on a longitudinal basis- nice work, Foubert.

There were some unsurprising conclusions about gender differences, but the most interesting finding was that quite a few students showed growth along "Developing Purpose" between their first and second years of college.  The notion of it high-ordered tasks occuring only for upperclassmen seems debunked.

Of course, C&R based their theory on a lot of their own research.  Did students change between the late 80's, or was their research not sufficiently thorough?  The answer is probably: yes.  Ethnographic research can be very thorough but it can still be very limited.  Chickering's original theory was based on examining the academic narratives of graduating Goddard students in the 1960's.  Foubert surveyed students at a mid-sized public U in the Southeast.  Chickering's data was retrospective; Foubert's was longitudinal.  C&R knew exactly what they wanted to measure; Foubert relied on an instrument created by a third party altogether.  It is a peer-reviewed instrument, but does it measure what we want it to measure?

Our learning on human development is still so new.  We don't think of it that way, but it is much newer than the other sciences.  That means there are many great opportunities to learn more!

Sources:
Chickering, A. and Reisser, K. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Foubert, J. (2005). A longitudinal study of Chickering and Reisser's vectors: Exploring gender differences and implications for refining the theory. Journal of College Student Development. Sept/Oct 2005.

Living on Campus Matters . . . Probably

From NASPA we have a study relating students' openness to diversity (specifically multiethnic diversity) to living on campus.  The short of it: students who live on campus are more open to diversity than commuters.  This is probably because they are pretty much stuck with it (diversity) and it's normal behavior to develop close bonds with people we live and work with.  There is some theoretical base for this perspective.

There are a lot of issues with this one . . . commuters were underrepresented.  Women and minorities were overrepresented.  The researcher only received a sample size of 30% on his survey, and it is a single-method study.  DJM would say: acceptable, but weak.

Still, there is enough here to indicate that living on campus helps open one's mind to her peers, and the effort on the part of Residential Ed to promote relationship-building and openness is probably not a waste of time.  That's a relief!

Pike, G. (2009). The differential effects of on- and off-campus living arrangements on students' openness to diversity. NASPA Journal, 2009, Vol. 46, No. 4.

Note: I found this on the ERC database and the full text is available from there.

Binge Drinking in Hong Kong

I found this article noteworthy because it trends opposite from American universities: second-year students indicate significantly higher binge drinking than their first-year counterparts.  The authors cite several sources indicating that high-risk alcohol use is on the rise throughout Hong Kong, though  it is still well behind American usage.

I wonder what this says about some of the side effects of our open culture in the West?  I also wonder about the research methods that led to a conclusion that only 18-19% of youth in China drink alcohol.  Am I just assuming that can't be right because of my northeastern American frame of reference?

The study has a few issues . . . the sample size for second-year students is much smaller.  I don't know what the retention rates are for typical Asian universities; high attrition seems likely.  Still, the samples are pretty big compared to a lot of education research.

Kim, J., Chan, K., Chow, J., Fung, K., Fong, B., Cheuk, K., Griffiths, S. (2009). University binge drinking patterns and changes in patterns of alcohol consumption among Chinese undergraduates in a Hong Kong university. Journal of American College Health, Nov/Dec 2009, Vol. 58 Issue 3, p255-265.

Retrieved from the ERC database (which has full text available).