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.