Running head: FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

Formal Self-Analysis
Tyler Sanders
Western Michigan University

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

2
Formal Self-Analysis

Throughout life, each individual goes through numerous developmental experiences.

From learning that touching a stove will burn you to understanding what love is, each human
goes through a bevy of developments. While development is an ongoing process, there are many
forms of it that occur during the four or more years that students attend college as described in
Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton &
Renn, 2010). Several sources, including Pascarella and Terenzina (2005), have studied students
at this age and see students start to explore their identity, improve critical thinking skills, and
create a tolerance for others of diverse backgrounds. This formal self-analysis takes a look at my
personal development during my undergraduate experience. Taking my observations from an
informal analysis, there is a direct relation to the following five theories.
Fowlers Theory of Faith Development
Arriving at Ball State University in the fall of 2009, I had never truly experienced faith or
spirituality in any other way than that of my familys beliefs. Growing up in Nappanee, Indiana
the majority religion was protestant Christian and this was the only religion that I knew. Even
though I had recognized that there were other religions, I had never thought about it in a critical
way. To relate this to theory, it is important to look at Fowlers stages of faith. At this time I was
in stage three which is marked by finding faith to be meaningful (Evans et al., 2010, p. 198).
Analyzing that time in my life, I remember using religion as a way to network and also to find
validation among my family and friends. This was the point that I was in during my high school
years.
Upon getting to Muncie, I started to make friends who were not from Nappanee and also
would open my eyes to the way that I looked at religion. In my first month, I met and interacted
with my first catholic friend. He would introduce me to several of his friends from his youth

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

group and community. I started to recognize that I had very little knowledge of any other
religions. That spring, I would attend my first catholic mass not to change religions, but to
expand my knowledge. Another specific event during college challenged my beliefs during my
sophomore year. After placing paper pine tree door decorations on each of the residents doors, a
Jewish resident confronted me upset about my actions. I was not being open minded in my
views of religious affiliations and thus went on a spiritual journey.
Fowler (1996) made specific notes in his faith development theory to outline the phases
that are associated with transition between the stages. Fowler (1996) explained this fourth phase
of transition is a combination of the three phases prior including disengagement from ones life
meaning, loss of ones sense of self, and the parting from previous values (as cited in Evans et
al., 2010). This was the phase that I had entered and brought me into a neutral zone that allowed
me to fully explore the potential new paths (Evans et al., 2010, p. 199). As I started to discuss
religion with others and educate myself about religions I moved into this neutral zone as I
realized that what I had always believed to be true was only true to one population.
After much analysis of my faith and my beliefs, I realized that each religion had fairly
similar beliefs. By comparing the religions, I was able to come up able to come up with a view
that was more about the faith in a supreme being and less about the stories that drove the
religion. In relation to Fowlers theory I had moved into stage four which is noted by the selfauthored approach to ones system of belief (as cited in Evans et al., 2010). While it was not a
complicated process, I had moved to a place where I created my own definition of my beliefs.
Chickerings Theory of Identity Development
As discussed while looking at my development spiritually, my transition into college
created multiple opportunities for development. One of the standard theories for development is
that of Chickerings seven vectors. This section will look at each vector and examples of the

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

positive and negative movements that occurred on each of the vectors. Reisser (1993a) points
out something that will be referred to throughout this section in an explaining that movement
will be different among the vectors and movements can be directly related to each other.
There is no doubt in my mind that movement along each of the vectors has and continues
to occur for my personal development. Looking at Chickerings first vector is one of the clearest
to discuss. During my freshmen year, I realized that I had so much to learn. As with most first
year students, I noticed that I was not special and that everyone was just as, if not more talented
than I was. This would have been a negative movement in the first vector which focuses on the
idea of developing competency (Chickering & Reisser, 1993b). As I gained experience and a
voice through my involvements on campus, I started to gain skills that made me separate from
others. Self-confidence became competence to help me to work with others and to analyze
things on my own.
As I tried to come to terms with my inexperience and having to work for
acknowledgement of others I had to learn to handle my emotions. Transition between each year
brought another emotional challenge of trying to pave the way for a new year. Chickerings
(1993b) second vector, managing emotions, is simplified in saying, Their challenge is to get in
touch with the full range and variety of feelings and to learn to exercise self-regulation rather
than repression (p. 46). Similar to the first vector, I had had trouble with this during my
freshmen year, but as I developed in the first vector there would be a direct relationship with my
ability to regulate my emotions.
While each of the previous vectors have moved forward and backward throughout my
development, the third vector is one that has been immobile from my personal reflection of it.
The third vector describes the movement from autonomy to interdependence marked by

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

Chickering (1993b) as the ability to organize activities and solve problems in a self-directed
way (p. 47). During the fall of my junior year, I was the President of a student organization, a
resident assistant for a community of more than thirty residents, and held several other roles on
campus. While I cannot necessarily point to the exact time when I made the leap across the
vector it is clear to me that this move to interdependence had occurred. I was no longer relying
on the approval or pressures of others, but had finally come to a point when I was making the
decisions on my own.
The fourth vector is one that continues to be tested in the interactions that I have with
each new person that I meet. The developing mature interpersonal relationships vector is
explained as a tolerance and appreciation for difference (Chickering & Reisser, 1993b).
Looking at each of my friendships and relationships that I established during my undergraduate
career there is definitely two different sets of categories that each individual falls into. The first
is that of individuals who were simply in a relationship with me because of proximity.
Analyzing these relationships and the interactions they involved, prove that there was not a
mutual understanding between myself and the individual. The other group of individuals are
those that I am still friends with today. These were the individuals that I had conversations with
about our differences. With these individuals we were able to immerse ourselves into the
different experiences that we shared. This created an understanding that has directly related to
our relationship lasting no matter the distance between us.
Purpose and integrity are the next two vectors that seem to have a more complex
development than the previous vectors. During my undergraduate career I was focused on many
of the other vectors, but towards my senior year and now into my graduate school career these
are the two areas that have had slower progression as they have been directly related to making

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

sure I had a strong grasp in the other vectors. Coming to college I had no idea what I was going
to do with the rest of my life. As I gained experience and job shadowed individuals around Ball
States campus I started to find my purpose in life. Finally choosing my vocation in higher
education and student affairs helped me move forward on the purpose vector (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993b, p. 50). Developing integrity for me has been outlined in the development of all
the other vectors similar to that discussed by Reisser (1993b). As I left my hometown, I started
to personalize my values and this directly helped me to create behavior to develop integrity.
While development in these vectors were put on hold until I had developed in the other vectors.
Development of purpose and integrity continues to be challenged as I make my way through
graduate school.
The final vector is the one that will continue to discuss throughout this paper and that is
the establishment of identity. My identity is derived from many factors including each of the
vectors already mentioned (Chickering & Reisser, 1993b, p. 48). From my years in elementary
school to today I have developed a completely different identity. As a child I was reserved, shy,
and had very little confidence. Over the years I have developed in the vectors and also a bevy of
other areas in life. By experiencing failures and success I started to recognize things that made
me a unique individual and thus establishing my identity.
Chickerings vectors have been very prevalent in my development and continue to do so
today. Through each day and each experience I continue to range in my movements up and
down the vectors.
Perrys Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development
Education becomes the most important part of your life when you enter college. This
was definitely the case for me when I was given the opportunity to obtain an education. As I

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

started to interact with different people and demographics than I had ever done before I started to
see different opinions than we had in my hometown. Perrys theory of intellectual and ethical
development gives some insight into the way that my cognition was evolving with the transition
into college.
Firstly, it is important to understand where I was cognitively when I was in high school.
My mindset had moved to point where I recognized that not everyone in Nappanee was right and
that there were other opinions and answers out there. While the majority of the area agreed and
believed each others opinions, I started to notice that new networks and the nation were not
always in agreement. Using Perrys (1981) theory, I had started to move from the subordinate of
my hometown and moving to campus helped me to recognize that there were varied and
legitimate opinions. During my first couple years of undergrad I was in position four as I started
to recognize that there were multiple ways to view situations. As I was in the multiplicity
position, I had developed a mindset that Perry would suggest I believed all opinions could be
legitimate, but I was unable to come up with a criteria to decide who was right (Evans, Forney,
Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010).
As a hall council President, I had to step away from my personal perspective and analyze
multiple ideas at once. Similar the resident assistant position I would have later, I was put into
situations where I would have to look at everyones opinion are realize that my opinion did not
matter, but through analyzing the different results I could come up with the best answer. By
being able to be to take an outsiders perspective on simple situations, I started to development a
sense of higher examination of situations (Perry, 1981). These experiences of handling diversity
issues, roommate disagreements, and political debates would move me into relativism. I

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

recognized the importance of listening to all of the opinions and supporting the one that was
most sufficient in any situation.
In my current position as an assistant residence hall director, I have already started to see
myself moving towards a point where I am committing to relativism. While this is not
something that I am consciously making an effort to do, it is starting to happen daily. In my
position I advise a student organization and supervise a resident assistant staff and a desk staff.
With these responsibilities I have to delegate much of my work onto these individuals. I have to
trust in not only their opinions, but also their abilities to analyze others opinions. My
commitment to relativism comes from my trust and support in getting the students I work with to
move into a position of relativism. It is important to note that my actions as a practitioner is
focused on interpreting students actions to assist them in understanding why they think the way
they do (Evans et al., 2010).
Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development
The proof is clear that there were several areas of personal development during my young
adult life. While many of these forms were obvious, something that had not been clear to me
was the moral development that had occurred for me as I progressed. Working with students on
a daily basis has allowed me to analyze my personal moral development more clearly than I had
without that context. Entering college I had come in with the preconceived notions of what was
right and wrong based on the community, family, and friends.
As I look back at my first year in college I depended on my friends and parents in much
of my decision making. In the residence halls, I remember conversations with my friends about
what we thought we could get away with. When I thought about skipping classes, I would text
my mom and ask if she thought that it would be okay. My first year on a college campus I was

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

going through a big transition and I was in Kohlbergs stage three as I tried to meet the
expectations of those to whom I was close (Evans et al., 2010, p. 104). As freshmen we derived
that our morals on trying to be a good person and making sure that the group agreed.
Kohlbergs stages of moral reasoning is broken into three distinct levels and I had found
my place in level three conventional morals. In this level, Kohlberg describes development as an
individual only identify with the rules and expectations of other, especially authorities (Evans
et al., 2010, p. 103). Throughout the first few years of undergrad, I would say that I had fit into
this level. As I started to form my own identity and learn the ways of the real world I started to
move away from the concept of relying on others. Within the residence halls, I started to
recognize community living expectations and found that hall directors, resident assistants, and
other authority figures did not see us as students, but as a community. In the academic world, I
was able to recognize that we were a group of students and that professors tried to create an
environment where we were treated equally. This was the moment that I moved into stage four,
which Kohlberg described as the moment with right is defined as upholding the laws
established by society and carrying out the duties agreed on (Evans et al., 2010, p. 104). At this
point I had tried to fit into my place into society.
While staying in line had worked for me morally during my first year, I started to
question my morality as became involved in student organizations and then entered my role as a
resident assistant. Even in my position today as an assistant residence hall director I have found
more purpose to the rules that have been created. After establishing my own identity, I was able
to recognize some of the rights that everyone deserved. Today, I have moved into stage five
which was classified by Kohlberg (1976) being able to protect these rights were protected and
welfare was guaranteed (as cited in Evans et al., 2010). In my role I feel that it has become my

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

10

duty to advocate for students rights and morally it is no longer about me, but doing what is right
for all people.
Conclusion
Over the past twenty-three years, I have developed into the man that is Tyler Alan
Sanders. During my time in college I have developed using these five theories and several more.
Each day and year has brought new and more difficult challenges and with these opportunities to
grow more and more. It is amazing to look back through the years and see just how much I have
grown as an individual. As I continue to move through life it is important to recognize just how
much more I have to learn and develop. I may never be done with my development, but with the
help of many educated theorists, I can reflect on where I have been and will continue on into the
future.

FORMAL SELF-ANALYSIS

11
References

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser L. (1993a). A current theoretical context for student development,
Education and identity (2nd ed., pp. 1-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993b). The seven vectors: An overview. In A. W. Chickering
& L. Reisser, Education and identity (2nd ed., pp. 43-52). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
DAugelli, A. R.. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birdman
(Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp.312-333). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dilley, P. (2005). Which way out? A typology of non-heterosexual male collegiate identities.
The Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 56-88. Doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0004
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzina, P. (2005) How college affects students: A third decade of research.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering
& Associates (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of
diverse students and a changing society (1st ed., pp. 76-116). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.