Running head: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM

Student Development Theory Final Exam

Jason Hayward

Northern Illinois University

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
1
Part 1:

In Queering Constructs: Proposing a Dynamic Gender and Sexuality Model, (2015)

T.J. Jourian proposed a new model for understanding the fluidity of gender, sex, and sexuality.

Jourian (2015) developed this model as a reaction against Levs four components of sexual

identity, arguing, Although Lev (2004) employed a postmodern frame to allow for individual

fluidity of identities across the four categories of sex, gender, gender role, and sexual orientation,

her model does not challenge the fixedness of those constructs and thus does not fully utilize the

frames capacity (p. 459). In other words, Jourian believes that Levs model, despite its

strengths, failed to accurately depict a postmodern and poststructural critique of the binary

sex/gender model because its four spectrums are defined and limited by the following binaries:

male & female, man & woman, masculine & feminine, and heterosexual & homosexual.

Consequently, Jourian (2015) presented a more dynamic model to better reflect postmodern and

poststructural conceptions of gender and sexuality.

Influenced by Levs four components of sexual identity, Jourians (2015) model

incorporates many of Levs assumptions and ideas about gender and sexuality. The four

categories Jourians (2015) model examines are as follows: Assigned Sex, Gender Identity,

Gender Expression, and Sexual Orientation. Jourians (2015) plane for Assigned Sex reflects

three categories: male, female, and intersex. Jourian (2015) defines sex as a medically assigned

identity based on physiological makeup and is what is usually placed on birth certificates and

other identifying documentation (p. 466).

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
2
Jourians (2015) second plane for Gender Identity is defined as a persons self-conception of

ones own gender and how ones mind and emotion regard ones body (p. 466). Jourians (2015)

third plane for Gender Expression is defined as similar to gender identity in that both rely less

on physiology as descriptors than on other elements (p. 467). However, as Jourian (2015)

explained, [...] whereas gender identity involves an internal process, gender expression is more

visible and audible. Expression may be influenced by society, as pressures to conform ensure that

expression aligns with sex assigned at birth, identity, and heterosexual orientation (p. 467). The

fourth plane for Sexual Orientation describes ones identity as it relates to emotional,

romantic, sexual, affectional, cultural, or relational attractions to other people, if any (Jourian,

2015, p. 467).

Additionally, instead of presenting its categories along a linear continuum, as in Levs

model, Jourians model assumes each of the four categories exists along a broad plane, and the

planes can shift closer or farther from each other, depending on the individuals perception of

congruence between the different identity aspects (p. 465). In other words, if ones Assigned

Sex and Gender Identity are congruous with each other, those two planes would shift closer to

each other. Jourians (2015) use of planes in this model illustrates that ones identity for gender

and sexuality development can fluctuate over time as new language evolves, as culture and

society change, or in any situation where people find themselves in contexts with different

meanings to these terms (p. 465). In other words, Jourians model is highly flexible and

adaptable for the purpose of being inclusive toward all genders and sexualities.
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
3
One salient takaway from Jourians theory is that gender and sexuality can be in flux as

new language evolves, as culture and society change, or in any situation where people find

themselves in contexts with different meanings to these terms (p. 465). In other words,

Jourians model is dynamic, which is to say it can be in motion, to account for the fact that

genders, sexualities, and gender expression can fluctuate depending on the situation. This is an

important takeaway from Jourians theory because this is the key component that allows this

theory to be highly inclusive and flexible for all genders and sexualities. That Jourians model

can be in motion allows it to more accurately reflect assigned gender, gender identity, gender

expression, and sexual orientation.

Another salient takaway from Jourians theory is that not everyone fits into a binary

conception of gender and sexuality. This is an important takaway because one of the main

reasons Jourian created this model is because Levs model, while attempting to disrupt gender

and sexuality binaries, still frames its continua within the following binaries: Male & Female,

Man & Woman, Masculine & Feminine, and Heterosexual & Homosexual (Jourian, 2015). One

major problem with this is that by framing the concepts of Sex, Gender, Gender Role, and Sexual

Orientation in this manner, it suggests that the binary ends of the spectrums are most natural

and marginalizes those who do not identify with these binary representations.

A third salient take away from Jourians theory is that, as student affairs professionals, we

need to be mindful of gender regulation and ensure we are being inclusive toward all gender and

sexual identities, particularly when it comes to things like identity documents, sex-segregated

facilities, health care access, etc. It is important to be mindful of this because one of the major
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
4
goals of higher education is to create a positive, inclusive learning environment that helps

students develop of a sense of belonging on campus. Identity documents are often among the

first interactions a student has with a university they are interested in attending, and it is

important that universities attempt to cultivate a sense of belonging in these first interactions, as

well as in all of the interactions that follow, to ensure optimal success for its students.

Universities are doing a disservice to their students if students feel marginalized or

underrepresented by identity documents, sex-segregated facilities, and health care access

policies. When it becomes clear that certain policies and procedures are alienating members of

our student body, we need to ensure that we address these issues and create new policies and

procedures to meet the needs of all students.

Jourians theory improves on previous student development theories because Jourians

dynamic model is inclusive for all genders and sexualities. By using planes instead of linear

continuums, Jourian de-essentializes sex, genders, and sexualities, thus, creating a more inclusive

model than Levs four components of sexual identity. In other words, this model disrupts the

gender binary and accommodates for people who exist outside of the gender binary, such as

genderqueer, trans, and queer people. Additionally, the fluidity of this model improves on

previous student development theories because it allows for bigender or genderqueer people to

embody any of those identities in infinite forms of expression, rather than in only one of two

ways (Jourian, 2015, p. 464).

Finally, I personally do not have any major critiques regarding Jourians theory. Jourian

does an excellent job of providing a model that is inclusive for all genders and sexualities. If I
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
5
were to make one small complaint, it would be that this model is more difficult to teach to

student affairs professionals or to whoever may use it because of the fact that it is much more

dynamic and complex than Levs model, so it will likely take more time for people to

comprehend. However, the reason this theory is good is because it is dynamic and complex

enough to more accurately reflect all genders and sexualities, and training sessions using

Jourians model would likely inspire meaningful conversations about gender and sexuality, and it

would likely be a positive learning experience for those involved.

Part 2:

In most student development theories, it is often implied that being more developed is

better. However, this is not always the case for the following reasons: (1) Some criticisms against

particular theories raise questions of legitimacy, and if a theory is illegitimate, then it cannot be

better to be more developed according to that model when the model itself is flawed; (2) The

journey of development can be more important than the destination; and (3) if a theory is not

linear, one can continuously cycle through the same stages, which means development is always

in flux, and it is difficult to measure overall development and compare it to another persons

overall development.

Occasionally, criticisms against a theory will raise questions of legitimacy that discredit

major components of that particular theory. For example, when looking at Kohlbergs Theory of

Moral Development and its major criticisms, the notion that being more developed is better

is problematized because the model itself is flawed, in which case it is not necessarily better to
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
6
achieve the advanced stages in Kohlbergs theory because the most advanced stage in

Kohlbergs theory has not empirically been proven to exist (Evans, et al., 2010).

Lawrence Kohlberg, along with James Rest and Carol Gilligan, is one of the leading

theorists on moral development (Evans, et al., 2010). Kohlbergs theory is cognitive-

developmental in nature, and the empirical tie between moral and cognitive development is

strong; thus, a more advanced intellect is likely to reveal more developed moral reasoning

(Evans, et al., 2010, p. 101). Kohlbergs theory consists of six stages: (1) Heteronomous

Morality; (2) Individualistic, Instrumental Morality; (3) Interpersonally Normative Morality; (4)

Social System Morality; (5) Human Rights and Social Welfare Morality; and (6) Morality of

Universalizable, Reversible, and Prescriptive General Ethical Principles (Evans, et al., 2010).

The main criticism against Kohlbergs theory is Kohlbergs sixth, and final, stage:

Morality of Universalizable, Reversible, and Prescriptive General Ethical Principles. Evans, et al.

(2010) explained that, in this stage, [...] morality involves equal consideration of the points of

view of all involved in a moral situation. Decisions are based on universal generalizable

principles that apply in all situations, for example, the equality of human rights. The process by

which a contract is made is viewed as equally important to the fairness of the procedures

underlying the agreement (p. 104-105). The criticism against this stage is that Kohlberg was

unsuccessful in empirically demonstrating the existence of stage 6 in his longitudinal studies

(Evans, et al., 2010, p. 105). If the final and most developed stage of Kohlbergs theory has not

been proven to exist, then it cannot be said that it is better when an individual achieves this

stage because the stage itself may not exist.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
7
Another reason that being more developed is not necessarily better (i.e. more

meaningful) is because the journey (i.e. process) of development is often more important than the

destination (i.e. outcome) of development. For example, when looking at James W. Fowlers

theory on Faith Development, it is clear that the process of advancing through Fowlers stages is

better than achieving the final stage because it is during the process of advancing through

Fowlers stages that one is learning the most.

James W. Fowler is one of the most influential scholars on Faith Development theory.

According to Student Development in College by Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn

(2010), Fowler developed his theory for spiritual development based on interviews with 359

individuals, ranging from three and a half to eightyfour years of age, obtained between 1972

and 1981 in the areas of Boston, Toronto, and Atlanta (p. 197). His theory consists of six stages.

Evans, et al. explained that, Movement through these stages is more like a spiral than a step-by-

step advancement (p. 197). Additionally, the authors state, Each proceeding stage in his model

is a more complex and comprehensive way of understanding ones religious tradition (p. 197).

The first stage in Fowlers theory is Prestage 1: Primal faith. This stage begins in ones

first years with primary caretakers. According to Evans, et al., (2010) A prelignuistic

manifestation of faith arises in this stage, and these relationships form the basis of ones first

images of God (p. 198). Fowlers second stage is Stage 2: Mythic-literal faith. Evans, et al.

(2010) note that this stage begins during the early elementary school years in which children

develop the ability to see perspectives other than their own and are able to follow, make sense

of, and remember stories told to them by their family and significant others (p. 198).
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
8
Additionally, Evans, et al. (2010) explained that children accept these narratives literally and

they form the basis of the persons beliefs (p. 198).

When analyzing the progress made between the first two stages in Fowlers theory on

Faith Development, it is clear that progress is being made, and the individual is learning. This

process of development signifies growth, and if we define better as more meaningful, then

being less developed in Fowlers theory is better because it means the individual is growing

and learning. If an individual is fully developed according to Fowlers theory or similar theories,

the individual is now stagnant, which is less desirable than existing in a state of growth and

learning.

A third reason that being more developed is not necessarily better is that when a theory

is nonlinear, one can continuously cycle through the same stages. When this occurs, it is difficult

to measure how developed one is overall when compared to other individuals. For example,

Arthur Chickerings theory of identity development outlines seven vectors that contribute to

identity formation. According to Student Development in College by Evans, Forney, Guido,

Patton, and Renn (2010), each vector of development has direction and magnitude, but the

progression of these vectors is nonlinear (p. 66). Students progress through the seven vectors at

different rates and may deal with issues from multiple vectors simultaneously. Evans et al.

(2010) explains the process Chickering refers to as recycling, in which students often

reexamine issues they had previously resolved (p. 66). Chickerings theory considers emotional,

interpersonal, ethical, and intellectual aspects of development (p. 67).

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
9
While Chickerings vectors arguably do build on each other, leading to greater

complexity, stability, and integration, how can one accurately measure an individuals level of

development, particularly in instances in which the individual recycles through issues they had

previously resolved (Evans, et al., 2010, p. 66)? The nonlinear, spiraling nature of Chickerings

theory creates a level of indeterminacy in which one cannot accurately compare levels of

development between different individuals. Therefore, one cannot argue that being more

developed according to Chickerings model is better because the nonlinear nature of this

model prevents comparisons between individuals because each individuals development in this

model will be unique, which problematizes the notion of more developed altogether. In this

theory, it could be said that all individuals are in development, rather than more or less

developed. Consequently, if the notion of measuring development is problematized in this theory,

then it cannot be said that being more developed is better because development is relative and

indeterminant.

Finally, it is important to remember that there is no single theory that can accurately

describe student development in its entirety, and that we never stop developing, as opposed to

what some theories may seem to suggest. It is important to embrace that our development is

constantly in flux, and that it is best to exist in this state flux because it means we are still

growing and learning.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY FINAL EXAM
10

References

Evans N. J., Forney D. S., Guido F. M., Patton L D., & Renn K.A. (2010). Student Development

in College: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.