SDT Final Exam

Student Development Theory Final Exam

Jency Thomas

Northern Illinois University

CAHA 522
 SDT Final Exam
2

PART I: Homeless College Students & Theory

Issues Homeless Students Face

Homeless college students are often a large population that is overlooked and

underserved. Field (2015) explored the depth of homeless college students struggles. According

Field (2015), nearly 60,000 unaccompanied homeless youth are receiving federal financial aid

as independent students nationwide. Homeless college students face many obstacles on their path

towards graduation. For many students this is their first time living on their own, after spending

years crammed into small spaces with family members. Living alone and navigating college life

can become a lonely process often leading to feelings of isolation. The hope of many homeless

students is to create a better life for themselves. They know education is the key to bring

themselves out of their current social status. As a result, trying to attain social mobility is another

challenge many homeless students face. Additionally homeless students must also tackle

financial issues related to college on their own. To receive financial aid, students must traverse a

lengthy process to attain independent status. Since many college administrators often overlook

this population, they do not receive adequate support during the financial aid process (Field,

2015). To better understand student development among homeless college students, there are a

number of applicable theories and concepts that can be related. Some theories and concepts

identified throughout the article pertaining to homeless students are, Baxter-Magoldas theory of

self-authorship, identity development, and privilege. The purpose of this paper is to connect

these theories and concepts to the development of homeless college students to better understand

and help their situation.

 SDT Final Exam
3

Self- Authorship

Baxter Magoldas theory of self-authorship comprises four phases. In the first phase,

young adults do what they think they should do based off external authority. Often it is framed in

a way that makes them believe it was their own idea. Young adults in this phase also allow others

to define who they are (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010). One of the participants in

Baxer-Magoldas study stated they made choices revolved around doing what one was supposed

to do to be successful (CITATION NEEDED). Similarly homeless college students have a

disadvantage coming from low-socioeconomic backgrounds compared to their peers. The

decision to attend college might be because they felt that was the next step in life, and would be

what they had to do in order to be successful. Students often try to allow others to define them

normal students, to help themselves feel like they are not different. During the second phase of

self-authorship, young adults often face external formulas leads to crisis, and in others the result

is a general sense of unhappiness and lack of fulfillment (Evans et al., 2010, p. 156). Although

many homeless students may choose to attend college based on external cues, they are faced with

many harsh realities once on campus. These crises vary from navigating financial aid, feelings of

loneliness, and not being able to share their homeless status. During this time, students might

also question if the choice of college is the right one while leaving family behind. They are at a

crossroads because they often feel guilt for not being with family, but know an education is what

will help them be successful (Field, 2015). In the third phase of self-authorship, young adults

know what they believe and are willing fight for their belief in the face of adversity. During this

time of self-evaluation, students might reevaluate their needs and desires as well as those of their

peers and family. For homeless college students, this stage could be related to fighting for correct

financial aid in order to help finance their education. These students strongly believe education is
 SDT Final Exam
4

the key to social mobility and are willing to endure the draining process of paperwork and

rejection to get the right aid. During this self-evaluation period students may feel guilt for

leaving family members behind, but ultimately are able to weight their own needs and desires as

they pursue education. To conclude Phase 4: Internal Foundation, allows young adults have a

strong sense of self, and their relation to others. They experience inner strength, and trust their

own feelings. Homeless college students who reach this level might be comfortable sharing their

status with their peers. They understand their own internal motivations to pursue higher

education in hopes to better themselves as a person (Evans et al., 2015). For example, Field

(2015) reflected on Banjo who is self-directed towards her goal of graduating to become a social

worker to help other youths who went through similar experiences to her. (Field, 2015) The

theory of self-authorship can be used to describe how a homeless college student navigates

throughout college as their internal voice guide them. Trusting the internal voice involved

participants realizing that while they could not always control events external to them, they did

have control over how they thought about and responded to events , which led to their becoming

more condiment of their internal voices (Evans, 2015). Likewise, homeless college students

come to and understanding that while they cannot control many external factors such as coming

from a low-socioeconomic background, they have the power to respond in a way that produces

positive change though higher education.

Identity Development

For many homeless college students their identity is one they feel they need to hide,

which might be a struggle students must face. Identity is commonly understood as ones

personally held beliefs about the self in relation to social groups (Torres, Jones, & Renn,

2009) Yet homeless college students remain a largely invisible population.Many hide
 SDT Final Exam
5

their homelessness from professors and peers out of shame or fear of being pitied (Field,

2015). Erick Erickson coined the term identity crisis, which places social, cultural, and

historical context at the core of an individuals identity (Tatum, 2013). Socially many

homeless students try to live normal lives, keeping their identity and history as a

homeless individual a secret. According to McEwen, identity can be constructed through

interactions with the broader social connect in which dominant values dictate norms and

expectations (Torres et al., 2009, p. ###). Since homeless college students keep their

identity a secret they may adapt the values and norms of the dominate group. College can

serve as a time to adapt new norms and integrate it with their history as homeless

students. To achieve a successful and secure future, students must explore who they are

outside of, or related to their socioeconomic status.

Social Mobility/ Privilege

Social mobility, the chance to change an individuals social class, is a salient factor for

why homeless college students attend college. Many believe the United States is

classless or entirely middle class, increasingly rich and everyone has the same chance to

succeed (Evans et al, 2004). Throughout Fields article students shared their experiences

hiding their identities, but for the most part they are an invisible population by both

peers and faculty. Banjo describes her life prior to college, which included bed bugs,

constantly moving and potentially failing the 11th grade. Because many homeless

students move frequently, they are often at an academic disadvantage to their peers. Each

time they switch schools, they have to adjust to new teacher, new peers, and often new

curricula (Field, 2015). The concept of privilege is applicable to homeless college

students because they do not have many of the same advantages as their peers due to their
 SDT Final Exam
6

socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result these students experience college differently

than their peers. They are often couch surfing, struggling with paperwork to get

financial aid and working part-time or full-time to provide for themselves. Although

homeless college students are at a disadvantage their experiences as low socio-economic

students can serve as motivation to succeed and move up in social class through

education.

Conclusion

As described, homeless college students face a number of issues that require the attention

and support of higher education professionals. Through proper support this population of

students could possible see higher retention and graduation rates. Based off the theories and

concepts above, higher education professionals should create more practices that easily identify

homeless college students. Although this is a sensitive identity, that some students may not want

to share with others, having a program to connect like students could be beneficial to eliminate

feelings of isolation. Providing students with a community of support, sharing similar goals can

help motivate them to continue striving for success. While their identity as homeless students

might be kept hidden, higher education professionals can work to help students develop a new

sense of identity or integrate their prior experiences with new ones. A number of students in the

article also expressed their frustration with the financial aid process and being granted

independent status. Since homeless college students do not have the same access and privileges

as their peers in many ways, simplifying this process can be done through the work of

professionals. Understanding students needs, listening and eliminating prior notions of what or

why qualifies as homeless can better support students. Through practices of understanding,
 SDT Final Exam
7

concepts of self-authorship, identity development, and privilege can help guide future programs

to help support homeless college students.

 SDT Final Exam
8

PART II

Is More Developed Better?

Introduction

When considering if it is better for an individual to be more developed or less developed,

there are a number of different factors to take into consideration. Since there are no concreate

markers to assess someone who is fully developed, developed would be different for every

person. Similarly, the development process would be different for each person. Additionally,

someone could be developed in one area or aspect of their life, but still lack development in

another area. Defining developed, seems near impossible, therefore this paper will explore the

individual perception of being developed. Through the theories we have covered in class this

semester, I believe it is better for a student to perceive themselves as less developed. If an

individual starts at the bottom, there is always room for growth. Likewise, if a student comes into

college perceiving themselves as developed, they might opt out of opportunities and experiences

that would benefit them in the development process.

Many of the theories we have discussed in class are non-linear and can happen at any

time. In the case of Chickering and Reissers theory vectors (stages) can also be recycled. This

makes reaching fully developed an impossible achievement. Since many theories suggest

experiences and events influencing growth, there cant be a set time or period in life to be fully

developed. Erickson also believed development occurred throughout a persons lifetime. A

student in college can make the most of their college experience by pursuing personal growth.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how perceiving oneself as a less developed college

student is better, based on theories we have discussed and learned about throughout the semester.
 SDT Final Exam
9

Chickering & Reissers Theory of Identity Development

To begin, college is a pivotal time in an individuals life as emotional, interpersonal,

ethical and intellectual aspects of their lives are developing. Chickering and Reissers

theory includes vectors of development that are non-linear and can be recycled based on

issues students deal with at the time. The first vector, Developing Competence, is a

three in one. It includes intellectual competence, physical and manual skills and

interpersonal competence (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010). Since

intellectual competence means actively pursuing knowledge and skills, by default all

college students can be placed in this category. If college students were not pursuing

knowledge and skills- they would not have a purpose for being in college. Since these

vectors are recyclable, the quest for knowledge does not end when college does, therefore

this development is lifelong. In the next vector, Managing Emotion, if a student

perceived themselves to be fully developed in this aspect, they may never learn to work

with others in an effective manner. They may think they know what someone else is

feeling, but do not stop to take time to fully comprehend or understand others feelings,

and possibly their own feelings. In the Moving through Autonomy Toward

Interdependence vector, students are trying to find their own independence while

maintaining interdependence with others. In my experiences, this was simple to see as I

observed my older peers during my freshmen year of college. In the residence halls, I had

some floor mates who were over the age of 21. The often felt the need to remind the

freshmen of their age and asserted their independence. They were less likely to go home

on the weekends, had their own means of transportation and often worked part-time to

support themselves. At the time they seemed like independent students. However, they
 SDT Final Exam
10

did not know how to do basic tasks such as laundry, since their parents had always done it

for them. Although they wanted to be independent, they had to rely on myself and other

floormates to teach them how to do laundry. My floormates were students who perceived

themselves to be fully independent. As a result, they struggled allowing others to help

them do a basic task. Perceiving oneself as less developed leaves room to ask for help

when needed. Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships , requires individuals to

accept who they are, respect difference and to appreciate commonalities. A student who

perceives themselves to be fully developed in this vector, might not feel the need to learn

about other diverse groups. College is a time to meet others from all over the world, who

share similar and different experiences. For example a student who perceives themselves

to be cultural aware, might not attend diversity workshops. These workshops could have

allowed them to learn more about working with others and building mature relationships

successfully. In the vectors Establishing Identity and Developing Purpose students

are on the path to self-acceptance, making commitments to goals. In these vectors it may

be suitable for a student to perceive themselves as developed since it can serve as self-

confidence. Finally, in the Developing Integrity students are creating personal value

systems. A student who perceives themselves to be concreate in their beliefs and views

might not be open to hearing and understanding others. Through Chickering and

Reissers seven vectors, I believe it is more beneficial for a student to be less developed

so they can grow and explore the vector. Many adolescents may perceive themselves to

be masters at an area of development and neglect opportunities to grow or build on

knowledge.

Ericksons Identity Development Theory

 SDT Final Exam
11

Erickons Theory of Identity Development spans though a persons entire life. He

viewed development as being based on the influence of the external environment as well as

internal dynamics (Evans, 2014). Since development happens throughout a persons lifetime, a

student in college could perceive themselves as being developed but according to this theory

there is always more. As a new student on campus, they are most likely at stage five or

Ericksons theory: Identity Versus Identity Diffusion (Confusion). The struggle of college, the

new relationships and experiences a student will have, will only change and develop their

identities further. Identity is ever changing from birth to death, but as each crisis is successfully

resolved, commitment to an established identity becomes stronger (Davis, 2014). Someone who

perceives themselves as less developed allows space for this growth to happen.

Conclusion

A student who perceives themselves as less developed leaves room for growth. When

defining student development, Stanford defined development as the organization of increasing

complexity Stanford saw development as a positive growth process in which the individual

becomes increasingly able to integrate and act and on many different experiences and influences

(Davis et al., 2014). Stanford goes onto elaborate on the differences between change and growth.

Change is referred to as only an altered condition that may be positive or negative, progressive

or regressive. Growth refers to expansion but may be either favorable or unfavorable to overall

functioning (Davis et al., 2014). By students seeing themselves as less developed they are

seeing the potential to expand on pervious knowledge and experiences. Overall, at the end of a

students time at college my hope would be they feel like they have developed and grown during

their time. Even after leaving college, there is room to grow and continue to develop as high

function members of society as Erickson might suggest. The quest for knowledge and growth is
 SDT Final Exam
12

never ending. A student should place themselves in a place that will allow them optimal growth

and development.
 SDT Final Exam
13

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 (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Field,K.(2015).Howtohelpthestudentswithnohomes?.TheChronicalofHigher

Education.

Accessedat:http://chronicale.come/article/Howtohelpthestudentswith/232549

Tatum.B.D.(2013).Thecomplexityofidentity:WhoamI?InM.Adams,W.J.Blumenfeld,

C.Castaeda,H.W.Hackman,M.L.Peters,&X.Ziga(Eds.),Readingsfordiversity

andsocialjustice(3rded.)(pp.69).NewYork:Routledge.

Torres,V.,Jones,S.R.,&Renn,K.A.(2009).Identitydevelopmenttheoriesinstudentaffairs:

Origins,currentstatus,andnewapproaches.JournalofCollegeStudentDevelopment,

50(6),577596.

Walpole,M.(2003).Socioeconomicstatusandcollege:HowSESaffectscollegeexperiences

andoutcomes.TheReviewofHigherEducation,27(1),4573.