Model of Student Development by Chickering Theory

Robert O. Rajagukguk

, Candra Sinuraya

, Jane Savitri

, Kristin Rahmani

and

Stephanie Andamari

Faculty of Psychology, Maranatha Christian University, Jalan Suria Sumantri 65, Bandung, Indonesia

Faculty of Business, Maranatha Christian University, Jalan Suria Sumantri 65, Bandung, Indonesia

kristin.rahmani@psy.maranatha.edu, andamari.stephanie@gmail.com

Keywords: Seven Vectors, Student Development, Chickering, Higher Education.

Abstract: Studying in college is a period of transition towards a higher level of maturity for students. Therefore, a

structured and measured pattern of student development is very important to be designed and implemented in

campus life. This study aims to describe freshmen’ self-development in one of the tertiary institutions in

Bandung based on The Seven Vectors of Student Identity Development according to Chickering (1993). This

study examined whether the theoretical model expressed in previous studies, between areas of competence,

managing emotions, interdependence, and mature interpersonal relationships, contributes to area of identity

development, which in turn could increase purpose and integrity. There were 4,857 freshmen of class 2017,

2018, 2019, and 2020 who filled out the student development questionnaire. Descriptive, comparison,

correlation, and path analysis analyses were used. Results show the level of student self-development in all

areas of development is at a moderate level, hence needs to be developed more. The model fit evaluation

showed that the theoretical model regarding the effect of vectors in the Student Development construct on

freshmen at "X" Bandung University was suitable (RMSEA = 0.080; TLI = 0.990; NFI = 0.995). Suggestions

for universities to provide more focused and effective student self-development programs.

1 INTRODUCTION

Higher education is a higher level of formal education

as a continuation of primary and secondary education.

Each level of education has a different focus and

purpose. Each of these goals must be adapted to an

individual's stage of development (Gardner, 1990).

Most college students are in transition from the

developmental stage of late adolescence to early

adulthood stage of development. The main

developmental task of an adolescent is to affirm one's

identity (Kerpelman et al, 1997; Nakula, 2006). At

this stage of development, a teenager is engrossed in

exploring his life, and learning to make a commitment

to the choices in his life.

The process of affirming this identity or identity

is a very important process, because an individual's

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6967-4570

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7010-7717

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8111-3167

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1537-2205

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1047-5125

identity will influence the individual's behavior

throughout his life (Marcia, 1980). For students, this

self-development process includes the whole self

which does not only require internal efforts but also

requires support and guidance from the environment.

One of the main roles of universities is to provide an

environment for students to develop themselves

holistically.

Unlike the previous education levels at the

primary and secondary levels, the situation at higher

education institutions is different. While at the

previous level of education, individuals received

education in a relatively focused atmosphere and had

limited choices for their activities, in college students

had more flexibility in choosing activities that

supported their self-development. Unlike the

elementary and middle school levels, studying in

Rajagukguk, R., Sinuraya, C., Savitri, J., Rahmani, K. and Andamari, S.

Model of Student Development by Chickering Theory.

DOI: 10.5220/0010749800003112

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences (ICE-HUMS 2021), pages 177-182

ISBN: 978-989-758-604-0

177

college requires a more complex mindset, variety of

relationship pattern, and different life orientation.

Student self-development is crucial because after

graduating from college, individuals will enter the

workplace. In the workplace, individuals will face

more demands with less room for mistakes.

Therefore, a good university is one that is able to

equip its graduates to face the marketplace after

students graduate from college. Therefore, students

need to be equipped with technical skills (hard skills)

and non-technical skills (soft skills). In fact,

universities must equip students with holistic self-

development

In reality, universities often only focus on the area

of intellectual development and pay less attention to

the development other aspects, such as emotional,

social, and spiritual aspects. Chickering & Reisser

(1993) states that universities should have a role in

developing student competencies apart from students'

intellectual competences, so that the graduates

produced will be graduates who have balanced

competencies and are able to contribute to society.

This symptom becomes interesting when viewed

from the theoretical perspective put forward by

Arthur Chickering, namely the Student Identity

Development Theory (Chickering, 1993). According

to Chickering, there are seven areas of student self-

development (referred to as vectors) (1) Competence

(2) Managing Emotion (3) Moving from Autonomy

toward Interdependence, (4) Mature Interpersonal

Relationships (5) Establishing Identity (6)

Developing Purpose, and (7) Developing Integrity

(Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

In order to help student development, there are

two main factors that need to be considered, namely

internal factors and external factors. First, the internal

factors of the students themselves. Internal factors are

related to motivation to study in tertiary institutions,

students' attitudes towards studying in tertiary

institutions. This internal factor determines the

strength of the inner motive to make efforts during

college. Students who have a strong motivation to

choose and complete their chosen field of study will

be more likely to succeed. On the other hand, low

motivation and unclear reasons for going to college

will have an impact on the academic achievement and

self-development achieved by the students

themselves. The power of motivation and clarity of

purpose will help students determine priorities while

studying in college.

The second factor, external factors, is the college

environment that supports students' self-development

during their studies. In most cases, the learning

environment in higher education has not been able to

provide a conducive environment in providing and

guiding students in forming identity and becoming

mature individuals (Chickering & Brasskamp, 2009).

Previous research has revealed that there are

contributions from the areas of development of

Competence (COM), Managing Emotion (ME),

Interdependence (IND), and Mature Interpersonal

Relationship (MIR) to the area of Establishing

Identity (ID) of the students. Separately, the areas for

self-development that contributed the most to

affirming student identity were the Competence area

and the Mature Interpersonal Relationship area. This

means that these two areas have the strongest

influence on the appreciation of the clarity of student

identity (Rajagukguk & Sinuraya, 2020). The

competencies that are owned, either manually,

intellectually, or socially, form the identity of the

students who are the respondents of this study.

Likewise, the maturity of interpersonal relationships

is quite strong in shaping the clarity of student

identity.

It is necessary to conduct empirical research to

test the theoretical model previously disclosed

regarding causal relationships involving areas of

student self-development. Thus, it will get an

overview of the areas of student self-development in

tertiary institutions as a basis for providing a more

comprehensive student self-development program,

not just academic abilities.

Through this research, universities are expected to

be able to develop self-development programs that

are based on empirical data and in accordance with

the self-development needs of all students. Based on

the elaboration in the previous section, the research

problem to be revealed through this research is

whether the theoretical model expressed in the

previous research applies to the student population

who is the subject of this study, especially those that

explain the contribution between areas of competency

development, emotional management,

interdependence, and the maturity of the relationship

with the development of student self-identity and

between the development of final year student

identity with the area of life goals and the area of

integrity.

2 METHODS (AND MATERIALS)

2.1 Research Method

This study used a quantitative approach that aims to

test theoretical models of college student self-

development. The design used in this study is a causal

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

178

relationship (Gulo, 2002) to predict the effect of

related variables, namely the effect of Competence

(COM), Managing Emotion (ME), Interdependence,

and Mature Interpersonal Relationship (MIR) on

Establishing Identity (ID), also how Identity affects

Purpose (PUR) and Integrity (INT).

2.2 Measurements

The variable of this research is student self-

development, which is known through measuring

seven development areas based on Arthur

Chickering's theory of the Seven Vectors Student

Development, namely Competence, Managing

Emotion, Interdependence, Mature Interpersonal

Relationship, Identity, Purpose, and Integrity. The

measuring instrument for student self-development in

tertiary institutions is measured through 7 (seven)

development areas, namely: competence, managing

emotion, interdependence (moving through

autonomy toward interdependence), interpersonal

relationships (mature interpersonal relationship),

identity (establishing identity), purpose of life

(purpose), and integrity (integrity).

2.3 Sample

The targets in this study were students at Maranatha

Christian University class of 2017, 2018, 2019, and

2020. In this study, the sampling technique was not

used because the subjects of the study were all first-

year students from four different generations.

2.4 Analysis Method

This study applied some methods to analyse the data.

First, descriptive analysis was used to describe how

was the student development of each vector in

freshmen every year from 2017-2020. Second, the

independent t-test was used to check whether there

were differences between each vector in freshmen

every year. Intercorrelation between the student

development vectors for each year were also being

provided.

Last, this study also analysed how the first four

vectors (COM, ME, IND, and MIR) could predict the

students’ Identity Development (ID). Then, how

students’ ID could predict PUR and INT. The

contribution of PUR towards INT was also be seen.

Therefor, path analysis was used. The model of these

seven vectors would be provided in the end included

the goodness of fit for the model.

The data processing was carried out using the

assistance of the IBM SPSS version 25 and JASP

0.14.1 program.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Participants

The participants in this study were 4857 students who

filled the student development questionnaire.

Students consisting of freshmen from class of 2017

(N= 1137), 2018 (N= 1549), 2019 (N=1198), and

2020 (N= 973).

The results showed that for freshmen of class

2017, 2019, and 2020, identity development is the

vector with the highest average score. For freshmen

of class 2018, the vector with the highest average

score is interpersonal relationship. Manage emotions

is a vector with the lowest average score for freshmen

of class 2017 and 2018 while for freshmen of class

2019 and 2020, vector competence has the lowest

average score. This shows that freshmen have a

different level of self-development when they start

studying at the college which is the population of this

study.

Other results show that the average value of each

vector in the new batch of 2018 students is higher

than the new batch students of 2017, 2019, and 2020,

except in the managing emotion development area

where the highest average value is in the 2020 class.

Meanwhile, the test results prove that that there is a

significant difference in the average Competence

score of freshmen class 2018 with class 2017, 2019,

and 2020. (p <0.001). It thus shows that there is one

Force that has a higher COM development rate than

another generation. The test on the comparison of the

average score between self-development shows that

there is a significant difference in the average score

of Manage Emotions for freshmen class 2017 with

class 2018, 2019, and 2020. (p <0.001); there is a

significant difference in the average value of Manage

Emotions for freshmen class 2018 with class 2020. (p

<0.05); There is also a significant difference in the

average value of Manage Emotions for freshmen

class 2019 and class 2020. (p <0.05).

In relation to the third area of self-development, it

was found that there was a significant difference in

the mean score of autonomy towards Interdependence

among freshmen class 2018 and batch 2019 and 2020.

(p <0.001); There is a significant difference in the

average score of Autonomy towards Interdependence

in freshmen class 2017 with class 2020. (p <0.05),

and there is a significant difference in the average

Model of Student Development by Chickering Theory

179

score of Autonomy towards Interdependence for

freshmen class 2019 and class 2020. (p < 0.05). In the

development of the fourth area, it was found that there

was a significant difference in the average value of

Interpersonal Relationships among freshmen class

2018 with class 2017, 2019, and 2020. (p <0.001);

There is a significant difference in the average value

of Interpersonal Relationships for freshmen class

2017 with class 2020. (p <0.05). Other results show

that there is a significant difference in the average

value of Interpersonal Relationships for freshmen

class 2019 and class 2020. (p <0.05). Meanwhile,

with regard to the fifth self-development area, it was

found that there was a significant difference in the

average value of Identity Development for freshmen

class 2017 with class 2018, 2019, and 2020. (p

<0.001); there is a significant difference in the

average value of Identity Development for freshmen

class 2018 and batch 2019, and 2020. (p <0.001);

There is a significant difference in the mean value of

Identity Development for freshmen class 2019 and

class 2020. (p <0.05). Furthermore, regarding the

sixth area of self-development, the test results show

that there is a significant difference in the average

value of Developing Purpose for freshmen class 2017

with batches of 2018, 2019, and 2020. (p <0.001),

there is also a difference in the average value of

Developing Purpose. which is significant for

freshmen class 2018 with class 2019, and 2020. (p

<0.001). The last one is that it is found that there is a

significant difference in the average score of

Development of Integrity for freshmen class 2017

with class 2018 and 2020. (p <0.001); There is a

significant difference in the average value of

Development of Integrity for freshmen class 2018

with class 2019 (p <0.001), and there is a significant

difference in the average value of Development of

Integrity for freshmen class 2019 and class 2020. (p

<0.05).

Testing the correlation of the seven areas of self-

development in freshmen class 2017-2019 correlated

with each other at a significance level of p <0.001.

However, it was found that for freshmen of class

2020, only the area of competence has no correlation

with the other six vectors. The remaining vectors are

correlated with each other at a significance level of p

<0.001. It should be noted that the Batch 2020 is the

only batch that started college with distance learning,

as well as the orientation for new student orientation

conducted online so that it affects the measurement

results of the Competence.

Table 1: Simultaneous contribution of COM, ME, MIR,

IND toward ID Batch 2017-2020.

Model R R² F

2017 0.799 0.638 498.361 <.001

2018 0.789 0.623 638.524 <.001

2019 0.754 0.569 393.070 <.001

2020 0.746 0.557 304.586 <.001

Table 2: Partial contribution of COM, ME, MIR, IND

toward ID batch 2017-2020.

Model B Std. Error β

2017 COM 0.057 0.036 0.054 1.586 0.113

ME -0.002 0.021 -0.002 -0.071 0.943

IND 0.299 0.038 0.296 7.785 <.001

MIR 0.504 0.038 0.497 15.785 <.001

2018 COM 0.227 0.028 0.242 8.069 <.001

ME 0.071 0.019 0.091 3.775 <.001

IND 0.194 0.028 0.208 6.801 <.001

MIR 0.300 0.017 0.364 17.296 <.001

2019 COM 0.008 0.022 0.007 0.376 0.707

ME 0.162 0.029 0.167 5.478 <.001

IND 0.308 0.037 0.282 8.408 <.001

MIR 0.427 0.033 0.379 13.062 <.001

2020 COM 0.019 0.023 0.018 0.821 0.412

ME 0.161 0.031 0.169 5.115 <.001

IND 0.339 0.039 0.323 8.807 <.001

MIR 0.361 0.035 0.334 10.476 <.001

The final test which is the main objective of this

research is testing the contribution of each of the first,

second, third, and fourth development areas to the

fifth self-development area to test the theoretical

models found in previous research. The test results

show that for freshmen class 2017-2020, the four

vectors or areas of self-development, namely COM,

ME, IND, and MIR contribute simultaneously to the

area of ID. However, if it is tested partially, only

freshmen of the 2018 class, whose four vectors have

a contribution to ID. (n = 1549). Whereas for

freshmen of 2019 (n = 1198) and 2020 (n = 973),

vector COM does not have a partial contribution to

ID. For freshmen of class 2017 (n = 1137), vector

COM and ME were found to have no partial

contribution to ID.

Table 3: Simultaneous contribution of IND toward PUR

batch 2017-2020.

Model R R² F

2017 0.729 0.532 1290.221 <.001

2018 0.719 0.517 1658.980 <.001

2019 0.747 0.558 1512.182 <.001

2020 0.727 0.529 1090.191 <.001

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

180

Table 4: Partial contribution of IND toward INT batch

2017-2020.

Model R R² F

2017 0.689 0.475 1025.441 <.001

2018 0.642 0.412 1085.896 <.001

2019 0.781 0.610 1868.580 <.001

2020 0.730 0.533 1107.017 <.001

Table 5: Contribution of PUR toward INT batch 2017-

2020.

Model R R² F

2017 0.641 0.411 1080.481 <.001

2018 0.789 0.623 638.524 <.001

2019 0.815 0.664 2368.688 <.001

2020 0.817 0.668 1956.018 <.001

In all batches of freshmen, it was found that ID has a

contribution to PUR and development of INT.

Developing PUR also contribute to the development

of INT.

Table 6: Goodness of fit of student development model.

χ² RMSEA TLI GFI CFI NFI PGFI

258.986 0.080 0.990 0.995 0.995

0.995 0.984

In general, Figure 1 shows that the empirical

model of student development in “X” University

students fits the seven vectors of student development

from Chickering (RMSEA = 0.080; TLI = 0.990; NFI

= 0.995; GFI= 0.995; CFI= 0.995; PGFI= 0.984).

Figure 1: Path analysis model of the seven vector of student

development on freshmen from 2017-2020.

This condition shows that student self-

development has the same characteristics as other

cultures in the context of self-development.

4 CONCLUSIONS

As a conclusion, it can be said that the theoretical

model found by previous studies also applies to the

student population who is the subject of this study.

There were slight variations in different batch,

however, in general it can be said that the

contributory relationships of the intended areas of

development theoretically proved consistent

expressing a similar model.

Therefore, it can be suggested that the student

affairs office should collaborates with the

management of study programs to develop academic

and extra-curricular activities which refer to the self-

development model based on the self-development

theory by Arthur Chickering, because it has been

proven to be in accordance with student conditions

enrolled in the last four years, with slight variations

in the results found.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge full support

of the management of the Maranatha Christian

University, the Student Affairs Office as well as the

Faculty of Psychology. We would also like to

appreciate participation of all students who had

willingly participating in this research.

REFERENCES

Arkoff, A. (1968). Adjustment And Mental Health.

McGraw-Hill.

Astin, A. W. (1977). Four Critical Years. Effects of College

on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and

Identity. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education

Series. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome St.,

San Francisco, CA 94104.

Chickering, A., & Braskamp, L. A. (2009). Developing a

Global Perspective for Personal and Social

Responsibility. Peer Review, 11(4), 27.

Foubert, J., Nixon, M. L., Sisson, V. S., & Barnes, A. C.

(2005). A Longitudinal Study of Chickering and

Kunda, Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making

sense of people. MIT press.

Gardner, H. (1990). Art Education And Human

Development (Vol. 3). Getty Publications.

Gulo, W. 2002. Metodologi Penelitian. Jakarta: PT

Grasindo.

Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., &

Tatham, R.L. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth

Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Model of Student Development by Chickering Theory

181

Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., & Lamke, L. K. (1997).

Toward A Microprocess Perspective On Adolescent

Identity Development: An Identity Control Theory

Approach. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(3), 325-

346.

Maekawa Kodama, C., McEwen, M. K., Liang, C. T., &

Lee, S. (2002). An Asian American Perspective On

Psychosocial Student Development Theory. New

Directions for Student Services, 2002(97), 45-60.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in Adolescence. Handbook of

adolescent psychology, 9(11), 159-187.

Nakkula, M. J., & Toshalis, E. (2006). Understanding

Youth: Adolescent Development For Educators.

Rajagukguk, R.O., Sinuraya, C. (2020). Student

Development Research Report. Internal Grants

Research. Maranatha Christian University Bandung

Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting The Seven Vectors. Journal

of College Student Development.

Reisser, L. (2005). Reisser's Vectors: Exploring Gender

Differences And Implications For Refining The

Theory. Journal of College Student Development,

46(5), 461-471

Sarwono, S.W. (2006). Psikologi Remaja: Edisi Revisi.

Rajawali Pers.

Wills, T. A. (1985). Supportive Functions of Interpersonal

Relationships.

APPENDIX

COM : Developing Competence

ME : Managing Emotion

IND : Moving Through Autonomy

Towards Interdependence

MIR : Mature Interpersonal Relationship

ID : Establishing Identity

PUR : Developing Purpose

INT : Developing Integrity

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

182