Faith and Spirituality

Development theory thus far has centered on the concept of meaning making. How individuals make sense of themselves in the world. What struck me in this week’s readings were the parallels that faith/spirituality development theory had to cognitive development theory in this. I suppose it should not be surprising that these similarities exist as Fowler and Parks derived much of their theory from identity development theory, namely Erikson, Piaget, and Kegan. It is surprising then, however, how little identity development draws on faith/spirituality development.  Peek asserts, “major reviews of identity theory and research have largely overlooked the role of religion in forging identities for individuals and groups.” (Peek, 2005, 217-218). If religion is such a salient identity for so many, as Peek claims, then why should we not consider these theories in conjunction with one another when we seek to understand student development? If students in their developmental journeys are making meaning through faith, religion and spirituality, should institutions of higher education have an obligation to facilitating this process?

I would argue yes. Lindholm’s article points to the desire of both students and faculty to engage in these discussions of spirituality as they develop values and purpose in their lives. Not to mention, compelling arguments throughout Fowler and Parks’ theories along with Peek’s study that suggest spiritual development complements identity development. This in conjunction with institutions’ unique position in students’ lives primes them to facilitate challenge, dissonance, and ultimately self-authorship as individuals continue to construct and reconstruct their realities. Spirituality and the institution don’t have to exist in dichotomous realms, rather, I would argue that integration could challenge students for deeper reflective thinking than otherwise possible.

            Park’s theory points to institutions of higher education as ideal mentoring communities where, “young adults’ imaginations are supported. Such a community allows young adults to consider big questions that will shape their future lives [through] interactions that can lead to awareness that people who are different from them may nonetheless share similar feelings and response to various situations, as the students did in the narrative.” (Evans et al., 2010, p. 207). These mentoring communities she argues are a place for imaginative thinking and exploration. Consistent with the argument for institutions of higher education as a mentoring community is Erikson’s theory, “that identity develops best when young people are given a psychosocial moratorium—a time and a place in which they can experiment with different social roles before making permanent commitments to an occupation, to intimate relationships, to social and political groups and ideas, and to a philosophy of life” (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002, p. 334). Understanding that the institution holds a unique position in the capability to facilitate development, it seems opportune to incorporate faith and spirituality in the discussion as students make meaning and strive to discover their purpose (Lindholm).

            To complicate this assertion that institutions of higher education should facilitate faith development, let’s consider both the private and public nature of colleges and universities. Considering the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, are public institutions able to facilitate spiritual development within their scope of authority? Would facilitating this development be perceived as preferencing one religion over another? I would argue no, if public institutions are mindful of this and simply facilitate a robust dialogue rather than suggest one religious doctrine or another. Along the same vein, where do private institutions who are religiously affiliated fall in this? Do institutions who prescribe to one religious doctrine have an obligation to present varying perspectives and theologies?

            An article by Susan VanZanten in Inside Higher Ed points to the complementary nature of religious institutions and liberal education, “Their educational outcomes move beyond imparting knowledge and skills to assisting students in developing moral commitments and ethical practices. Such institutions may strive to graduate involved national and world citizens, people of good character, or effective servant-leaders, to name just a few of the more common values-related outcomes.” I think an important caveat to spiritual development is the distinction between faith, spirituality, and religion. Fowler’s article points to concepts of faith and spirituality being broad and more encompassing while religion is more prescriptive to groups and constructs defined by beliefs and faith. With this in mind, it would seem reasonable that institutions of higher education can promote faith development without necessarily promoting one specific religious doctrine over another.

             

1.     Do you think religion has a formal place in the institution?

2.     To what ends should institutions facilitate faith development in their students?

3.     Should publics and privates take different approaches to faith development?

Evans, N. J., Forney, D S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Chapter 11: Development of faith and spirituality. In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2^nd ed) (pp. 194-211). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366.

Lindholm, J. (2007). Spirituality in the academy: Reintegrating our lives and the lives of our students. About Campus: Enriching the student learning experience 12(4), 10-17.

Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociology of Religion, 66, 215–242.

VanZanten, S. (2011, May 4). The Religious Option. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/05/04/essay_on_the_job_options_for_faculty_members_at_religious_colleges.

Reflections on Religious Identity

The development of religious identity in the academy is an interesting concept.  Lindholm (2007) asserts that, based on findings from research, approximately 2/3rds of college freshmen “believe that it is “essential” or “very important” that their undergraduate experience enhance their self-understanding, prepare them for responsible citizenship, and support their emotional development” (p. 10).  However, this notion could be reflected in many efforts of colleges and universities, and not necessarily in religious and spiritual identity.  

In Fowler’s theory of faith development, he asserts that the majority of adolescents are going to be in the third stage, of synthetic-conventional faith (Evans, 2010, p. 198).  While this stage does begin to explore the idea that people can think abstractly about their faith, it also states that one’s decision’s about faith need to have external validation.  Since the majority of students will be entering college in this stage, putting the charge on institutions to provide spiritual guidance and development could be placing too much of a parenting role on the institutions, especially in an age where many campuses serve students from a variety of cultures and belief systems.   

Additionally, the benefit that students achieve from being a religious or spiritual person is highly contested.  Duffy (2010) asserts that there is a weak correlation between being religious or spiritual and influencing work or academic outcomes (p. 57).  Duffy also suggests that this influence may come from having leadership roles in religious organizations or a deeper sense of self, both of which can be achieved on college campuses through involvement in student organizations and activities not necessarily linked to spirituality.  Lindholm (2007) found spirituality to be highly beneficial to student’s growth, stating  “incoming first-year college students who are highly spiritual are much more likely than their less spiritually inclined peers

to possess high levels of equanimity (for example, they feel good about the way their life is heading, can find meaning in times of hardship, feel a strong connection to all of humanity) and characterize themselves as having a compassionate self-concept (p. 12). 

In my own work as an advisor questions of religious accommodation often arise.  These questions from my students were especially prominent during the Jewish high holidays in the fall.  The students were new to campus and didn’t know how U-M would accommodate their observance.  Additionally, I have had students begin to ask questions about passover and accommodations that can be expected then.  It is very difficult to tell a student that, even though their study time is going to be taken up by religious observance, the university has no official policy that dictates professors have to provide equal accommodation, but only that they need to provide a reasonable alternative  Without a definition of reasonable, it becomes very easy for professors to refuse accommodations to a student who holds religious beliefs the professor does not agree with or understand.  Additionally, the list of holidays that may interfere with the school year, provided by the Provost, is not exhaustive in any way.  When the official list of religious holidays doesn’t include one that a student celebrates, how does that student feel comfortable developing his or her spiritual identity within the campus context?  The level of Christian privilege that is present on campus, even at a place as open-minded as U-M, is very obvious once you begin looking for it.  

Since the findings of the benefits of spirituality or religious identity differ across studies, it is difficult to say whether postsecondary institutions should take a role in developing this aspect of a student’s identity. However, I do believe it is important for universities to provide forums where religious subjects can be explored.  Many students expressed that they were able to  better explore their religious identity both by joining affinity groups and by learning from people who hold differing religious views.  As a future student affairs professional, I do not believe that it should be my responsibility to help form student’s spiritual identities, but that I should work to provide a place where that formation can happen.  

In his theory Fowler closely aligns religious development with cognitive development.  As long as we continue to formally develop cognitive capacities in the realm of education, students will not lag developmentally. 

References

Duffy, R. (2010). Spirituality, religion, and work values. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38(1), 52-61.

Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Development of faith and spirituality. Student development in college:    Theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 194-211). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Lindholm, J. (2007). Spirituality in the Academy: Reintegrating our lives and the lives of
our students. About Campus, 12(4), 10-17.

The regents of the University of Michigan. (2013). Religious holidays. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from http://www.provost.umich.edu/calendar/religious_holidays.html

Zhou Shen: Reflection Questions on Moral Development

When I finished the readings this week, many things turned up in my mind. Moral behavior happens everywhere, and we usually do moral decisions.

Rest proposed that “four major kinds of psychological processes” (Rest, 1986) must have occurred in order for moral behavior to occur. The “Four- Component Model” (Rest, 1986) resonates with my driving experience. From interpreting fastening seat belts as a moral action to formulating it that applies a moral standard, for the safety to both yourself and others, my moral behavior moved psychologically from component one to component two. And finally to component three: “give priority to moral values about other personal values ” (Rest, 1986, p.3). I decided and always reminded myself that I have to fasten my seating belt under any situation.

The “Six Kohlbergian Moral Stages” (Evans et al., 2010) reminds me of a story of my close friend, Chen.  She experienced the first moral stage when she was only a seven-year old. Many parents like to punish their children if they did not behave well or not satisfy their expectations. For some boys, they would even be beaten by sticks. My friend Chen, she was forced to learn a Chinese traditional instrument, a Pipa. Her parents thought this training would build her personality like an ancient nice girl. When people mentioned the instrument Pipa, there would be an image of one beautiful girl who is highly educated and behaved gorgeously in almost everyone’s mind.  At that time, Chen was in the first stage. “Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking ‘Preconventional’ because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.” (Crain 1985,118-136) Although she did not like to go to extracurricular Pipa class, she had to. Her father would even punish her if she did not practice the song well enough. The punishment was that she could not eat her favorite chocolate in the following week. In order to avoid being punished, she had to practice very hard.  But under this rule for a long time, Chen felt it was unfair sometimes. She complained to her parents that playing the Pipa should not relate to her favorite food.  However, her parents still used this way to force her to practice.  She tried to break the rules and bought the chocolate by herself after school.  Her parents did not find out. So she became very happy whether she played she could have chocolate.

However, one day, Chen grew into stage three, “Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Interpersonal Conformity”, which stands in Level two, “Conventional” (Evans et al., 2010). She did not regard the punishment seriously for a long time even before one competition. She failed in that competition and she saw the disappointment in both her parents and her teacher’s eyes.  Chen had a feeling of guilt, and she cried. I still remember that summer in middle school. She treated me as a best friend and cried to me, “ I should not let them down.”  She suddenly realized the “unfair” punishment from her parents was no longer that unfair. She began to understand that punishment was only from her parents’ expectation. Her crying showed her concern about others, her parents and her teacher. She also said she wanted to practice better in order to win the next competition. At that time, she had a strong desire to practice harder.

I still remembered that in the last year of our middle school, Chen was successfully enrolled in a well-known music high school. She fulfilled her “dream”, or more exactly, her parents’ dream, to become a musical school student. She thought she had the duty to become a musical school student because of her parents’ expectation. Also, other friends, who learnt the instrument with her, all wanted to be a musical school student. She felt it was her obligation to do. I have to classify here Chen was in the Stage 4: “Social System and Conscience” (Evans et al., 2010). She did morally think that entering the music school was her duty.

Finally, Chen went to the Level 3, “Postconventional or principled, Stage 5: Social Contract or Utility and Individual Rights” (Evans et al., 2010) before she had the College Entrance Examination. She felt she did not want to pursue a music degree anymore in college. She found everyone has the right to choose other ways. “Why should music schools student attend musical college? Why did I learn Pipa? Was it I have to keep playing for my whole life? It is not my obligation, not my duty, not my whole life.” She became aware that people hold a variety of values.

After sharing my thoughts, I would like to pose some questions. We all know that one of the many roles a school plays is the training of students in proper social behaviors. The morals and ethics students learn, like honesty, respect, and responsibility. Do you think every student should be trained to the social behaviors in school? Or do you think they should learn by themselves? What is the best way to instruct them? The purpose is not just let them know, but let them do voluntarily.

Reference:

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in theory and research. New York.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Moral development theory. In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2^nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

W.C. Crain(1985). Theories of Development. Retrieved from http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Other source:

 

Video: Overview of Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

http://video.about.com/psychology/Overview-of-Lawrence-Kohlberg-s-Theory-of-Moral-Development.htm

Mera Choi - Moral Development Theories

Having no previous background in student development, student affairs, or higher education, it was somewhat difficult for me to relate to the different theories discussed in class.  Looking back, before taking this class, I don’t think I have ever really taken the time to self-reflect on the events in my life.  This week’s readings discuss moral development and the different theories developed by Kohlberg, Rest, and Gilligan.  While reading about the different theories, I tried to look back on the events in my life and see if I could place myself in one of the different stages of moral development.   

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is the main framework in which other theorists have built upon over many years. Kohlberg was one of the first theorists to study moral development amongst adolescents and college students (Evans et al., 2010).  Kohlberg began to question his own experiences and whether his actions were morally just.  He began to search for “some principle that would underlie and justify all basic moral discussions” (Kohlberg, 1991, p. 13).  Kohlberg began to question whether there was a “universal morality,” or whether moral choice was relative to an individual’s culture or emotional choice (Kohlberg, 1991).  In his theory of moral development, there are six stages with each stage grouped into three different levels.  Kohlberg believed that each individual develops moral reasoning at each specific stage regardless of the content or situation.  He also proposed that each person will move through the different stages of moral development at different rates and at different times.  Each stage in the theory is built upon the next stage and incorporates characteristics of the previous stages.  Depending on which stage an individual is in, he is able to use reasoning from the current stage and the previous stages.  Individuals will never use stages of thinking that are higher than their current stage.  Kohlberg asserts that individuals are not likely to reach the last stage in moral reasoning (Evans et al., 2010).

Building on Kohlberg’s theory, Rest took a slightly different approach in defining the different stages of moral development.  Instead of putting an individual in fixed sequential stages, Rest thought it was “more appropriate to consider the percentage of an individual’s reasoning at a particular stage of development rather than whether a person is ‘in’ a particular stage (Evans et al., 2010, p. 106).  Rest rejected the idea of an individual moving through the stages in a step-by-step fashion.  Unlike Kohlberg’s theory of moral judgment, which was mainly based on justice and duty, Rest and other theorists believed in the idea of moral thinking.  Moral thinking refers to an individual’s views on a specific topic.  Rest and colleagues believed that moral thinking is greatly impacted by one’s culture and moral judgment (Narvaez et al., 1999) 

Theorists such as Gilligan believed that Kohlberg’s theory does not account for the moral development of women, and shows a gender bias.  Gilligan thought, “Men and women follow different voices…Men tend to organize social relationships in a hierarchical order and subscribe to a morality of rights.  Females value interpersonal connectedness, care, sensitivity, and responsibility to people” (Muuss, 1988, p. 229).  If Kohlberg believed in universalism and individualism, Gilligan believed in the importance of an individual’s connection to others (Evans et al., 2010).    

I had a difficult time relating to Kohlberg’s theory, and found it difficult to place myself in one of the six stages.  I think the idea that each stage is in a fixed sequence was the hardest for me to relate to.  In my opinion, I feel that any type of development is fluid and does not have a fixed sequence.   I think it is difficult to put myself in one specific stage, because I feel that the decisions I make are greatly impacted by the environment or situation that I’m in.  I feel that Kohlberg’s theory is largely based on the cognitive process one goes through when faced with an ethical dilemma.  I feel that his theory does not account for an individual’s actions.  Just because one is able to think at the higher levels of moral judgment, does not necessarily mean that the individual will carry out specific actions according to that stage.  I also feel that an individual’s decisions may also be impacted by expectations of society.  For example, a person may react to a specific situation, because it seems like the right thing to do, not because he has the capacity to think at a higher level of morality.  Of the three theorists, I felt that I could relate mostly to Gilligan’s theory.  Although I do not like putting myself in a specific stage, if I had to place my self in a stage it would be in the transition period between levels two and three.  During this transition period, Gilligan states “individuals examine their own needs to determine if they can be included within the realm of responsibility…At this time, individuals make moral judgment shifts from deciding in accordance with those around them to deciding by inclusion of their own needs on a par with others (Evans, p. 113).  Looking back on my own experiences, I feel that most of my life I was striving for acceptance from other people.  I feel that others always influenced many of the choices I have made.  There were many moments where I made certain decisions in order to avoid conflict with others.  Currently, I feel that I am at a point in my life where I am not looking for social acceptance or approval.  I am beginning to find that at times putting myself before others is also important.  I think it is often difficult to find the right balance of fulfilling my own needs while minimizing inconvenience to others.  Overall, I feel that the environment in which they are living largely impacts a person’s moral actions. 

References:

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2010). Moral development theory. In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2^nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1991). My personal search for universal morality. In L. Kuhmerker (Ed.), The Kohlberg legacy for the helping professions. (p. 11-17). Birmingham, Al.

Muuss, R. E. (1988). Carol gilligan's theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence.Adolescence, 23(89), 229-43

Narvaez, D., Getz, I., Rest, J. R., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Individual moral judgment and cultural ideologies.Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 478-488. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.478

Reflective Judgement

In the readings for this week the authors’ discussion of Kegan and Perry’s theories outline that students go through stages, as cognitive development is in a constant state of progressive motion. However, Perry (1970) outlines that “students can be in several different positions at once with respect to different subjects or experiences”(Love &Guthrie, 1999, p.90). Therefore, while students may undergo increases in their academic knowledge, their ability to synthesize the information is situational.  

In addressing a prior study King (2000) outlined that only advanced doctoral students demonstrated skills toward reasoning respectively. While I would not consider myself an advanced doctoral student, it made me reflect on my development within graduate school, and how my prior educational experiences laid the foundation for my current development. I feel that graduate school constantly tests students’ values, beliefs, and perceptions of the world.

Only in graduate school was I forced to constantly acknowledge that studies are inherently not objective. Therefore, how one makes sense of responses and solutions is a product of individual history and personal and social culture (Eisner, 1992). Thus, in terms of research there is no absolute truth. This realization is has been referred to as the great accommodation in which, “individual comes to realize that uncertainty is neither anomalous nor restricted to certain knowledge domains—that it is evident everywhere” (Love &Guthrie, 1999, p.79).

Perry (1970) outlines how conceptions of knowledge progress from more simplistic forms of dualistic thinking to more complex forms of commitment within relativism.  However, Love & Guthrie’s (1999) discussion of the Reflective Judgment Model (RJ Model) expands on the Perry’s work in that it seeks to address how students deal with more complex and controversial problems. Similar to Perry’s model each successive level in the RJ Model demonstrates more advanced levels of thinking. However the RJ Model better demonstrates the relationship between student conceptions of facts and the judgments they make on them. Likewise, the RJ Model acknowledges that students have both a functional and optimal level of development, therefore they can be seen to regress in different circumstances. I feel the biggest strength of the RJ Model is that it incorporates interpersonal and affective sense making, while also deconstructing how students can situate themselves within the subject matter.

This made me reflect on the topic of diversity and its ability to provide the breeding ground for student learning to develop, because students are consistently challenged to explore all aspects of a subject. Love & Guthrie (1999) outline that, “under ordinary circumstances, most environments do not provide cues or support for high-level performance, especially not about issues of knowing” (p.49). However, increased levels of diversity within the teaching and learning environment would allow for intellectual diversity within the classroom. This in turn helps students to move beyond early developmental frames of thinking. Through classroom dialogue, students are introduced to differing perspectives and competing ideas, and as a result they are given a platform to “form their own grounded judgments about the relative value of competing perspectives” (AACU, 2006, p.10). Love & Guthrie (1999) outline that encounters with diverse student groups promote cognitive development by encouraging exploration. Once students move towards a conceptual framework that opens them up to alternative ways of thinking, the classroom becomes more tolerant of differing views. This aligns with King (2000) analysis of studies that “found moderate positive correlations between reflective thinking and tolerance for diversity”(p.22).  Likewise, differing perspectives may challenge students’ prior conceptions of truth and force them to critically analyze or re-evaluate their prior positions.

            While the RJ Model expands on Perry’s model, there are some setbacks. The RJ Model does not account for personal characteristics such as race, gender, and religion that may effect a student’s development. These factors can effect how a student interacts with their learning environment, which may then affect the “quality, depth, and pace of development”(King &Kitchener, 1994, 228). Likewise King &Kitchener (1994) underscore that this model does not account for unforeseen circumstances that can serve as deterrents in one’s development.  

I feel that affective and social development is a prerequisite to intellectual development, however this is not adequately addressed in the RJ model. Social and holistic development align with one of the primary social goals of higher education, which lies in the holistic development of the student and the ability of institutions to promote individualism. King (2000) highlights research that speaks to the importance of holistic development. Therefore, “assisting college students to achieve their educational goals involves several interrelated elements, not just reasoning skills” (King, 2000, p.23). Hence, in addressing the social, psychological, and spiritual needs of a student, institutions can seek to develop a student’s sense of awareness, morality, and interpersonal communication skills. Increased sense of self also grants students with a sense of autonomy in their intellectual development. Thus, faculty can aim to foster reflection in which students can attempt to work through real-life problems and situations through strategies taught in the classroom. Likewise, teachers can attempt to replicate scenarios of external influences that impact society and introduce that into the classroom. In addressing the holistic aspect of development one can prevent poorly developed skills in one area of development from inhibiting competence in other areas (King, 2000).

Questions:

Love and Guthrie saw that gender-related patterns of knowing disappear at advanced levels of cognitive development.  Do you feel there are inherent differences in cognitive development among genders?

The RJ model assumes that development occurs within a vacuum, are there experiences that can cause students to regress in their stage of development?

The authors discuss that development may be situational. Can you think of experiences in which students can regress in their development?

In what ways do you feel that your holistic development has impacted your cognitive development?

Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(1), 9-15

King, P. M. (2000). Learning to make reflective judgments. New directions for teaching and learning, 2000(82), 15-26.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series. Jossey-Bass, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310.

Love, P. G., & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). King and Kitchener's reflective judgment model. New Directions for Student Services, 1999(88), 41-51.