Higher Education Theories of Development

¶ … Higher Education

Theories

Theories of Development and Higher Education

Theories of Development and Higher Education

The moral development theories attempt to address the manner in which people develop their internal moral reasoning. Kohlberg looked at this through the lens of how a person develops their sense of right and wrong through transformation in their cognitive form and structure (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 2009). Rest takes this a step further with the addition of three factors: moral sensitivity, moral motivation, and moral action (Evans et al., 2009). Some theorists view moral development as occurring in concrete stages while others see it as a continual process that occurs naturally and increases with education and age (Evans et al., 2009). These moral development theories are can be applied to the higher education environment though the integration of moral reasoning assignments into current curriculum and the development of social programs that facilitate positive personal development (Evans et al., 2009). Moral reasoning can be observed in the choices that college students make about cheating, plagiarism, delinquency, cooperation with peers and faculty and class engagement. The college environment cultivates moral development by providing students with social, cultural, and intellectual experiences (Evans et al., 2009).

Moral development is clearly influenced by the environment and our interactions with others. The influence of and exposure to others can be positive or negative. Understanding environmental influences aids colleges in creating positive learning environments for students and ensuring campus life influences moral development in a positive manner. Giving credit to the natural maturation process and the influence of exposure to education allows for the individual development of students and an understanding of individual differences. While this theory attempts to place identify that gender differences may play a role in the moral development process, critics rightfully call for the introduction of gender models that could provide more insight into these differences (Evans et al., 2009).

The higher educational environment also plays a key role in the development of later cognitive-structural development. Theorists who explore cognitive-structural development also focus on fluid learning perspectives (Evans et al., 2009). The college experience is viewed as one that starts with acceptance of professors as authority and their knowledge as certain and moves along a continuum that ends with contextual knowledge in which a student accepts the knowledge that they have crafted as long as it is supported by evidence and makes sense in the current context (Evans et al., 2009). Higher education institutions are impacted by this development process and can be most beneficial to students by encouraging professors to facilitate the production of student ideas (Evans et al., 2009). Rather than allow the student to fully disengage from authority, classes and schedules can be designed to allow for increasing autonomy and nurturance to ensure that a student develops their own separate cognitive-structure while being connected and integrated into the educational environment. Attention to differences in gender approaches to cognitive-structural development will aid these institutions in helping groups of students progress through the phases of knowledge and be supported as they learn to accept that not all things are certain and that it is okay if someone does not have all of the answers (Evans et al., 2009).

In reflection on the learning process, one can easily see the path that a student takes from thirsting for concrete information to needing to question information presented and integrate it with other knowledge in order to create new meaning. In support of this process professors can actively partner with students requesting their contributions to the knowledge development process. In order to ensure successful cognitive-structural development, professors and administrators must acknowledge how the student's own environment and experiences provide the foundation from which all new knowledge should be developed (Evans et al., 2009). Critics have contended that cognitive learning should not be separated from affective and interpersonal development (Evans et al., 2009). It is important to regard cognitive development in terms of all the factors that influence the process and this includes gender as well. While the theory clearly outlines gender differences, more information regarding how gender should be addressed separately in the cognitive development of students would be beneficial.

Kolb viewed experience as central to the learning process (Evans et al., 2009. It is the interaction between learning style and classroom or course culture and environment that determine a student's level of engagement and success (Evans et al., 2009). Kolb proposed that learning styles are directly linked to development and the environments ability to transform experience into knowledge (Evans et al., 2009). These learning styles impact how an individual develops and are directly influenced by factors such as heredity, experiences, and environmental stressors (Evans et al., 2009). Learning styles can be viewed as fluid with some aspects of a person's style changing to fit the needs to the context in which they are interacting (Evans et al., 2009). Students must learn to adapt to the many different cultures of different educational departments and adapt their learning styles to ensure productivity (Evans et al., 2009). Therefore, in order to ensure that students are able to develop appropriately in the higher education environment, professors should pay attention to the differences in learning styles amongst their students and provide opportunities for diversified learning (Evans et al., 2009).