Cristóbal Salinas Jr.: Theory, it’s just a lens and there’s no right or wrong. And there’s some, we don’t have to memorize theory, right? And I think it should be fluid. And then we are able to, uh, um, think about how it evolves within the study or when we’re working with students or how we apply theory. So I hope that, uh, the book continues to engage our readers on, on in that perspective.

Heather Shea: Welcome to Student Affairs Now, the Online Learning Community for Student Affairs Educators. I’m your host, Heather Shea.

Student development theory is often described as the foundation of student affairs practice, but many educators still struggle with how theory actually shows up in our day-to-day work with students. A new book, college Student Development Theory and Action, A Guiding Framework for Higher Education Practice aims to bridge that gap by making theory both accessible and practically usable.

In this first episode of a two-part series, we are joined by all of the book’s authors to talk about how this project came together, the gaps they saw in existing student development theory texts, and how they hope educators graduate students and practitioners will use this book in their work. Before we dive in, I wanna mention something.

If you have been engaged with us more deeply in the Student Affairs, affairs Now space, we now have a new learning community to continue our conversations beyond the podcast, you can join us on Patreon at patreon.com/student Affairs. Now, as I mentioned, I am your host for today’s episode, Heather Shea.

My pronouns are she, her and hers, and I am broadcasting from the ancestral, traditional and contemporary lands peoples otherwise known as East Lansing, Michigan, home of Michigan State University, where I work. So today we are joined by five scholars.

Let me open up the screen here. So everybody’s on the screen who have co-authored this book that we’re talking about today. Their work is helping shape how we understand equity leadership and student success in higher education. So let me do each a quick introduction and then we’ll get into the discussion.

So first, Kristen Ren, who goes by Kris is a university distinguished professor at Michigan State University. Also my doctoral dissertation chair whose scholarship focuses on student identity, L-G-B-T-Q issues and equity in higher education. Thanks for joining us, Kris Ren. Next is Chayla Haynes Davison a higher ed scholar and student affairs leader with over 15 years of experience and the 2026 recipient of the A CPA Senior Scholar Award.

Welcome Chayla.

Chayla Haynes: Thank you.

Heather Shea: And next. Alex C. Lang is an assistant professor, associate director and program coordinator whose work focuses on student success and leadership in higher education. Welcome Alex and Cristobal Salinas goes by, Kris is a professor and associate dean of graduate, the graduate college at Florida Atlantic University.

His research promotes access to higher education and explores the social and political context of educational opportunities. Welcome Kris Salinas, you and finally, Rosie Perez. Rosemary Perez is an associate professor at the University of Michigan whose research examines equity, power, and organizational change in higher education.

Welcome to the podcast, Rosie. I am so glad you all are here. Before we dive into the conversation, please feel free to share anything beyond your brief bio that I read that you would like listeners to know about your work. And then to get us started, I’d like to start with this broad question. So when you think about how student development theory is taught or used in higher education, what do you think we often get wrong or what do we miss entirely?

And Kris Ren, I’m gonna start with you.

Kristen A. Renn: Thanks so much, Heather. Hi everyone. I’m Kris Ren. My pronouns is she and her, and I’ve been teaching student development theory for somewhere over 25 years, which or as somebody said to me recently, since the late 19 hundreds, and I think about what has changed over that time and what’s remained consistent.

Something I think that’s remained consistent. I wish we could get over and maybe we can get over it with this new book, is that there is a tendency when we are new to a topic and learning a topic to want to follow the formula, take it whole follow the rules, and you’ve gotta use all seven vectors.

You’ve gotta use all of Perry stages, you have to do all the things exactly the same per the formula. And I wish we could get a little bit away from that and do a little bit more mixy matchy in a responsible way. So I’ll rest with that.

Heather Shea: Awesome. Thanks Kris. Rosie, how about you?

Rosemary J. Perez: Hi everybody. Rosie Perez.

My pronouns are she her. It’s important to know, I’ve been teaching student development theory for 12 years now, and I have, dare I say, like almost 25 years of experience in the field, which again, I also get similar comments, Kris, about the 19 hundreds. But. When I teach theory, one of the things that comes up a lot is that, we shouldn’t use old theories or even teach them because they were developed by white men, by studying white men.

And so they’re completely useless. And I have those critiques of foundational theories for sure. But for us to engage in meaningful critique and to be able to build new theory, it’s necessary for us to engage with past concepts rather than assuming what people told us is true. If we haven’t read it, do we really know what was in the content, right?

I want folks to know those ideas so that they can critique them and still say for themselves does this stuff still work? I don’t love Perry, how Perry developed his scheme of intellectual and ethical development. And I still see dualistic, istic and relativistic thinking like everywhere I go, right?

So I might not like the theory and there are parts of it that are still useful. So I want us to hold the idea that just because it’s old. Doesn’t mean it’s always bad. That goes for me too.

Heather Shea: Awesome. Thanks Rosie. Alex Lang. Welcome.

Alex C. Lange: Yeah. Happy to be here. Alex Lang pronouns say them. I think for me, I’ll start with what we often get wrong.

And I think I’ve been teaching student development theory for eight years. I think we’re just gonna keep doing the number train here. But one is that I think students often think of theory as a diagnostic tool rather than a guiding tool. That we want to I remember when I first was learning student development theory at the University of Georgia under Mary Lee Dunn, and we were learning like Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development and what I would start doing when I left class, which like, oh, that’s a Kohlberg three message.

Oh, that’s a Kohlberg five message there, right? And like it was more about placing people in these things rather than using theory as a. Guiding tool to think about how to structure programs and practice in ways that were meaningful to students. I think the thing that we often miss, and I really wanna give a shout out to some of the work that Rosie’s done with the past project and her colleagues, is to think about student development theory beyond the one interaction to really think systemically and programmatically about how we use theory.

And it’s not just about a student who’s in front of us or a group we’re advising, which has a great utility, has a great theory, has a great utility for, and that there are ways to think about scaling up using these theories in ways that can really ensure that students are gaining meaningful, effective experiences on college campuses.

Heather Shea: Thanks, Alex. Kris Salinas, welcome.

Cristóbal Salinas Jr.: Thank you again, Kris Salinas. My pronouns are him, his, and happy to be here with all of you. And similar to my colleagues, but one of the things that I reflect and think back is when I was a student as well, I remember that I liked one theory and wanted to use for everything.

And that is the similar patterns that I see with students when I teach and or when I work with insertions or different studies. They just want to go to the one theory that they know so well or they really connected with when they learn theory. But I think one of the other pieces to art to that is, or I, and how I challenge them is, and this also came a lot in the conversations when we were working the book, especially when I was working with Shayla and one of the other chapters, is that context matters and thinking about placing location, it’s so important to understand how are we my apply the theory, right?

Theory, it’s just a lens and there’s no right or wrong. And there’s some, we don’t have to memorize theory, right? And I think it should be fluid. And then we are able to think about how it evolves within the study or when we’re working with students or how we apply theory. So I hope that the book continues to engage our readers on in that perspective.

Heather Shea: Yeah, that’s great. A one size fits all does not actually fit all. Yeah. That’s good. Jayla, how about you? Welcome.

Chayla Haynes: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Heather. My pronouns are she and her, and one thing I would like to comment on is about a missed opportunity when teaching student development theory.

What I found most useful and some of the best times and most fun I’ve had teaching student development theory is when I encourage students to themselves engage in contemporary theorizing. And I think our book and our model really supports that work in the classroom. So students get a chance to say, here’s how this makes sense in the context of my life and my lived experiences and the students I serve and work with.

So if we can support students in contemporary theorizing, the more we will find utility in theory for not just students today, but also tomorrow.

Heather Shea: Great. Thank you so much. So let’s dive in a little bit about the book’s Origins. I think this book comes at a moment, actually, I think this has been a moment for maybe five to 10 years, maybe longer, when many people are either rethinking or abandoning student development theory and how it’s taught and used in student affairs.

So Kris, can you talk a little bit about what led the five of you to come together to write this book? How did this author team form?

Kristen A. Renn: Yeah. Thanks Heather. Thanks so much. And thanks colleagues for those introductions. It’s always, I was like, yes and yes. And before we start, so student Go theory covers a lot of topics that are at the moment in 2026 under contentious political debate.

And so I wanna be really clear to say that. In this kind of a setting. As authors and as podcast folks, we are each speaking from our own scholarly and academic expertise. And this is not a representation of what my institution might think on any given day. So I just wanna put that out there for listeners.

So when we think about this moment that Heather just referred to, in the field we’ve been getting away from there are people who are getting away from student development theory. I think it connects back to what Rosie said. There’s so much thinking in what Susan Jones and Darren Stewart and others have called this third wave of student development theory.

This kind of critical theories came in and we hit a moment, I think as a field of you can’t get our hands around all of it. We, it the old teaching theories by families or walking our way through a set of prescribed curriculum that might be at the table of contents in a particular student development theory book people have used for years.

I think people got a little frustrated with that because it didn’t really. Account for the experiences, identities what we were seeing in the field. So we as a group kind of realized like it’s time to shake that up a little bit and rethink not just the exact theories that are taught, but what’s the approach to teaching them.

So the the story of the author team is one that I think is brings a lot of humanity into the field in a way. So Stephen John Quay and Lori Patton Davis. Wonderful, amazing colleagues. And I thought it was probably time to put together a new edition of a book about student development theory.

We had done that in the past. We were part of some, what some people now call like a legacy student development theory book. And we thought, okay, it’s probably time for something new. And we realized the three of us were not the only three who could do this. We wanted to bring a few more people in.

And so we asked Alex and Shale to join us in the development of. New book. And as we were starting those conversations about what the new book could be life happened. And both Steven and Lori for professional reasons and personal and family reasons, needed to step away from the book project.

And that’s real. And I think it’s important for listeners to understand that like academics are real people and those things happen and sometimes we have to make decisions about our professional work, our academic work that are rooted in things that are not necessarily in those workspaces. So thinking about bringing in some fresh voices.

So now Alex and Chayla and I like, oh, we need some more fresh voices. Also people with fingers on keyboards and great ideas and grad students to bring into thinking. And that’s what we looked around the country like who’s doing the coolest stuff that we really need in this book? And that’s where we thought Rosie and Kris Selena should join us in this.

I remember sending those emails and thinking they’re gonna, they’re gonna say no, they’re gonna have a ton of questions. They’re gonna be really busy. And hearing back so quickly from both colleagues, I respect so much that they would join us in this kind of adventure was just really exciting and provided a lot of energy into the book.

So that’s kinda how the group came together. The book itself also got affected by life. Lots of life was lifeing at lots of us. So it took a little longer than we thought to get to the finish line, but we did. And people were able to hold the book. It’s really exciting from my perspective.

Heather Shea: Awesome. Thanks so much Kris. And thank you for naming that where we are in time and place is also really relevant to this conversation. Alex, I’m gonna turn to you. Can you talk a bit about the gaps in the existing literature, in the student development theory, textbook, landscape, or other spaces that you were hoping to address in publishing this new book?

Alex C. Lange: Totally. So one I think is just a comprehensive update, right? The last major student development theory text. The patent Ren Qua Guido text for instance, came out in 2016. We have done a lot of good theorizing and theory building since that time, right? I was thumbing through it before our conversation today.

And one thing I was reflecting on was that trans identity development was like two and a half pages of that book because we didn’t really have many theories of trans identity development. In a note that is particularly sentimental to me Brent Billiau, who is featured in that chapter. For instance, I actually had his office at Michigan State University where I worked in the LGBT Center there.

And so now we have several theories about trans and non-binary identity development in this new book, for instance, I think also a big contribution of this book and something that I often wrestle with in my own teaching about student development theory is the part two of the book I think is a really novel contribution.

It talks about the mechanisms, the tools, and the context for development. Often a standalone chapters when I often would teach theories like self authorship, intercultural maturity, or even the model of multiple dimensions of identity I would talk about things like dissonance and marginality and validation, and students would be like, okay, but what are those things and how do you do them with these theories?

And in many ways. I often take a step back in my classes and say let’s talk about responsible uses of discomfort and dissonance because there are ways we can be actually incredibly irresponsible with those concepts in the name of learning. And so the book really I think gives us one, a comprehensive update on the theory building that the field has been doing for a while.

I’ve thought about often of what if we did a big systematic lit review of all the studies of student development theory, and in some ways that would be a massive project and what this book is trying to accomplish in many ways. Instead, and two that. We’re really trying to focus on both what are the updates and theories, but what are these?

And I think this contribution really comes from the work of Elisa Abi, Susan Jones and Darren Stewart in their 2019 book of focusing both on the constructs of development, those individual pieces of these models, but also how these models and frameworks come together into sort of a cohesive whole. And as my colleagues were talking about in the intro question, really thinking about how we can mix and match these theories in some ways I think is how we also thought about the layout of the part three of the book, which is really about all of the different theories and models that we’ve organized, categorically.

But there were many ways we could have organized that part three of the book. It’s the one we settled on. ’cause we think it is the most comprehensive way at this point in time. But who knows what the next iteration of this book could look like in terms of its organizational structure.

Heather Shea: That’s great.

I, yeah I know we don’t have the physical copy of the book, but I just can’t wait to have it and be able to look through in the structure in the organization. I think when folks listen to this later and have the book in hand, it’s gonna be really cool to look at that that you’re describing.

Alex thinks Shayla, can you talk a bit about what you all hoped to do differently in this book compared to previous books? And then I’ll get into a follow-up question with you as well.

Chayla Haynes: Yes. I think our books is set apart for many reasons. It has a clear focus on connecting student development theory to our everyday practice with college students as Alex already, mentioned the book introduces lots of constructs and context, but importantly our, in our book, we introduce what we call the S-D-T-I-A framework, or the Student Development Theory and Action framework, which helps educators, including instructors, supervisors, mentors, academic leaders, and student affairs professionals to translate theory into actionable interventions, something we care deeply about.

We also believe that this book helps to demystify the theory to practice process through case examples. And throughout the book, readers are gonna find several case examples in each and every chapter. And case examples help provide those practical insights to supporting diverse populations of students.

Because context matters and a one size fit all model doesn’t work. And what we are hugely proud of is that with our book and that we created what we call a companion interactive website that offers sample assignments, course activities and videos to support instructors, to teach student development theory and to demonstrate the utility of theory and multiple disciplines across student affairs programs, counseling, psychology, adult education, human resource development, and even leadership programs.

So we did our best to try to unpack the book and show faculty and instructors how to use it in the context of their classroom.

Heather Shea: That’s fantastic. So when I think about graduate students and the way that they engage often with student development theory and this is after having engaged with grad students over time here at MSU they often see theory as something they have to memorize so that they can employ it in whatever, comprehensive exam or other type of experience.

How did that kind of moving from something that you memorized to something that you actually use shape your approach,

To the book and that kind of idea of theory and action.

Chayla Haynes: Yes. So the framework that we put forth is about helping folks understand how to translate, how to move theory from this static thought of instrument that we have to memorize to actually applying it in practice.

How do we make use of it? And so what I try to tell graduate students that I teach and even students that I mentor and supervise in the around theory is that you can have the book on your shelf. It’s okay. The expectation here is not that you memorize it or memorize theory, but that you understand how to use it and how to make sense of it, how to critique it, expand upon it.

How might you use theory to help you identify developmental milestones and processes to pursue the highest level of development among students? So it is not at all the expectation that you memorize theory. And in fact, I think our aim in putting out a framework was to move us away from the assumption that the expectation is to memorize.

I tell students all the time, every edition of the theory book and theory books that have come since of the Green Book, I should say, and additions of theory, books that have come since are all on my shelf. I can pull them down, refer to them rely on those theories, read those articles as I need them.

But how I have been taught to pick up theory and use it has come over time and through some really good supervision. And I think our book puts together a framework that helps others understand maybe how to use it, which is the most important part of teaching theory.

Heather Shea: I love it. That’s great. Rosie talk a little bit about, from your perspective the book’s format and structure it starts with these foundational concepts to processes and context and that into specific theories and identities.

How did you all design this structure?

Rosemary J. Perez: I think, the, my colleagues have really situated this discussion of how is the book organized really well, right? The book is organized in a way that reflects our commitments as. A group of scholar practitioners and people who have taught student development theory for a number of years.

So often this piece of translation, or how to use theory and practice is typically at the back of the book. Like we go through all the content, this is what a theory is, and then at the end we’re like, ta now we want you to do something with it. And at that point it’s very hard. Which is why we see these dynamics of people feeling like they can’t do it.

It’s too difficult. Or theory is something to memorize because we haven’t really led with the idea that it’s living, it’s breathing. You might be a brick allure and use pieces of it. So we led with the idea that. We want you to use theory in the ways that make good sense to you in the work that you do.

So the book leads with the model as a way to acknowledge this is tricky and there’s lots of things you’re going to be thinking about. So we’re going to present the model up front as a way to situate your thinking. And we’re also gonna talk about different approaches to applying theory and practice, because it’s one thing to have a model, and then we can see the same dynamics where people say, okay, then I have to apply all parts of this model in this exact way.

So it’s really intended to start the conversation about application. The second section of the book provides an overview of. Concepts and processes that are what I would say common or we think about across theories of student development, kinda situate our broad understanding so we can look at, the role of context.

We’ve talked about that a few times. So what does the campus environment, the sociopolitical environment interactions, how does that inform development and how we might think about it in different ways, different forms of development. We also talk about different processes that inform development. So both things that are initiated by students. So let’s say they choose to get involved and that might promote growth in particular ways. And then we think about things educators might do. So Alex mentioned dissonance earlier, so ways that we might nudge folks forward in ways that are beneficial. Although they might not always want to but we might prompt some additional thinking, reflection, growth.

And then the third section is like the biggest portion of the book, which are these like families of theories of development. So again, like given that interest of theory and practice and the relationship Chayla as Shayla mentioned, right? We start with a case study to kinda situate the idea that this is, there’s something happening for folks in a campus environment looking from diverse students, diverse institution types, followed by a review of specific theories in this kind of particular family.

And then we, really talk, at least situating some understanding of. Theories imperfect, right? What are the benefits of some of these ideas? Where are some of the limitations of these existing frameworks? And then we close with questions for consideration. So both thinking about now that we’ve presented you a potential example, some lenses through which you might interpret this case, what do you think both about this particular case, but also this kind of body of knowledge.

How useful is it? What might you do with it? So we’ve, it’s a pretty comprehensive way to think about engaging with theory.

Heather Shea: That’s a great overview, and I think it’s also a quick preview to part two of this podcast. So if you are listening and you’re like, I need to know more about the Student Development Theory in action, or S-D-T-I-A model please go find that other episode.

Or if you’re listening to this podcast, when it drops, it will be out the next week. So we’re excited about the follow up to this. That was just a great kind of overview of the way that you structure it. And I think about, obviously these textbooks are used in classes and used in by faculty and graduate students and student affairs folks who work in student affairs.

Kris, love to hear your thoughts. And this is the first set. I’ve heard you have a companion website. Talk a little bit about how you hope instructors and grad students use this book and their studies of student affairs.

Cristóbal Salinas Jr.: Yeah, I can start and then I can let my other colleagues jump in as well if they have anything else to add to.

But at first I’m so excited that the book has an online resources ’cause I think it’s something new and unique that many textbooks or books do not provide. And especially when I think about student development theory books right in student affairs I think that’s something innovative, something new, but also that’s the way that our.

World is moving having more resources, having access to things quick and fast. But not only they’re quick and fast, they’re also very thoughtful. That can help instructors, faculty teachers, or they can also help practitioners and most importantly, the students, right? Engage in this critical thinking.

But one of the things that I personally think about is that also my colleagues help me do this or get to this idea, is think about the book as a thinking partner, as the self-reflection that I have. It as Sheila said I have it in my back, in, in my bookshelf. I can pull it up right if I have a question.

So really thinking about how an. Everyone can engage on meaningful thinking, reflective thinking, but it really should help us all the book and the, I’ll take up a little bit some of the assignments how it can help us move away from asking what does that theory we say, but just try to rephrase the question on what does the theory help me notice.

Question or change to better help the student population that I’m working with or and so on. The other thing that I’m really excited about the book it is and Sheila already mentioned it as well, it is the case samples or case studies, but we call the K examples. And every chapter that has a theory all the chapters start with a case sample.

And then at the end, we also provide critical questions for the instructor and the student, or the prac, the reader, the practitioner, anyone that’s reading the book to engage in critical thinking and pro continue to practice self-reflection, right? So I think this is an ongoing process, but so again the book provides an opportunity for everyone to create their own case samples or case studies.

We provide an example of one and hopefully others can use or create different case studies because we all have different experiences. And I go back to what I mentioned earlier, context matters, time and location matters, right? So I think about my experiences in Iowa and now in Florida, and especially given the current political climate that if I use one theory here, might not work in Iowa.

So we hope that everyone thinks about how that theory applies in their context. And a easier way is by developing a case sample. I know many of us have engaged in, in, in developing our own theory, right? And I, one of the things that I think about is that that theory or frameworks can help us adopt and expect.

So hopefully the book will we provide more, it’s more upgraded on the theories ’cause it is currently involving. So I hope my goal is for everyone to engage in this critical thinking and help us think of how we can better serve our students and so on. But I, and one more thing is I hope that our grad students can, and even professionals and faculty can use this book as a professional judgment when we’re making decisions, when working with students.

Because we have to make decisions that impacts students lives in their experiences.

Heather Shea: Yeah. And basing that on something tangible or something actually that’s been studied and I think is better than just gut instinct. That’s the whole kind of concept. Rosie, how about you?

Examples of in-class experiences or how you hope instructors, grad students and professionals will use this work?

Rosemary J. Perez: Yeah, so very tangibly, I hope that faculty will, instructors will use the framework, like use it to guide the class, to set the context, and then use these online materials. It is hard to be creative with assignments.

I’m not a creative person. I can admit this, right? And so sometimes leveraging the expertise of your colleagues is a good thing. I think sometimes people feel bad about that. Sometimes I might feel bad, but I’ll speak for myself. Is it wrong, right? To use these external sources. If it’s helpful and students are going to learn from it, then by all means please use these resources.

I also am hoping that as people think about this book in the model it provides. This reflexive opportunity to think about what do I know? What do I think I know, but I actually don’t. And what does that mean for the work that I’m doing? Because I think we, Heather you mentioned like sometimes we use ideas and we just do things right.

We rely on informal theories and it’s really difficult to change those without purposeful examination and naming what they are. I think sometimes this model or the book that we’ve generated, structures in opportunities for pause that you can use in class, you can use with the professional development you might use when you’re doing your own assignments to stop and think, what do I know.

What are resources that I might need to seek so that I can better work with the student? And maybe where could I go wrong if I make, if I’m working on assumptions? And I think that last part is sometimes the hardest when we ground things solely in what we think we know without actually giving thought to why we know it.

How did it come to be and is it still true? And so that’s what I’m hoping this like reflexive piece again it is hard to use theory and practice, but we want folks to continue that conversation rather than just abandon it and saying it’s too hard. Which I think is the kind of easier pathway to say, it’s really challenging.

I’m done with it. I’m gonna put the book back instead of saying it’s hard. Maybe I can come back to it and try it a different way and it could still be useful. Just this previous way I was trying, it wasn’t particularly effective.

Heather Shea: Yeah. O others, I’d love to hear your thoughts. I sit at a, in a practitioner role.

I direct a series of programs that focus on persistence and retention. And I’m thinking too, not just in my one-on-one interactions, but on how we structure our programs and engagement with students. There’s a lot of, this is how we’ve always done it. Types of work. I’m sure this happens. I see you all nodding.

It happens on lots of campuses because people have been doing something that they think works. So how would you all suggest as a practitioner, I might be able to use this book beyond just the one-on-one interaction? More at the like program design or, engagement, with a broader population potentially of students.

Kristen A. Renn: I’ll pop in if I may. Sure. When I think about it, there’s a couple ways I think about that Heather. One is throughout the whole process. We kept thinking about not just college students as an audience for theory, but all the adult learners. And we think about like student affairs, student services

Training workplaces as adult learning settings. And so there’s a lot of thinking in the model about how do we how do you use this with supervision? Like how do I take this student development theory and action framework reflect on who I am, where I am, my theories, the context I’m in, and we call them classroom learning environments and practice learning environments.

And practice is like everything, not classroom. So thinking about when I’m supervising somebody that I am encountering in a certain kind of way and thinking about what, how are they doing in this moment and how, what is my role as a supervisor in creating a context for them to develop. So one way we think about this is working with in context that may be student affairs, student success, learning, training related.

How do I also use this? Not just with the end student user, but with the people I’m supervising, people I’m around, how do I use in creating teams like not Microsoft Teams, but like actual human work team. So how do I think about it that way? So that’s one way. The other is, we thinking through critical ecological perspectives, which we introduced some critical ecological perspectives in the book, how do we use our roles in exo systems or policymaking settings?

How do we bring students home theory into those? And then we take, the ideas of these foundational ideas like dissonance, challenging support, our old friend belonging mattering. How do we build those in at the policy or programmatic design level? Like, how am I thinking about Heather has several pathway programs pathways into these.

Are we creating opportunities in the pathway for students and staff in that pathway to encounter challenge and support, which we know will look different depending on who they are. Yeah. How are we using those kinds of frames to create those context for learning and development. So I feel like that’s a way it can happen at that wider level.

Others probably have some ideas.

Heather Shea: Yeah. I’d love to hear.

Alex C. Lange: Yeah. I think we can think of this from even the design of what we hope from specific year learning experiences, like a first year learning experience. A lot of people are now thinking about the second year learning experience, for instance. And how, the characterization of college students, perhaps 30 years ago were in many ways blank slates that are coming to campus who did not have, who were all only in dualistic forms of thinking, who were all just at the sort of entry point of identity development before they got all the way to integration at the end of all of those models.

And to think systematically about how do we work with learning differences and developmental differences from the get go. So a lot of colleges and universities, particularly community colleges and four year residential institutions have some kind of first year learning experience course.

Some kind of orientation, even those pieces. We can think about how one about how much information we’re providing to people at those experiences. When I was working at Michigan State and Kris was in the associate dean role for student success she and her team really thought through, what are all the websites students have to go through?

Oh my

Heather Shea: gosh.

Alex C. Lange: In like their first 30 days at the institution, and I think Kris’s number was like 40 or something. It was something astronomically awful.

Kristen A. Renn: Yes. All with different signin. They weren’t integrated.

Alex C. Lange: Great. And it’s like we hold all of this information as an institution. Can we just share some data with each other?

Yeah. Two, one, not stress out students as we think about how they’re transitioning into the institution, but two, how are we creating opportunities for them to learn from those experiences? Whether that is thinking through the research on random roommate assignment versus preferred roommate assignment, right?

There’s some work to suggest that actually random assignment, it might actually be better for students’ development long term, even though in the short term it creates a lot of frustration. I remember having the conversation about the thermostat with my roommates in college, for instance, and how we all have very different preferences on the temperature of a room.

But how that itself is a developmental conversation, right? To think about how you work with students and how we. Even thinking about like residential learning communities and residential curriculum, how do we think about infusing concepts of cognitive development, of identity development, of psychosocial development all together to think about the student in a very holistic way?

Heather Shea: That’s really that’s really catching me on multiple different levels. One, I’m a parent of both a current college student as well as a senior in high school. So I’m also thinking as a parent, this might be, there might be some applicability here, a parent or supporter of college students.

I’m also thinking about how, in some ways we have created our own hidden curriculum in these spaces, right? When we use theories to, to describe situations as practitioners, like other practitioners might be like. I don’t know what that is, but I don’t know how to say I don’t know it.

And so demystifying and making it more accessible and action-based, I think is really great as well. All right. Are we ready to move on to the one big idea question? Okay. So this is an all play. I’d love to hear if you have one idea about student development theory from this book that you hope all readers will take away, or all people who are listening to this podcast who will then go by the book and read it.

I’d love to hear what that is. Rosie, what’s your one takeaway?

Rosemary J. Perez: I didn’t think I was gonna go first, but here I am. That’s

Heather Shea: an easy spot

Rosemary J. Perez: now everybody else from around

Heather Shea: you.

Rosemary J. Perez: Just kidding. The one thing I’m thinking about actually was prompted by Alex earlier, right? This idea and Kris, these ideas of using theory in parts and how might we use the book, the model, but also kinda our own experiences to chayla’s points earlier to be brick allures, right?

To think about using bits and pieces of things that make sense for what we’re trying to do or programmatically or support individual students. And that can feel not great. So how do we reduce the dissonance for folks?

Of it doesn’t feel right if we don’t use all of an idea, but it makes sense practically, right?

So these kind of negotiations between what is. Practically right? And then what feels theoretically accurate. And that tension is always real in this work, but that just our conversation has me thinking about how do we get to a place or how do I get to a place and work with folks where that feels okay.

Not always great, but like an okay thing to do because it’s in service of students.

Heather Shea: Thanks Rosie. Alex, how about you? One big idea.

Alex C. Lange: One big idea. For me, I think it revolves around the part of the conversation we’ve had already, which is you don’t need to know every single theory.

The book exists.

You’re not getting a quiz on this tomorrow, hopefully. That’s probably not a developmental tool to learn student development theory is quizzes. I don’t think so in my humble opinion and scholarly expertise. That said I think what I have come. Two with students I teach in my classes, often master’s students who are thinking about their first or next full-time role in student affairs is that different functional areas have different sort of salience with these theories and that it’s okay that if you are someone who is working in leadership development programs, that you’re thinking about K’s experiential learning theory a bit more.

Than you’re thinking about other theories. It is perfectly fine if you work in housing and you are thinking about theories around self authorship, particularly around interpersonal development and how people develop relationships with one another that the. This whole book is meant to be a comprehensive guide, but it does not mean you have to be a comprehensive re iterator of theory.

You can, in many ways think about specializing and that the further you go in your career, you do need to think more comprehensively. And that’s why this book is really suited for all types of learners. It is good for the learner who wants to go really deep into one theory, and it’s good for the learner and the educator who wants to think expansively and broadly about the entire student experience.

Heather Shea: I love it. Thanks Alex. Kris Salinas, what’s your one big idea?

Cristóbal Salinas Jr.: I’ll love to Rosie and Alex gimme more to think about, right? ’cause there’s so many awesome ideas that we have developed or I have thought about from this book. But, when I think about what Alex said as well, the book is really easy to engage with.

’cause you can open the book, read one page or one k sample, or a theory or a section of be chapter or of, or a section of the whole book, right? That I hope that every time that reader opens the book, they can’t engaged in the book, but feel more curious.

And more critical to ask questions that can help you do.

Good in your job, do better at your job.

And then with that, we can become more intentional, right? So every time that we open the book and then we close it, there’s feelings of how can I do better in my personal life or in my job with students, with colleagues and so on.

Heather Shea: I love that.

Do better with intentionality, not just throw things at the wall and hope something sticks right. I love it. Shayla, what about you,

Chayla Haynes: man? I’m, I have so much to say, but I’ll try to stick to one major big idea, but something that stays with me, and I hope we did a great job of this with the book, I feel like we did, is that student development is a family business.

And one of my earliest experiences teaching student development theory, at the end of the course I gave each student a little button that said, welcome to the family because student development is a family business. And while I’m here teaching it to you now you’ll be teaching it to someone else real soon, right?

So there’s lineage, there’s connection, there’s legacy across all of us who get an opportunity to be exposed to student development and the opportunity, the profound privilege to work with college students. So I think our book speaks to educators who work directly and indirectly with college students.

And so we use the term educator as a broad we speak to educators broadly and that. Would mean that anyone who is working with college students as mentors, supervisors, trainers, instructors, student affairs educators, institutional leaders, indirectly or directly, you’re all in the family business of student development.

So it’s so important that we recognize that in these roles, student development theory is essential, or excuse me student development is central and theory is useful in helping us support the institution’s academic mission. So it’s just not the job of student affairs educators to care about this.

Anyone who’s working with students should be committed to student development. And here we provided a resource, a tool to help you meet the needs of students and guide your work with intention and develop some really meaningful, hopefully sustainable action actionable interventions. Welcome to the family.

Heather Shea: I love it. Thank you all so much. Oh, Kris Ren. I’ve almost forgot Kris Ren. Kris, what is your final one thought? I’ve never forget

Chayla Haynes: Kris Ren.

Kristen A. Renn: What I was just gonna say was like, first of all, who doesn’t wanna go be in Alex’s Kris’s Rosie’s or Chayla’s student on theory class? Like I’m, oh my gosh, I wanna be in the family.

So you’re,

Chayla Haynes: you are the family.

Heather Shea: It was such a mind drop moment that I was like, yes. Oh my God. So good. Yeah,

Kristen A. Renn: and just to slightly build on it, I would say sometimes students come into my class and they’re like, I gotta take, this class is required, I’m not a theory person.

And I think part of what the book says to everybody is, with your formal and informal theories, your reflection, the way you’re gonna put this in practice, you are a theory person. You don’t have to identify as one, but you really are, you are the family, you are a theory person. And this book I think, is accessible in a way that’s gonna make it possible for people to feel included in conversations about student development and not on the outside.

Heather Shea: I love it. That’s

Kristen A. Renn: great.

Heather Shea: I love that you are a part of the family and you are in it because this book is accessible and easy to, to use. I think that’s the key piece. So we’re at the end of our time for part one. As I mentioned earlier, we have a part two to this to this episode. But as you all know, this podcast is called Student Affairs now, and this is the point in the conversation that I love to hear what you’re thinking about pondering, considering it could be related to what we just talked about.

It could be broader in, what’s facing our society or higher ed context right now. And then you might also share if you would like, how people can get in touch with you or find you on LinkedIn. And Alex you’re up first on final thoughts and contact.

Alex C. Lange: Yeah. With apologies to Kris Ren, ’cause she’s heard me talk about this before.

I think for me, I continue to think about, and I’m so sorry I have to bring it up. The role of artificial intelligence in college, student development and learning. I say sorry ’cause I feel like I have to talk about AI almost every single day, and it’s like being forced upon me. Like I didn’t ask for copilot in my outlook.

I have not asked for AI in my Lyft app. Like I have not asked for any of this. And yet it feels foisted upon me. And so I think it’s, we’re thinking about concepts like cognitive, offload, loading, productive struggle. Folks in mathematics have been thinking about that idea for a long time actually.

I really keep coming back to, the role, artificial intelligence and its use on college campuses is really going to shape the learning and development conversation in very different ways. In some ways, I think everyone’s trying to get ahead of what it means to be AI competent looking at U Ohio State University, but I don’t think people actually know what that means still, even though when they articulate it in their documents.

I am unconvinced as someone who studies learning and development that said I think. The I think the current generation of college students often gets said as they’re just embracing AI and cheating and doing all of this stuff. And I actually am really unconvinced by that idea. Yeah. I’m doing a longitudinal study right now with a set of participants who have actually all been quite anti ai.

It’s actually been quite surprising to me how starkly opposed they to, they are to it both epistemologically and morally. And I think that moral component is the key part of that component. But I think we’re gonna see a generation of college students in 2, 3, 4 years who had AI in high school, who had AI in middle school, who I think are gonna have a very different set of assumptions about AI than this current set of college students are.

And as we’ve, as Robert has talked about, we’ve really moved away from the accountability conversation to the ROI conversation about higher ed. That AI in many ways is prompting a lot of conversations about. The ROI stuff, but I want us to think more about the learning and development stuff with its immersions as well.

Heather Shea: Yeah I’m surprised we got all the way to the end and hadn’t talked about AI yet. That’s why I apologize. I feel like it does come up in almost every single conversation and as a parent, and I have lots of thoughts on that as well in my engagement with my two kids about this. Kris Ren, what is your kind of final thought where you’re thinking about pondering and then any, if you want folks to try to find you on LinkedIn or email,

Kristen A. Renn: Yeah, search to answer the easy part first.

I’m pretty easy to find on the internet. I’m the, almost the one and only Kristen Ren. So I, on LinkedIn or the Michigan State website has my email. I had just started a study that it goes back to the idea of, let’s look for examples of where it appears that students are. Doing the thing that society doesn’t, isn’t really great at right now, which is talking across differences.

And I have located a study site that has some features that would make it seem like this wouldn’t be a place that students could do much in terms of intercultural maturity. It would seem like a place that would draw on separation. And part of that is driven by AI and algorithms, right?

You can live your whole life in your algorithm space. But I’m really excited about looking for those places where students are creating counter spaces with and around AI perhaps, but but they’re creating these counter spaces that go against the outside culture. And I think that is a really rich place to think about.

I’m thinking about Rosie Pres series of intercultural maturity. But thinking about how do we take where it’s happening, where it seems to be happening what are our lessons that we can take out and amplify and scale to other places? So that’s kind what’s on my mind about student development right now.

Heather Shea: Great. Thanks Kris. Jayla.

Chayla Haynes: And I have so much, most, mostly what I’m pondering or what I’m feeling is excitement because I think what we’ve done well in the book is especially around our theory and or our framework, the S-D-T-I-A framework and how we embed it so deeply across the text and the utilize it within the companion website, the pedagogical activities and things like that is we the framework itself posits that the more we interact with theory, the more theory will evolve.

And I’m excited about that because there’s some real world structural enduring challenges, problems, that higher education is facing and we need new ideas and new answers to to help meet that need, to undo, to create, to address a lot of what we’re been dealing with for a while. So I’m excited that it excites me to think that there’ll be more people across disciplines, fields a across sectors of higher education, engaging in theory through this book.

So maybe we can really get at some of those enduring problems.

Heather Shea: Thanks, Jayla. Rosie, how about you?

Rosemary J. Perez: Kris? Almost stole my answer. Run, but no, not completely. I’m gonna build off of that. We live in an increasingly polarized world. And it is really difficult to want to engage. Or maintain relationship with people who might be diametrically opposed.

And one thing that I tell students often is sometimes theory helps me maintain some critical hope. Is that resistance by choice or is it like a developmental, is there an opportunity to stay engaged with somebody through this? Like, how might, and sometimes there is times we need to let people go.

That is also to be clear. But sometimes in my work, student development theory gives me a moment of pause before I say, you know what? And you wanna just tell somebody every reason they’re wrong. Just to say, where is this from? What is the nugget that I can hold from you and how might this help me think through how to be in relationship, maybe not as good relationship, but how does this help me maintain something so that we can figure out if there’s ways to move forward?

And I, I feel like on our campuses it is easier for many reasons to just walk away and discard people. That isn’t a luxury we have, if we want to meet these like aims we say we have for higher ed, if we wanna build community, if we wanna create joy in the world. Like we can’t just discard people so easily.

And so sometimes theory is a tool for me to hold onto that when it’s easier to just let it go. And if folks would like to continue that discussion my email is available on the University of Michigan website and I’m also on LinkedIn occasionally.

Heather Shea: Awesome. Thanks Rosie. Linas.

Cristóbal Salinas Jr.: Yeah. So I have two things, two thoughts after this conversation.

One, the first, one of the things that came up in mind, and I wrote a note so I don’t forget it, when readers or we people read, ’cause we train thinkers, scholars researchers, stu students overall to be critical. So I know there’s gonna be some critique to the book that we might miss, an identity that we have, might miss a theory.

We aim to be as inclusive of as we could because there’s so many theories. But I think what this book does, it helps the reader brings their own perspective, write their own case samples, right? And as Kris ran mentioned earlier, we use adult learners a lot, right? Because it’s not just about the students.

It’s everyone else. And one of the things that I’m pondering too, and Heather, this is based on what you share. I’m not a parent, so I didn’t think about this, how this book can be used for parents right. As well. So that’s something else that that I thought about of you are right. It could be used for parents with adult learners.

That in the the second. Pondering or more like a feeling that I have it is, I’m so proud to be part of this team being a co-author with my colleagues because I remember when I took this student development theory using that green book with Nancy Evans and now writing next to Kris Ran, but also to Rosie.

I remember when she came to interview at Iowa State. I was a student still there my last year. And then now connecting and building relationships with Alex and Shayla has been a phenomenal experience. So I’m very proud of this, of Proud, and I know that the readers will see that through as they read.

Heather Shea: Wow, that was a fabulous mic drop at the end. Thank you so much, Kris. Did I get everybody? I did get everybody right. Okay. No. Jayla, did you go? Did you go Jayla?

Kristen A. Renn: Okay.

Heather Shea: Okay. Okay. I’ll have Nat cut that little part. Did

Chayla Haynes: I? I thought I did. I thought I did.

Heather Shea: Oh my goodness. Thank you all so much.

This was a fantastic episode. Oh, I know why I am mess messing this up. I’m going to have Nat really cut this whole section is because I scrolled all the way down to where the outro was and I’m looking at the last thing and it says, Chayla is last. So anyway, Nat, please cut here. All right. So before we wrap up today’s episode, I just wanna take a moment and say thank you to all five of you.

Thank you for being here for recording this episode, and to everybody who’s watching or listening. And as I mentioned at the beginning of the episode, you can connect more deeply with the Student Affairs Now community through our Patreon. Student Affairs now has always been more than a podcast. It’s a learning community for people who care deeply about higher education and student affairs.

And for the past five years, we’ve created space for conversations that inform, inspire and affirm the work educators are doing across the field. We are so incredibly grateful for our listeners, guests, and collaborators who have helped this community grow through Patreon. We’re creating even more ways for you to connect with our community, including discussion guides, facilitated book club conversations, bonus content and opportunities to help shape future discussions.

If these conversations have ever sparked an idea for your work or help you feel more connected to others in the field, we’d love to have you join us. We have multiple membership levels, including a free membership level. You can learn more@patreon.com slash student affairs now. And huge thank you as always to Nat Ambrosey our incredible producer, Nat, you do all the behind the scenes brilliance that make every episode possible and we are so grateful for you.

And as always, thanks to our listeners and viewers for being a part of the learning community. I’m Heather Shea. Thanks for watching and listening. Let’s make it a great week. Okay. Pausing recording.

Websites: 

Promoting At-Promise Student Success Project: https://pass.pullias.usc.edu/

Article citations: 

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393788

Books: 

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.

Kezar, A. (2006). To use or not to use theory: Is that the question? In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 21, pp. 283–344). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4512-3_6

Taylor, K. B., & Baker, A. R. (2019). Examining the role of discomfort in collegiate learning and development. Journal of College Student Development, 60(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0017

Leonardo, Z., & Porter, R. K. (2010). Pedagogy of fear: Toward a Fanonian theory of “safety” in race dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.482898 

Boss, G. J., & Dunn, M. (2021). Boyeristic tendencies: A look into the life history of student affairs scholar-practitioner. Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs, 37(2), 120–139.