Astin, Astin, and Lindholm (2011) beat a fresh stroke in the currents of discussion involving student development with their book: “Cultivating the Spirit.” At its core, this book is consonant with Astin’s seminal work in the domain of student engagement. As such, there is much joy to be found in reading this book as it fills a hole in our knowledge on the subject of students’ spiritual development while also adding a new dimension to Astin’s (1993) familiar treatise on how college affects young people. Astin et al. contribute fresh insights into how college affects students’ development by exploring the dimensions of their interior lives. If we consider students’ spiritual development essential to success, we must inquire what is meant by “success” to determine whether the construct facilitates the desired outcomes.
The achievement of student success has been roundly discussed far and yon as the United States slowly exits the economic doldrums of 2007. Previous posts on this blog have reflected on: whether recent patterns of college enrollment were attributable to the Great Recession; whether the American postsecondary system can wean itself from revenue model predicated on student debt; and, whether students’ learning is jeopardized by high costs such that students are unable to purchase text books. Whether a given student succeeds in college, despite the pressures of recent economic austerity, is no simple question to answer. Indeed, the notion of “success” is a value-laden word that must be clearly defined lest we prefer to find ourselves lost in the wood, much as Dante was.
Astin et al. (2011) provide a succinct summary of reasons why they conducted research on college students’ spiritual development sufficient to clarify why readers ought to regard this work as essential in the domain of facilitating student success. Among the reasons given the authors cite a lack of previous research, changes in annual survey data of college freshman broadly showing a shift towards consumerism, and growing levels of anxiety arising from global and national issues (pp. 2-3). At its core, the findings presented by Astin et al. are suggestive that the notion of student success must be broadened to include facilitating students’ quests for inner-meaning. But, why?
Astin et al. (2011) present substantial evidence showing links between traditional indicators of student success (GPA, satisfaction with college, and graduation; pp. 116-119) and students’ levels of spiritual development. It should be noted that the authors’ definitions of “traditional student success” are consonant with a seminal treatment of the topic presented by Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, and Associates (2005). Regarding data, the authors compiled longitudinal data across three collection periods. First, the authors piloted the survey (College Students’ Beliefs and Values Survey, or CSBV) in 2003. The CSBV was subsequently administered in 2004 in a collection yielding data from 112,232 college freshmen across 236 American postsecondary institutions (p. 19). The 2007 follow-up survey collected data from 14,527 students from the original sample. By way of comparison to a pair of theories generally focusing on students’ spiritual development the sample obtained by Astin et al. is colossal. Indeed, if one considers Fowler’s sample, N=359, or Parks’ musings on faith development culled from her experiences as a teacher, counselor, and college researcher (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010, pp. 196-211), it is evident that Astin et al. have amassed a data set worthy of serious consideration.
Astin et al. (2011) distinguish between the spiritual and religious domains and, in so doing, highlight their departure from extant contributions to the canon of student development theory. Whereas the Evans et al. (2010) text (I used this one during my master’s program and assume many other student affairs masters’ programs do too) only references two theories of faith development, Astin et al. are keen to separate the spiritual and religious. Astin et al. clarify that spirituality refers to a broad domain of experiences, transcendental and mundane, around which an individual crafts meaning, order, and harmony (p. 4). Religious development, on the other hand, is held to refer to codified and institutionalized beliefs and values that are idiosyncratic of groups generally having explicit rules of membership (p. 5). Such a broader theory of spiritual and religious development ought to possess broader utility across the spectrum of American postsecondary institutions.
Astin et al. (2011) advance a theory of spiritual development containing 10 constructs evenly distributed across the spiritual and religious domains. Within the domain of the spirit are: 1) spiritual quest; 2) equanimity; 3) ethic of caring; 4) charitable involvement; and 5) ecumenical worldview (p. 18). Likewise, there are five measures of religious development including: 1) religious commitment; 2) religious engagement; 3) religious and social conservatism; 4) religious skepticism; and, 5) religious struggle. Of the many findings the authors present, the one I found most interesting was the relationship between growth in equanimity and increases in GPAs.
If higher education professionals continue to use GPA as a measure of student success, it behooves them to probe the relationship between equanimity and GPA. The authors describe equanimity as bearing the features of calmness and serenity wherein one may find “meaning in time of hardship” (p. 50). I venture that the positive relationship between high equanimity and GPA arises from a psychosocial orientation that is amenable to diversity and embracing of difference as a learning tool. This is consonant with previous scholarship on college outcomes (Astin, 1993) and student success (Kuh et. al, 2005; Tinto, 1987). In other words, if we want college students to be able to successfully manage and synthesize multiple domains of inquiry, their curricular and extracurricular experiences ought to be structured to incorporate diversity at many, if not all, levels.
This brings me to believe that while student affairs professionals will benefit from reading “Cultivating the Spirit”, the best audience for this book is faculty and senior administration. Astin et al. (2011) found that four of every five faculty surveyed held themselves as spiritual individuals (p. 39). Yet, while faculty considered “enhancing students’ self-understanding” an “essential or very important goal, they are also concerned about offending others or running afoul of laws regarding the separation of church and state (p. 141). As such, faculty ought to consider the findings presented by Astin et al. and implement pedagogical practices whereby students are exposed to diverse perspectives in a context inviting of quiet, calm self-reflection. Presidents and provosts of postsecondary institutions also ought to read this book as it shows that there are positive relationships between the higher metacognitive processes and affective well-being. In other words, graduates who have studied in intentionally diverse environments and were encouraged at many points to engage in self-reflection are more likely to report satisfaction with college, demonstrate conscientious and ethical leadership, and possess broader content mastery (assumed by way of GPA).
The college years are supposed to be times of exploration and making meaning. Yet, the fiscal crisis of 2007 and subsequent austerity measures are likely to have blunted the reception of “Cultivating the Spirit” within public postsecondary education. Nonetheless, this book is an important contribution to the canon of student development that adds to our knowledge and confirms that diverse, structured, and learner-centered schools are more apt to produce ethical leaders who are more likely to espouse pluralistic and democratic views and are less likely to cow to commercial values and peer pressure to conform. As we move on from the Great Recession and into an uncertain future we can at least be assured that Astin et al. (2011) have identified a heading that leads up, out of darkness, and into the Light.
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W., Astin, H.S., & Lindholm, J.A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, practice, and research. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J. & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment