Campus Ecologist

Volume 9, Number 1, 1991

Men and Student Development: Emerging Notions From The Perspective Of Campus Ecology

by Douglas M. Gertner

Colorado State University

Theory Grounds Practice and Programs

Student Development Theory serves as the foundation of student affairs work (Rodgers, 1989; Knefelkamp, Widick & Parker 1978; Miller, Winston [ Mendenhall, 1983). Drum (1980) defines student development as "a process in which an individual undergoes a number of changes toward more complex behavior that result from mastering the increasingly demanding challenges of life." Transformation occurs, according to Drum, toward more complex behaviors and changes in the way a student views and interacts with his/her world.

A number of theorists have contributed to the body of knowledge about student development, including: Chickering (1969), Perry (1970), Kohlberg (1969), Erikson (1968), Heath (1968), and Sanford (1962). In the 20 or more years since their work first appeared it has gained widespread acceptance by practitioners of student affairs. Drum (1980) and Barr, Keating and Associates (1985) assert the importance of campus programs which are driven, intentionally or otherwise, by our understanding of development during the college years.

This paper suggests that traditional theories of student development do not adequately reflect the experiences or needs of men. It goes on to propose a new approach to understanding and serving men in college based upon the perspective of campus ecology.

Critique of Theories

Of the prevailing theories of student development mentioned above all were offered by men and most were based upon research and observations of male college students. In the case of Chickering, for example, his population was drawn from a study of students at small, liberal arts colleges in the 1960's. These institutions were attended by mostly privileged men and women from upper-middle class backgrounds. Kohlberg and Perry did much of their research on a similar, all-male population at Harvard.

Criticism has been levied, as a result of these facts, that points to problems with existing theories of student development (Gilligan, 1982; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986, for example). They reflect what Schaef (1981) refers to as the "white male system" which neglects female, Black, Chicano, Asian-American and Native-American systems. It also negates any deviation by men from this system which is sustained by a set of "myths" (p.7-20). Clearly, the limited purview of student development theory is a weakness to the credibility and effectiveness of student affairs practice.

More recently, questions have been raised about the effects of this male bias on the very men who might appear to be its beneficiaries. May (1988) writes that "changing gender roles are dramatically effecting the college experience of male students. " Scher, Canon and Stevens (1988) examine college men, male student affairs professionals and the collegiate environment in offering some new perspectives on masculinity on campus. They explore the growing "gender role strain" as it is manifest in behaviors and attitudes such as rape, homophobia, career choice, relationships and academic achievement. The work mentioned above is an example of the growing challenges to traditional conceptions of development of male college students.

Ecological Re-evaluation of Theory for Men

Campus Ecology (Banning, 1978) offers a model for intervention based upon the interaction of students and the college environment. Its strengths in the use of redesigning campus programs (ecosystems) with sensitivity to gender are explained by Wedge (1983) as: Diversity-necessary for the integrity of an ecosystem; the design process depends on access of all persons to participate; Valuing-this initial step in the process ensures that common values are established at the outset of making change; Flexibility-this feature of the ecosystem design process will facilitate its use in developing new theories and in changing campuses which are at various points in their own development; Non-hierarchical-a leaderless approach models new behavior in a white male system; Developmental Tool-Wedge reaffirms the effectiveness of the ecosystem design process in addressing issues of development. The design process employed in campus ecology will thus be useful in establishing a new understanding of student development as it relates to men.

The underlying premise of campus ecology says that behavior is a function of person (student) interacting with environment (campus). This can be expressed with the equation B = f(P, E). In this case, the desired behavior is male college students who are free of gender role strain and able to be more fully developed human beings (due to a shift away from traditional theories of student development). Attention must thus be paid to altering the existing environment to promote and nurture the changes of men in college.

Blocher (1978) suggests three subsystems of campus ecology that promote effective learning environments such as those needed to confront the existing theories of development and their effects on men. These subsystems are: opportunity, support and reward. For each case, there are interventions which will assist in reformulating our understanding of the development of men.

Opportunity: At the very root of traditional gender role development is the socialization process throughout the lifespan and particularly in high school and college. Opportunities must be made available through tasks which allow young boys and college men to try out experiences which are different from our preconceived notions of development. As new competence and control is developed males can reach a clear sense of their identity which is not dictated by traditional theories.

Support: Academic programs and student services must supplement familial practices to support new conceptions of male development. On another level, graduate preparation programs in student affairs must challenge the existing theory base regarding college men in order to provide a stronger basis for this support.

Reward: Student affairs staff need to be prepared to handle the changing college male. In addition, new research must be conducted to provide theories and further understand them. And we must continue to advocate change and implement campus (ecosystem) redesign to confront the sexism inherent in our campuses .

The spirit of the growing men's movement, which began less than two decades ago, can be characterized in the words of the Berkeley Men's Center Manifesto (1973) which begins:

"We, as men, want to take back our full humanity. We no longer want to strain to live up to an impossible oppressive masculine image - strong, silent, cool, handsome, unemotional, successful, master of women, leader of men, wealthy, brilliant, athletic and "heavy."

Editor's Note. Douglas Gertner is Program Coordinator for the Office of Housing and Food Services at Colorado State University. Mr. Gertner is also a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Northern Colorado and is frequently called upon for workshops and classes in the area of men's issues.

References

Banning, J.H. (1978) (ed.) Campus ecology: A perspective for student affairs. Cincinnati: National Association of student Personnel Administrators.

Barr, M. J., Keating, L.A. & Associates (eds.) (1985) Developing effective student services programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., and Tarule, J.M. (1986). Womens Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Blocher, D .H . (1978) "Campus learning environments and the ecology of student development . " In J . H . Banning (ed.) Campus ecology . A perspective for student affairs. Cincinnati: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Chickering, A. (1969). Education and identity San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Drum, D. J. (1980) "Understanding ." In W.H. Morrill, J.C. Hurst, E.R. Oetting Dimensions of intervention for student development. New York John Wiley & Sons.

Erikson, E. (1968) Identity. Youth and crisis. New York W.W. Norton.

Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Heath, D. (1968) Growing up in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knefelkamp, L., Widick, C. Parker, C.A. (1978) Applying new developmental findings. New Directions in Student Services, #4. San Francisco: JosseyBass .

Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Levinson, D., et al . (1978) The seasons of a man s life. New York: A . A . Knopf.

May, R. J. (1988) "The developmental journey of the male college student." In Changing roles of men on campus. R.J. May & M. Scher (ads.) New Directions for Student Services, #42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, T.K., Winston, Jr. R.B. & Mendenhall, W.R. 1983) Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education. Muncie, Indiana: Accelerated Development, Inc.

Perry. W. Jr. (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development to the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rodgers, R.F. (1989) ''Student Development." In U. Delworth, G.R. Hanson & Associates (eds.) Student services. A handbook for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schaef, A.W. (1981) Women's Reality: An emerging female system in a white male society. Minneapolis: Winston Press.

Scher, M., Canon, H. J., & Stevens, M.A. (1988) ''New perspectives on masculinity in the college environment." In Changing roles of men on campus. R. J. May & M. Scher (ads.) New Directions for Student Services, #42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wedge, K.J. (1983) "The ecological perspective: Strengths and concerns " The Campus Ecologist, Vol. l #-4, 1-3.

Campus Buildings and Behavior

by James H. Banning

Discussion of the topic of behavior and the built environment often starts by making reference to the Winston Churchill statement that we shape our buildings and then they shape us. This observation leads to the question of what role buildings play in student behavior. This question can be pursued from an ecological perspective by looking at the major issue embedded in the building and behavior relationship.

Major Issue

The major issue that must be addressed is the nature of the influence that architecture may have on behavior. In the literature, the nature of this influence has been conceptualized by three positions (Bell, Fisher, Baum, & Greene, 1990; Porteus, 1977). First, architectural determinism suggests that there is a rather direct and causal link between the built environment and behavior. A second position, environmental or architectural possibilism views the building as one that offers opportunities and sets limits for behavior. This relationship is denoted by context rather than determinism. Finally, environmental or architectural probabilism assumes that certain behaviors have probabilistic links to the built environment.

While all three positions offer insight into the relationship between buildings and behavior, to assume the position of architectural determinism suggests buildings have a direct and causal link to behavior. This position, however, does not do justice to the complexities of the environment, the complexities of behavior, nor the diversity of the students. It fails to capture the transactional relationship between buildings, students, and behavior, that is, it fails to sort out the complex social and psychological factors associated with built spaces (Porteus, 1977).

To view the relationship in terms of possibilities and probabilities, however, not only appears more realistic; it also captures our intuitive notion that campus buildings can make a difference in the lives of students.

Behaviors and Buildings

What are the important behaviors that can be influenced by the architecture of the building? Deasy and Lasswell (1985), an architect and sociologist respectively, outline eight behavioral categories that can be influenced by architecture. These categories have direct application to the campus environment. Deasy and Lasswell, list these as follows: (1) friendship formation; (2) group membership; (3) personal space; (4) personal status; (5) territoriality (6) communications; (7) cue searching; and (8) personal safety.

In other words, the architecture can make possible and increase probability of friendship and group involvement by designing spaces that bring people together. Personal needs of privacy and personalization can also be impacted by the architecture. Students like all of us seek private and personal spaces that they can retreat to and call their own. Some spaces facilitate communication among students and other space arrangements often hinder important communications. Classrooms can often be seen from this framework. Cue searching or wayfinding is the notion that the architecture can help us navigate the campus. The architecture can either confuse us or guide us. Finally, architecture of "doors'' can either increase or decrease the probability of being safe.

Given the influence that architecture has on important student behaviors, then Deasy and Lasswell's suggestion that all building/program plans of new construction or renovations should carry what they call "behavioral program" makes for good student affairs practice.

References:

Bell, P., Fisher, J., Baum, A., & Greene, T. (1990). Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Deasy, C.M . & Lasswell, T. (1985) Designing places for people. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.

Porteus, J. (1977). Environment and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Resource References: Buildings and Learning

Anderson, P. (1971). The school as an organic teaching aid. In R.M. McClure (Ed.), National society for the study of education yearbook, Part I. The Curriculum Retrospect & Prospect (pp. 271-306). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Banning, J. (1988). Behavior maces: A concept for campus ecologist. The Campus Ecologist, 7(2), 1-2.

Bell, P., Usher, J., Baum, A., & Greene, T. (1990). Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Blocher, D. (1978). Campus learning environments and the ecology of student development. In J. Banning (Ed.), Campus ecology: A perspective for student affairs, (pp.17-23). Cincinnati: NASPA)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Expenments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brubaker, C.W. (1990). Education and architecture: Does good design enhance the learning process? Wingspan, 6(1), 14.

Clark, J. (1989). Philosophy in brick. Inland Architect, Nov./Dec., 64-59.

Chan, T. (1988). The aesthetic environment and student learning. School Business Affairs, 51(6), 9-12.

Conners, D. (1981). The school's macro and micro physical environment: A link to understanding stress. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York: (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 219 842)

Earthman, G. (1986). Research needs in the field of educational faculty planning. Paper presented at the Edusystems 2000 International Congress on Educational Facilities, Values, and Contents. Jerusalem: (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 283 301)

Gump, P.V. (1978). School environments. In I. Altman & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Children and the environment, (pp. 131-174). New York: Plenum Press.

Gump, P.V. (1989). School and classroom environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol. 1, (pp. 691-732). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Handler, B. (1960). Needed research on the effects of buildings on human behavior. New Building Research Institute. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science, National Research Council.

Hart, R. (1987). Children's participation in planning and designing. In C. Weinstein & T. David (Eds.), Spaces for children, (pp. 217-239). New York: Plenum Press.

Hathway, W. (1988). Educational facilities: Designing to enhance learning and human performance. Education Canada, 28(4), 28-35.

McDonnell, T. & Becker, F. (1978). Annotated bibliography on the effects of the physical environment upon education: Ecological theory of teaching. Far West Lab. for Educational Research and Development. San Francisco: CA (ERlC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 218-252)

McGuffey, C. (1982). Facilities. In H. Walbert (Ed.). Improving educational standards and productivity, (pp. 237-283). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.

Moore, G., Lane, C. & Lindberg, L. (1979). Bibliography on children and the physical environment. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 184-696)

Moore, G. (1986). The environment in interactional and transactional theories of environment and aging. (Working paper wp86-2). Milwaukee; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Architecture and Urban Planning .

Moore, G. (1987). The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care centers. In C. Weinstein & T. David. Spaces for Children, (pp. 41-72). New York: Plenum Press.

Phyfe-Perkins, E. (1980). Children's behavior in preschool settings: A review of research concerning the influence of the physical environment. In L. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education, Vol.3, Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.

Porteus, J. (1977). Environment and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Rakestraw, W. (1979). School building design: The building as an instructional tool. CEFPJournal, 17(6), 7.

Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communications approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Wachs, T. (1987) . Developmental perspectives on designing for development. In C. Weinstein & T. David (Eds.), Spaces for children, (pp. 291-307). New York: Plenum Press.

Weinstein, C. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.

Weinstein, C. (1987). Designing preschool classrooms to support development. In C. Weinstein & 'l'. David (Eds. ), Spaces for children, (pp. 159- 185). New York: Plenum Press.

Weinstein, C. & David, T. (1987). Spaces for children. New York: Plenum Press .

Wolfe, M. & Rivlin, L. (1987). The institutions in children's lives. In C. Weinstein & T. David (Eds.), Spaces for children, (pp. 89-114). New York: Plenum Press.

Wohlwill, J. and Heft, H . (1989). The physical environment and the development of the child. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol 1, (pp. 175-204). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Zeisel, J. (1981), Inquiry by design. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole

This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.