As I was pulling my thoughts together for this review I was grading the second set of final papers for the initial theory course in our graduate program. This first-of-two theory course is focused on constructivistdevelopmental theories. I’ve taught our second theory course, grounded in identities and critical theories, for 22 years and I found myself surprised at how many students used Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) theoretical concepts to make meaning of their own lived experiences. I was surprised because my critical theory focus from studying emergent identity theories rooted in oppression and the politics of power moved me to sideline most early developmental theories. Ironically, my critical epistemological focus on social inequity and positional subjectivities overshadowed, rather than illuminated, important commonalities in the students’ growth experiences discussed by Chickering in 1969, half a century ago. In that seminal work, Chickering set out to challenge higher education’s concentration on information dissemination and professional training to include a much more holistic consideration of students’ psychosocial lives. More importantly, he built on Erikson’s (1968) and Sanford’s (1967) theories to illustrate the centrality of identity to students in college and describe key environmental influences that stimulate human development. Schuh (1993), in his insightful review of Chickering and Reisser’s second edition of Education and Identity, claimed that the original work “stimulated as much follow-up research as any book in the field over the past 25 years” (p. 310). I not only agree with this, but think that today’s burgeoning research on students’ psychosocial development, identities, and the impact of various environments owes much to the original framing of developmental vectors and elucidation of related higher education policies and practices that encourage growth. The theory, while arguably the most impactful in the field of student affairs in terms of both generating research and undergirding practice and program design, like all theory, is decidedly not without limits.

中文翻译：

---

回顾影响学生发展的书籍

当我为这篇评论整理我的想法时，我正在为我们研究生课程的初始理论课程的第二组期末论文评分。这门二选一的理论课程侧重于建构主义发展理论。22 年来，我一直教授我们的第二门理论课程，以身份和批判理论为基础，我发现自己惊讶于有多少学生使用 Chickering 和 Reisser (1993) 的理论概念来解释他们自己的生活经历。我很惊讶，因为我的批判理论重点是研究植根于压迫和权力政治的新兴身份理论，这使我对大多数早期发展理论置之不理。具有讽刺意味的是，我对社会不平等和职位主观性的批判认识论重点掩盖了，而不是照亮了，半个世纪前，奇克林在 1969 年讨论了学生成长经历中的重要共同点。在这项开创性的工作中，奇克林着手挑战高等教育对信息传播和专业培训的关注，以更全面地考虑学生的社会心理生活。更重要的是，他以埃里克森 (1968) 和桑福德 (1967) 的理论为基础，阐释了大学学生身份的核心地位，并描述了刺激人类发展的关键环境影响。Schuh (1993) 在他对奇克林和莱瑟第二版教育与身份的深刻评论中声称，原著“刺激了过去 25 年来该领域任何书籍的后续研究”（第 310 页） . 我不仅同意这一点，但认为当今对学生的社会心理发展、身份认同和各种环境影响的新兴研究在很大程度上要归功于发展向量的原始框架以及对鼓励增长的相关高等教育政策和实践的阐明。该理论虽然可以说是学生事务领域最有影响力的，但与所有理论一样，无论是在产生研究、支持实践还是项目设计方面，它都绝对不是没有限制的。