Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong

Course Design: Student Development in Higher Education, Theory to Practice

This course is oftentimes a foundational or core requirement in many Higher Education,

Student Affairs, or College Student Personnel programs, at both the master’s and doctoral
levels. Students who are seeking a master’s degree in these fields, are often required to take a
3-credit course on student development theories. In some programs, students are required to
take two, 3-credit courses. I have designed a 3-credit course intended for master’s students.

In designing this course, I have assumed several things:

• There would typically be 20-25 learners in the course attending class in-person
• Learners would range in characteristics including age and status (i.e., full-time or part-
time, working on campus or off-campus, recent graduates and returning students)
• Learners may have varying short- and long-term career goals in higher education
• Learners may vary in their previous experiences and knowledge gained in relation to
higher education, work with college students, or developmental theories
• This course would be taught at a mid-large sized public institution

This course’s purpose, learning objectives, expectations, and assignments were guided by two
frameworks related to teaching and learning practices and assessment criteria: Fink’s (2013)
taxonomy for creating significant learning experiences and Nilson’s (2015) notion of
specifications grading. Fink’s (2013) taxonomy provides a framework for ensuring that six kinds
of learning are valued in course design: foundational knowledge, application, integration,
human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn. The interactive nature of these kinds of
learning intersect to allow significant learning to take place. I used both Fink’s taxonomy and
Henrich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino’s (1996) widely used ABCD method for developing this
course’s learning objectives. The ABCD method allowed me to consider the audience (learners),
behaviors (what learns will do), conditions/contexts (under what circumstances learners will
do), and degrees (extent of what learners will do) for each learning objective. Fink’s (2013)
taxonomy allowed me to determine, specifically, the kinds of behaviors and conditions I needed
to consider when creating significant learning experiences.

This syllabus includes several adaptations from others’ syllabi for this type of course, specifically
regarding its course expectations and certain assignments. Because of this, I want to
acknowledge the syllabi of Dr. Z Nicolazzo, Dr. Jim Barber, and Dr. Elisa Abes. Further, some
institutional policies were adopted per the College of William & Mary.

References
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing
college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Heinrich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (1996). Instructional media and
technologies for learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Nilson, L. B. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving
faculty time. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 1

Student Development in Higher Education: Theory to Practice

Course # - Syllabus, Fall 2017
Course Day/Time/Location
College of William & Mary, School of Education

Instructor: Amanda Armstrong

E-mail: XXX
Twitter: @amandarae88 (If you follow me, I’ll follow you)
Office Location: XXX
Office Phone: XXX
Office hours: [days/times] I am always willing to meet with you outside of these times
either in-person or remotely (Google Chat or Hangout, Skype). Please
give me at least 48 hours in advance of our potential meeting.

COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course examines the college student experience from the life-span, developmental sociological
and cultural perspectives. Students examine and compare major theories and empirical findings in
the areas of college student development, the college environment, and the needs and
characteristics of various subgroups within the college population. Though the primary focus is on
the traditional college age group (18-23), the course also addresses the characteristics and needs of
non-traditional students.

COURSE OBJECTIVES
This course provides both content and learning opportunities for those interested in a career
working with college students in the fields of higher education and student affairs (HESA). Broadly,
the purpose of this course is for learners to (a) utilize their experiences, extant theories, and
informal models to understand student development, (b) critically examine extant theories, and (c)
develop a program curriculum to move theory into practice.

FRAMING OUR COURSE CONVERSATION

Student development theories assist us in making sense of the
increasingly complex and often nuanced ways in which students
construct themselves (the intrapersonal/identity domain of
development), grapple with knowledge (the cognitive domain of
development), and interact with others (the interpersonal/social
domain of development). As humans, we do not develop in a
vacuum. Although, at times, we will examine these three domains
of development in isolation, we will often consider how these
domains intersect for specific students within specific contexts.
No one theory may encompass the diversity of all students’
developmental journeys. In fact, you may discover that some theories were developed in isolation
of the individualized and systemic influences of power, privilege, and oppression. Therefore, we will
utilize critical perspectives to understand how these models were formed, what insights we can
gain from them, and develop informal models of students’ experiences. You will be challenged to
consider how such models might help you expand your knowledge of extant theories to make sense
of the ever-changing population of college students and the contexts within which they live.

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 2

Imagining student development in these ways will require us to move beyond learning about
student development theories, as they may be written and discussed through foundational models,
to a critical conversation surrounding how we understand, interpret, and challenge knowledge. I
hope we can do so while considering the roles of our own lived experiences and prior knowledge.

LEARNER OUTCOMES

1. In reading about and discussing theories of student development, learners will be able to:
a. understand the distinctions between and relationships among the cognitive,
intrapersonal, and interpersonal domains of development,
b. understand how individual differences and environments influence development,
and
c. recognize the role(s) of their own experiences in their understandings of student
development
i. as indicated through three personal analyses and the creation of a personal
philosophy.
2. In reading about and discussing critical perspectives including intersectionality and queer
theory, learners will be able to:
a. critique assigned course materials (i.e., readings, videos), and
b. integrate materials from outside the course
i. as indicated through one group-led facilitation.
3. Through the Model of Development assignment, learners will be able to:
a. assess college students’ stories or experiences in relation to two to three pre-
existing theories and emergent data,
b. develop a model of development given a specific population of students, and
c. come to see themselves as contributors to student development models
i. as indicated through data collection, analysis, and a poster presentation.
4. Through the Curriculum Design assignment, learners will be able to:
a. create learning opportunities within an area of higher education or student affairs
practice for students
i. as indicated through a draft and final written product.

COURSE EXPECTATIONS

Challenge and Support: All of us come with as many diverse experiences as the college students
with whom we currently work or will eventually work. Further, all of us may not share a similar
investment in or an appreciation for every content topic or certain assignments and activities. At
times during the semester you may feel challenged or uncomfortable, while at other times you may
feel like course materials or topics are irrelevant to you or redundant given your current knowledge.
I recognize that this may happen due to a variety of reasons, including your prior experiences,
learning preferences, and own developmental journeys. I encourage you to embrace these
experiences and use your resources including myself and your colleagues to assist you with creating
the most useful learning opportunities in this course. Please speak with me if you ever feel the
course materials or assignments are too advanced or not advanced enough for you to reach our
learning objectives. If this requires amending any assignment, I ask that you meet with me in
advance to discuss options.

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 3

Inclusivity: I will work to create an inclusive and welcoming learning environment for each of you
through course materials, assignments, and assessment criteria. If you ever feel excluded in any
way, please let me know. I welcome your feedback. I hope you will be equally inclusive and
respectful of others in the course. Although class rosters reflecting your legal names and gender
identifications are provided to me by the institution, I am happy to use the names and pronouns
you use. There will be time during our first class for introductions at which time you may share what
names and pronouns you use. If you would prefer to let me know this information prior to the start
of our course, please email me. If at any point during the semester your name or pronouns change,
please let me know and we can determine the most comfortable and safe way to share this with
others. I am committed to making course content accessible to all students. If English is not your
first language and this causes you concern about the course, please let me know.

Additionally, William & Mary is committed to providing students a safe environment free from
discrimination, including discriminatory harassment and violence. The Discrimination Policy
prohibits discrimination based on any irrelevant personal factor including race, gender and gender
identity, national origin, sex and sexual orientation, and many other characteristics. If I observe or
am informed of any discriminatory practices within the context of our class, incidents will be
reported to the College accordingly.

Active & Critical Participation: It is imperative that we respect one another personally and
professionally while appropriately challenging and supporting one another. As a graduate-level
seminar-style course, you will be expected to come to class having actively read (i.e., take notes,
synthesize information) and critically explored (i.e., ask questions of the readings) that week’s
materials and be prepared to engage through discussion and activities. If I notice that you’re more
disengaged than usual over multiple class meetings, I may inquire because I care about your well-
being and how this course may be influencing that.

Attendance: Due to the conversational and personal nature of this course, you are expected to
attend all class meetings. It would be difficult to achieve the course’s learning objectives without
attending class and engaging through group discussions and activities. Excused absences include
family or health-related situations, religious observances, and professional development
opportunities/conferences. Except for emergencies, absences not communicated in advance will be
considered unexcused. Two unexcused absences will result in the loss of a full letter grade and
three will result in the loss of another full letter grade. If you have more than three unexcused
absences, you can receive, at minimum, a “D” in the course.

Late Assignments: You are expected to turn in all assignments by their respective deadlines.
Because life happens, there may be extenuating circumstances in which other arrangements must
be made. If you do not submit an assignment on time, it is your responsibility to meet with me to
determine when you will submit the assignment and the appropriate assessment protocol. If you do
not meet with me to discuss late assignments, you will receive a zero on those assignments.

Technology in Class: I ask that you do not use your cell phones during class unless we are using
polling or a Q&A software. As I’m sure you’ve experienced, using phones for reasons unrelated to
the tasks at hand can be distracting to others. If you are expecting a call during class, please let me

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 4

know in advance. I encourage you to use devices including laptops or tablets for academic purposes
only.

Academic Honesty: William & Mary is a community of trust in which the conduct of its members is
assumed to be honorable. The Honor Code prohibits lying, cheating, and stealing. Definitions of
these violations, which include reference to plagiarism and unauthorized dual submission of
previous academic work, can be found here:
http://www.wm.edu/offices/deanofstudents/services/studentconduct/studenthandbook/honor_sy
stem/section_VI/index.php. Oftentimes, honor code violations are a result of unfamiliarity with
policies or what constitutes lying/cheating/stealing. Please review the terms of the Honor Code at
http://www.wm.edu/offices/deanofstudents/services/studentconduct/studenthandbook/honor_sy
stem/index.php. If you are unsure about whether something you are doing would be considered
academic dishonesty, consult with me. Any form of academic honesty will be reported to the Vice
President for Student Affairs for further honor council procedures.

Accommodations: It is my expectation, as well as the policy of William & Mary, to accommodate

students with disabilities and qualifying diagnosed conditions in accordance with federal and state
laws. Any student who feels they may need an accommodation based on the impact of a learning,
psychiatric, physical, or chronic health diagnosis should contact me privately to discuss your specific
needs. Students will also need to contact Student Accessibility Services staff at 757-221-2509 or at
sas@wm.edu to determine if accommodations are warranted and to obtain an official letter of
accommodation. For more information, please see www.wm.edu/sas. Additionally, if you discover
materials shared on [LMS] or visual aids or engagement materials I use in the course inaccessible,
please let me know.

GRADING CRITERIA

In this course, you will “receive grades based on the number of work requirements and the specific
work requirements [you] complete at a satisfactory level by given due dates” (Nilson, 2015, p. 25).
The assignments in this course were intentionally crafted to reflect different types and levels of
learning outcomes and become more complex as the semester progresses. Although I’ve outlined
the learning objectives for the course, there is some flexibility for you to make choices about how
many assignments you will complete and, as a result, how you will be assessed. As both a student
and educator, I’ve always struggled with justifying partial credit through point systems. Therefore,
you can choose which grade you’d like to work towards (A, B, C, or D) depending upon which
assignments/criteria you complete and to what degree. More required specifications for
“satisfactory level” are outlined in the assignment descriptions and future assignment sheets.
Please be prepared to let me know by our third class meeting which grade you hope to work
towards; we will discuss this in more detail on the first day.

For most written products in this course, “satisfactory level” is reflected by writing which adheres to
the 6th edition APA style guidelines including but not limited to expectations regarding syntax,
formatting, citations, mechanics, and grammar. How we write and the languages we choose are by-
products of our personal experiences and formal and informal educations. I do not expect you to
know every APA-related guideline; however, I do hope that you can gain knowledge regarding APA
conventions and consult with the manual, myself, or your colleagues as the semester progresses.

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 5

Criteria D C B A
Participation
(more than three unexcused absences and group-led facilitation) X
(no more than three unexcused absences and group-led facilitation) X
(no more than two unexcused absences and group-led facilitation) X
(no more than one unexcused absence and group-led facilitation) X
Personal Development Analyses
(complete 1 out of 3) X X
(complete 2 out of 3) X
(complete 3 out of 3) X
Mid-Semester Feedback X X X
Informal Model of Development X X X
Scholar-Practitioner Curriculum Design Draft and Workshop X
Scholar-Practitioner Curriculum Design X X
Student Development Philosophy X X X X

In the School of Education, instructors utilize the following grading system including plus and minus
designations as appropriate to evaluate student performance. In most cases, unless we determine
appropriate designations for late assignments or other circumstances, you will receive a “+”
designation for whichever grade you work towards. In the case that you do not meet the
requirements of a “D,” you will receive an “F.”

A—Performance considerably above the level expected for a student in a given program.
B—Performance equal to expectation for acceptable performance at the student’s level of study.
C—Performance below expectation but of sufficient quality to justify degree credit.
D—Performance unacceptable for graduate degree credit but sufficient to warrant a “passing”
grade for non-degree purposes

ASSIGNMENTS

In addition to weekly readings and your group-led facilitation, there are 4 major assignments in this
course. A brief description for each assignment is provided below and more detailed assignment
sheets for each will be made available on [LMS]. We will discuss these in more detail during class
meetings and I am always happy to meet for additional discussion.

Group-Led Facilitation

For three meetings during the course, groups of 3-4 will plan and facilitate 45-minutes of class. Your
group will be responsible for locating and assigning at least one additional reading or instructional
material, related to those posted for the week, as well as using active instructional strategies (e.g.,
discussion, group activities, multimedia material, skits, and more) to facilitate learning. The topic or
content for discussion is your choice, though you will be asked to use at least one critical or
poststructural perspective (e.g., intersectionality, queer theory, critical race theory, feminist theory,
or more) to frame the discussion depending upon which week you are assigned. This framing may
influence the reading or materials you choose as well as the instructional strategies you use for

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 6

engaging the class. I ask that your group discuss your ideas with me at least one week prior to
ensure content or activities between other groups and myself are not redundant.

1. Personal Development Analyses (3)

The purpose of this assignment is to better understand the roles and influence of your college
experiences, and those of your guides, mentors, or “good company,” on your developmental
journey. Throughout the semester, you will reflect upon your own experiences during your college
years while assessing your development across the three domains (cognitive, interpersonal,
intrapersonal). You will be spending time in-class recalling your undergraduate experiences through
written/typed responses; you can then use these, if you choose, to inform your three final analyses.
These analyses will also inform your final assignment, a philosophy of student development. Each
analysis will focus on one domain and guided questions for each analysis are found below. There is
no required format for the first two analyses. A few format options include a written/typed
response (3-4 double-spaced pages), an audiovisual product (8-10 minutes), a poem with an
accompanying 1-2 paragraph context description, a blog-type post (1500-2000 words) or other
multimedia ideas (please discuss with me at least one week in advance of due date).

Analysis #1: Cognitive Development — Due [Date]

In this analysis, you will reflect upon at least one significant experience that stood out for you as an
undergraduate. In doing so, consider the roles (if any) of “good company” in this experience.
Additionally, consider the theories we’ve explored thus far to help you make sense of and evaluate
your developmental patterns at the time. In sum, the following questions should assist with your
analysis:
• Why was this/these experience(s) significant? What role did “good company” play in these
experiences? What were some of your key beliefs about knowledge and knowing?

Analysis #2: Interpersonal Development — Due [Date]

In this analysis, you will reflect upon at least one significant experience that stood out for you as an
undergraduate. In doing so, consider the roles (if any) of “good company” in this experience.
Additionally, consider the theories we’ve explored thus far to help you make sense of and evaluate
your developmental patterns at the time. In sum, the following questions should assist with your
analysis:
• Why was this/these experiences significant? What role did “good company” play in these
experiences? How did you relate to others? And, in considering the interplay between the
cognitive and interpersonal domains, how did significant relationships impact your beliefs?

Analysis #3: Intrapersonal Development — Due [Date]

In this analysis, you will develop a personal borderland model that reflects your various identities.
Consider elements of the RMMDI including meaning making processes, context, and social
identities as well as the implications from at least one critical or poststructural perspective. You’ll
see several examples of these models within the readings; however, the purpose of this assignment
is to examine your own identity construct(s) outside the confines of one theory. There is no written
requirement for this assignment; instead, you’ll create some form of graphic (e.g., drawing, image,
photo, painting) and share your models in class. Additional details for this assignment will be
provided separately.

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 7

2. Informal Model of Development — Due [Date]

As you may notice throughout the semester, existing theories captured the lived experiences of
some populations of students in specific contexts, but they didn’t capture them all. The purpose of
this assignment is to assess students’ stories or experiences in relation to both extant theories and
emergent data to develop an informal model of development for a group of students. For this
assignment, you will work in teams of 2-3. Teams will select a population of students who share at
least one commonality (e.g., an experience such as being first-generation, international, a returning
adult learner, study abroad; an identity including worldview, race, gender identity, sexual
orientation). Although not required, I highly encourage your team to consider student populations
currently underrepresented in the student development literature. Each team member will
interview at least three students from their selected group of students. As a team, you will analyze
students’ stories to develop an informal model of development given those students’ experiences.
You will then compare the findings presented in your model to some of the key themes among
extant theories. There will be no paper for this assignment. Each team will present their model as a
conference-style poster presentation and provide a 2-sided handout (hard copy or electronically).
Additional details for this assignment will be provided separately.

3. Scholar-Practitioner Curriculum Design — Due [Date]

An important goal for understanding students’ development is to craft experiences/practices that,

not only take into consideration students’ capacities, but also promote development. Further, one
competency put forth by NASPA and ACPA (2015) (leading organizations in the field)—assessment,
evaluation, and research—reflects the need for educators to work within a scholar-practitioner
paradigm. Hatfield and Wise (2015) noted, “scholarship is leadership and takes us from practice to
influencing the field of student affairs” (p. 4). The purpose of this assignment is to, individually,
design a program curriculum for an area of practice within HESA of interest to you. Curriculum is
defined broadly for the purposes of this assignment as a program, learning opportunity, or
educational experience that may happen once, a few times, or longitudinally (e.g., a workshop,
training, orientation, a course). We will examine several models for applying theories and research
to practice. You’ll be asked to submit a draft of your curriculum and participate in an in-class
workshop for peer feedback. Additional details for this assignment, including page range and
curriculum components, will be provided separately.

4. Student Development Philosophy — Due [Date]

Your own developmental journey and the theories which you encounter and critique in this course
aid in your personal understanding of college students’ development and the factors that influence
development. No matter your careers in HESA, you may be expected to explicitly (e.g., in an
interview) or implicitly (e.g., through practice) understand how you view, think about, or respond to
students’ development. Drawing upon your personal development analyses and in-class
written/typed reflections (you may use some direct language), you will craft a student development
philosophy. There is no required format for this assignment. A few options may include no more
than a one-page, double-spaced, written/typed response, a quote, symbol, picture, poem, or song

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
 Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 8

along with an accompanying 1-2 paragraph context description, or other multimedia ideas (please
discuss with me at least one week in advance of due date). You will share these with the class.

READINGS

All readings will be made available on the course Blackboard site. Please let me know if you cannot
access posted materials. I recommend reading in the order as listed for each week.

COURSE OUTLINE

Week Topics Readings Assignment

1. Date Introductions, Good Baxter Magolda (2002)
Company, and Paradigms Abes (2016)
Arao & Clemens (2013)
2. Date Role and evolution of Patton et al. (2016) Ch. 1 and 2 Learner Profiles
theory Schuh, Jones, & Torres (2016), Due (posted on
Ch. 8 LMS)
Jones & Stewart (2016)
3. Date Self-Authorship Patton et al., Ch. 16
Abes & Hernandez (2016)
Baxter Magolda & King (2007)

4. Date Cognitive and Moral Patton et al., Ch. 14 and 15 Analysis #1 Due to
Development Taylor (2016) LMS (Day after
class session,
11:59PM)
5. Date Psychosocial Development Patton et al., Ch. 4 and 13;
(intra- and interpersonal) Jones & Abes (2013) Ch. 2 and 5

Situating Identity
6. Date Intrapersonal (Identity) Jones & Abes (2013), Interludes Analysis #2 Due to
Development and Ch. 6 LMS (Day after
class session,
Group-Led Facilitation #1 Mitchell, Simmons, & 11:59PM, or
(Intersectionality) Greyerbiehl (2014) Ch. 1 before spring
break begins)
Group assigned reading and/or
materials
7. Date Break
8. Date Intrapersonal (Identity) Jones & Abes (2013) Ch. 7
Development
Group assigned reading and/or
Group-Led Facilitation #2 materials
(Critical Race Theory)

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
 Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 9

9. Date Intrapersonal (Identity) Abes (2008) Recommend

Development Jones & Abes (2013) Ch. 8 student interviews
Renn (2010) conducted by end
Group-Led Facilitation #3 of this week.
(Queer Theory) Group assigned reading and/or
materials
10. Date Intrapersonal (Identity) Jones & Abes (2013) Ch. 10 Analysis #3 Due
Development for sharing in class

(Borderland Models)
11. Date Scholar-Practitioners and Patton et al., Ch. 17
Theory to Practice Hatfield & Wise (2015) Ch. 1
Schuh, Jones, & Torres (2016),
Ch. 31
12. Date Informal Model of Informal Model of
Development Poster Development Due
Presentations
13. Date Curriculum Design Models Schuh, Jones, & Torres (2016),
Ch. 30
Reason & Kimball (2012)
Baxter Magolda (2004)
14. Date Guest Panel on Philosophies
and Curriculum Design
15. Date In-class workshop on Bring Draft of
Curriculum Design Curriculum Design
16. Date Sharing of Student Student
Development Philosophies Development
Philosophy Due
Course Assessment
“Finals week” Scholar-
Practitioner
Curriculum Design
Due

FREQUENTLY REFERENCED READINGS:

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks
for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice, Third Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schuh, J. S., Jones, S. R., & Torres, V. (2016). Student services: A handbook for the profession (6th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

WEEKLY READINGS:
Week 1

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats
Fall 2017 Course # Student Development, Armstrong 10

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2002). Helping students make their way to adulthood: Good company for
the journey. About Campus, 6(6), 2-9.
Abes, E. S. (2016). Situating paradigms in student development theory. New Directions for Student
Services, (154), 9–16.
Aroa, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. M. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation
(pp. 135-150). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Week 2
Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D.-L. (2016). Evolution of student development theory. New Directions for
Student Services, 2016(154), 17–28.
Week 3
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(4), 269–284.
Abes, E. S., & Hernandez, E. (2016). Critical and poststructural perspectives on self-authorship. New
Directions for Student Services, (154), 97–108.
Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2007). Interview strategies for assessing self-authorship:
Constructing conversations to assess meaning making. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 491-508.
Week 4
Taylor, K. B. (2016). Diverse and critical perspectives on cognitive development theory. New
Directions for Student Services, (154), 29–41.
Week 6
Mitchell, Jr., D., Simmons, C. Y., & Greyerbiehl, L. A. (Eds.). (2014). Intersectionality and higher
education: Theory, research, and praxis. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Week 9
Abes, E. S. (2008). Applying queer theory in practice with college students: Transformation of a
researcher’s and participant’s perspectives on identity. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1), 55-75.
Renn, K. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field.
Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132-141
Week 11
Hatfield, L. J., & Wise, V. L. (2015). A guide to becoming a scholarly practitioner in student affairs.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Week 13
Reason, R. D., & Kimball, E. W. (2012). A new theory-to-practice model for student affairs:
Integrating scholarship, context, and reflection. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 49(4), 359-376.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning Partnerships Model: A framework for promoting self-
authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and
models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 37-62). Sterling, VA: Stylus

*We may adjust the syllabus given appropriate notice through multiple formats