Theoretical Perspectives

Greg Sawyer
 

I was afforded the opportunity to meet and speak with General College Assistant Professor Carl Chung to gain some insight on his views and research concerning theory within the field of developmental education.

Developmental education is undervalued and vulnerable due to no shared theoretical framework that practitioners can call their own, according to Chung, who is a sociologist. Historically, he explained, the field of developmental education has imported theories from outside the field. Theories of human learning and development provide a suitable foundation for developmental education, he believes, but it has been a challenge getting practitioners to embrace and apply these theories.

Developmental education has also imported theoretical frameworks from other fields, such as psychology, human development, education, and cognitive science. Chung recognizes the importance of exposing practitioners to more theories and encouraging them to be more explicit in basing their practices on solid research findings that support their theories. "There is also a need for practitioners to engage theory intentionally in a theory-oriented approach," he said.

The role of practitioners should be the foundation of an overarching theory of developmental education, Chung feels. This may challenge the conventional interpretations of theory and the relationship between theory and practice, but he feels that in order to address the identity crisis within the field, there needs to be more of a "bottom up" approach to establishing a theoretical base in developmental education, as well as a more commonly accepted set of theoretical assumptions.

"The most successful programs are theory-based," he said. "Current programs within developmental education are neither sufficiently grounded in research nor adequately guided by theory. Lack of theory in a field has negative consequences." Resolving the theory crisis involves more than just adopting existing theoretical resources or creatively combining them, but also attempting to create a new theoretical perspective, said Chung.

Some other ideas Chung mentioned as possible solutions to the theoretical crisis within developmental education include legitimizing work within the field in the face of ongoing criticism, communicating effectively the purpose of the field to others, enhancing the quality of practice and scholarship, and maturation of the field to be recognized as a valuable part of higher education.

Chung's explanation of the connectivity model of theory to practice is thought-provoking. He said that the best practices are based upon the best supported theories, which are grounded in the best research. Accepted theories produce new research. New research produces new theory, which in turn guides practice. One theoretical model that Chung mentioned was the "discourse" model put forth by James Paul Gee and applied by Dana Lundell and Terry Collins in the field of developmental education. This model states that under-prepared, at-risk students very often have a primary discourse that is at odds with the secondary discourses they must assimilate in order to succeed in college. The discourse theory captures cognitive, affective, social, and ideological factors. Out of the challenges that accompany discourse assimilation comes the idea for a new theory that is student-centered and sensitive to sociocultural and academic socialization issues.

It appears that until something more concrete is established recognizing and implementing research and theory with practice in developmental education, the field will continue to be under scrutiny and criticism and its legitimacy in higher education questioned.

 

References

Chung, C.J. (2004). Theory, Practice, and the Future of Developmental Education: Toward a Pedagogy of Caring.

Lundell, D.B., & Collins, T.C. (1999). Toward a theory of developmental education: The centrality of "Discourse."