Transcript Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership

So What Matters in
the Development of
Leadership Capacity?
More Findings from the Multi-Institutional
Study of Leadership
*
International Leadership Association Conference
November 2007
*
John P. Dugan, Assistant Professor, Loyola University Chicago
Susan R. Komives, Professor, University of Maryland
Julie E. Owen, Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Sponsored by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation, National Clearinghouse for
Leadership Programs, University of Maryland, ACPA Educational Leadership
Foundation, & NASPA Foundation
 MSL/ NCLP, 2007
Outline
• Study Design & Methodology
• Findings
– General
– Predictors of Leadership Outcomes
– Conditional Analyses
• Recommendations for Practice
• Future Directions
Rationale
for the
MSL
1. A significant gap between theory and
practice as they relate to college
student leadership
2. An unclear picture of the leadership
development needs of college students
3. Uncertainty regarding the influence of
the college environment on
theoretically grounded leadership
development
Theoretical Framework:
The Social Change Model
Change
Conceptual Framework:
College Impact Model (I-E-O)
• Inputs: students' pre-college
characteristics
• Environment: programs, experiences,
relationships, and other factors in the
collegiate environment
• Outcomes: students' characteristics after
exposure to the college environment
Social Change Model Values
Leadership Efficacy
Understanding Diversity
Cognitive Development
Leadership Identity Development
Methodology
Sampling Strategy
• 52 Participating Institutions:
– Geographically diverse, Variety of
institutional types, Differing levels of
leadership programming
• Total Sample Size = 165, 701
• Respondents = 63,095
• Return Rate = 38%
Methodology
Description of Sample
Gender:
• Male: 38.3 %
• Female: 61.5 %
• Transgender: 0.1 %
Class Standing:
• Freshman: 23.3 %
• Sophomore: 21.7 %
• Junior: 26.3 %
• Senior: 28.8 %
Race/Ethnicity:
• White: 71.8 %
• Black / African
American: 5.2 %
• Asian / Asian
American: 7.9 %
• Latino/a: 4.4 %
• Amer. Indian: 0.3 %
• Multiracial: 8.2 %
• Not Included: 2.3 %
Methodology
Survey Instrument
• Instrument created by MSL
research team
– SRLS-R2 used to measure SCM
– Pilot tested to verify reliability and
validity
– Web-based administration
– Average completion time = 20 minutes
Findings
Overall findings
Change over Time
Predictors of
Leadership
Demographic
Characteristics
Block 1
Pre-College
Experiences
Block 2
Leadership
Quasi-Pretest
Block 3
Class
Standing
Block 4
Indirect
Effects
Stepwise
Block 5
Direct
Effects
Block 6
Leadership
Outcome
Predictors of Leadership
• Models generally explain between 27 –
42% of the overall variance.
• What students come in with largely
explains how they do in college (quasipretests explain largest portion of the
variance).
• The college environment explains
between 7% - 14% of the variance
depending on the outcome variable.
Conditional Analyses- Gender
Conditional Analyses- RACE
Socio-Cultural Discussions
Sample items from the NSLLP scale:
• Talked about different lifestyles
• Discussed major social issues such as peace, human
rights, and justice
• Discussed your views about multiculturalism and
diversity
• Held discussions with students whose political opinions
were very different from your own
• Held discussions with students whose personal values
were very different from your own
Socio-Cultural Discussions
Formal Leadership
Programs
• Short, moderate, and long-term
programs
• Academic majors and minors
recommendations
1. Discuss Socio-Cultural Issues
Everywhere
2. Get Students Involved in at
Least One Organization
3. Get Students to at Least One
Leadership Program
Recommendations
4. Decentralize Leadership Programs
5. Focus on Members not Just
Positional Leaders
6. Discourage Too Much Breadth in
Involvement
7. Develop Mentoring Relationships
Recommendations
8. Design Distinct Programs for
Specific Groups
9. Align Students’ SelfPerceptions of Leadership
Competence and Confidence
10. Build Bridges with K-12
Educators
What’s Next…
MSL Institutional Survey
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is really known about how the design and delivery of leadership
development programs effects student learning?
LEADERSHIP PROGRAM ELEMENTS
• Institutional Context & Mission Congruence
• Program Philosophy/ Theoretical Orientation
• Common Program Elements
• Intentionality/ Planning & Evaluation
• Access to resources
• Collaboration/Partnerships
ANALYSES
Developing a typology of collegiate leadership programs
Document and website content analyses
Regressing typology on student leadership outcomes
Creation of program evaluation instrument to complement CAS, etc.
What’s Next…
• National Report & Issues of Concepts &
Connections
– Available via NCLP web site
• MSL-2
–
–
–
–
Schools selected between April – June 2008
Data collection January 2009
Longitudinal component
New sub-studies/ scales
For Further Information
Multi-Institutional Study of
Leadership
http://www.nclp.umd.edu
John P. Dugan, [email protected]
Susan R. Komives, [email protected]
Julie E. Owen, [email protected]