Transcript Leadership Educators Institute December 2008 MSL 2006, 2009, and Beyond John P. Dugan Susan R.

Leadership Educators Institute
December 2008
MSL 2006, 2009, and Beyond
John P. Dugan
Susan R. Komives
Julie E. Owen
Co-Principal Investigators
With Scott Crawford (Center for Student Studies) and the
University of Maryland and Loyola University Chicago
Research Teams
Sponsored by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation, National Clearinghouse for
Leadership Programs, University of Maryland, ACPA Educational Leadership
Foundation, & NASPA Foundation
 MSL/ NCLP, 2008
Today’s Agenda
• Basis of the MSL study
– The Social Change Model/ IEO Model
• MSL 2006
• MSL 2009
• New MSL Scales (social change; campus climate; spirituality;
mentoring; social perspective taking; racial salience)
• MSL-Institutional Study
• Use of MSL in Practice (YOU!)
• Future MSL plans
Overview of MSL
Rationale
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
Overview of MSL:
Theoretical Framework
The Social Change Model of Leadership Development 1996
Overview of MSL:
Conceptual Framework
Inputs: students' pre-college characteristics
Environment: programs, experiences,
relationships, and other factors in the collegiate
environment
I–E-O
Outcomes: students' characteristics across
theoretical measures associated with SCM
values after exposure to the college
environment
Social Change Model Values
Leadership Efficacy
Understanding Diversity
Cognitive Skills
Leadership Identity Development
(Astin, 1991; 1993)
Overview of 2006 MSL:
Sample
•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%
2006 Overall
Findings
Findings
Continued
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
Female
ge
ha
n
C
Leadership Efficacy
Mean (1-4)
C
it iz
en
y
lit
ivi
C
on
m
om
C
ol
la
b
C
it
m
om
C
C
on
g
ru
lf
Male
Se
Mean (1-5)
Gender
3.18
3.17
3.16
3.15
3.14
3.13
3.12
3.11
3.1
3.09
3.08
Female
Male
Leadership
Predictors
Demographic
Characteristics
Block 1
QuasiPretests
Block 2
Institutional
Characteristics
Block 3
College
Environment
&
Experiences
Block 4
Leadership
Efficacy
Block 5
Leadership
Outcome
Leadership
Predictors
• Models generally explain between 32 – 40% of the
overall variance.
• What students come in with largely explains how
they do in college (quasi-pretests explain largest
portion of the variance).
• The college environment explains between 7% 16% of the variance depending on the outcome
variable.
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’ Self-Perceptions of
Leadership Competence and
Confidence
10. Build Bridges with K-12 Educators
MSL 2009
104 campuses – Spring 2009
Common core remains the same
[SRLS-R2, leadership efficacy, socio-cultural issues discussion & more]
Enhancements
[campus climate, pre-college involvement, mentoring, training/
educational experiences, student org. involvement, racial categories
(ethnicity), and more]
Additions
[social change behaviors, cognitive development, academic major,
definition of leadership]
New sub-studies!
MSL 2009 – New Scales
Social Change
[core]
Been actively involved with an organization that addresses a social
or environmental problem
Acted to raise awareness about a campus, community, or global
problem
Worked with others to make the campus or community a better
place
MSL 2009 – New Scales
Campus Climate
[core]
Belonging Climate
I feel valued as a person at this school
I feel I belong on this campus
Discriminatory Climate
I have observed discriminatory words, behaviors or gestures directed at
people like me
I feel there is a general atmosphere of prejudice among students
MSL 2009 – New Scales
Spirituality
[sub-study]
Search for meaning/purpose in your life
Think about developing a meaningful philosophy of life
MSL 2009 – New Scales
Mentoring
[sub-study]
Engage in ethical leadership
Develop problem-solving skills
Mentor others
MSL 2009 – New Scales
Social Perspective Taking
[sub-study]
Perspective-taking
Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were
in their place.
Empathy
Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal
(reverse scored)
MSL 2009 – New Scales
Racial Salience
[sub-study]
Private self-perception
In general, I’m glad to be a member of my racial group.
Public perception
In general, others respect my race.
Importance to Identity (Salience)
Overall, my race has very little to do with how I feel about myself.
(Reverse scored)
Affiliation
I feel I don’t have much to offer my racial group.
(Reversed scored)
Key elements of leadership
development programs
• Institutional Context
• Program Philosophy/ Theoretical Orientation
• Common Program Elements
• Intentionality/ Planning & Evaluation
• Access to Resources
• Collaboration/Partnerships
MSL-IS 2006 Analyses
• Two-Step Cluster Analysis of MSL-IS items
• Secondary Content Analysis
Of leadership program mission statements
Of institutional mission statements
Of leadership development program delivery
methods
• Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to connect
student and institutional scores
MSL-IS 2006
Institutional Context
Perceived Stage of All Leaders hip Program s
30
20
Frequency
10
0
new/emerging
enhanc ing quality
bldg c ritic al mas s
s us tained ins itution
MSL-IS Leadership
Program Focus
To what degree leadership programs focus on the 8 Cs (%)
None
Some
Often
Very often
Consciousness of self
0
21.2
28.8
50.0
Congruence
5.8
25.0
46.2
23.1
Commitment
0
50.0
36.5
13.5
Collaboration
0
13.5
34.6
48.1
Common purpose
0
30.8
42.3
26.9
Controversy w/civility
5.8
50.0
34.6
9.6
Citizenship
0
42.3
36.5
21.2
Change
0
28.8
34.6
36.5
Cluster Descriptions
Cluster One (n=13; 25% of cases)
Consists of institutions with well funded, highly productive cocurricular leadership programs that value planning and a clear
theoretical approach (“highly resourced, highly productive,
highly intentional” programs)
Cluster Two (n=13; 25% of cases)
Consists of programs that receive the least funding and offer the
lowest amount of co-curricular programming, but do engage in
planning (“limited resources, moderately productive, moderately
intentional” programs)
Cluster Descriptions
Cluster Three (n=19; 36.5% of cases)
Consists of programs with moderate amounts of funding and
programming, but who don’t particularly engage planning or adopt a
clear theoretical approach (“moderately resourced, moderately
productive, less intentional” programs).
Outlier Cluster (n=7; 13.5% of cases)
Consists of seven institutions with wide ranges of responses, often
far above or below the means of institutions in the other clusters.
General Themes from Content
Analysis of Mission Statements
1. Lack of theoretical frame(s), definition(s) of leadership, and
assumptions as part of program mission statements.
2. Lack of congruence of program mission
with institutional mission and vice versa.
3. Leadership related values - implicit and explicit.
4. Connecting learning and student development.
5. Curricular and co-curricular connections.
MSL – Institutional Study
MSL 2009 Institutional Study
-web version
-institution identified materials
-focus and goals of MSL-IS 2009
Using MSL in Practice
Ways to use MSL data
How are you using your MSL data?
Data briefings (Marquette)
Role of Advisory Committees
Use of data in program design (Minnesota)
For More Information…
Registrations for MSL 2010
began December 1, 2008
Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership
http://www.leadershipstudy.net