1 / 26

So What Matters in the Development of Leadership Capacity?

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

sugar
Download Presentation

So What Matters in the Development of Leadership Capacity?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Outline • Study Design & Methodology • Findings • General • Predictors of Leadership Outcomes • Conditional Analyses • Recommendations for Practice • Future Directions

  3. Rationalefor the MSL • A significant gap between theory and practice as they relate to college student leadership • An unclear picture of the leadership development needs of college students • Uncertainty regarding the influence of the college environment on theoretically grounded leadership development

  4. Theoretical Framework: The Social Change Model Change

  5. 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

  6. 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%

  7. 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 %

  8. 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

  9. Findings

  10. Overall findings

  11. Change over Time

  12. Predictors of Leadership

  13. 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 (quasi-pretests explain largest portion of the variance). • The college environment explains between 7% - 14% of the variance depending on the outcome variable.

  14. Conditional Analyses- Gender

  15. Conditional Analyses- RACE

  16. 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

  17. Socio-Cultural Discussions

  18. Formal Leadership Programs • Short, moderate, and long-term programs • Academic majors and minors

  19. 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

  20. Recommendations • Decentralize Leadership Programs • Focus on Members not Just Positional Leaders • Discourage Too Much Breadth in Involvement 7. Develop Mentoring Relationships

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. For Further Information Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership http://www.nclp.umd.edu John P. Dugan, jdugan1@luc.edu Susan R. Komives, komives@umd.edu Julie E. Owen, jeowen@umd.edu

More Related