Findings for: The University of South Florida Jennifer Espinola and Todd Wells Center for Leadership & Civic Engage

1. Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Findings for: The University of South Florida Jennifer Espinola and Todd Wells Center for Leadership & Civic Engagement Sponsored by the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, the University of Maryland, C. Charles Jackson Foundation, and the National Campus Activities Association  MSL/ NCLP, 2006, 2009  MSL/ NCLP, 2006

2. Background of the MSL Rationale #1: “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth.” - James MacGregor Burns, Leadership (1978)

3. Background of the MSL Rationale #2: “In every dimension of contemporary society (church, government, business, and education) we face a crisis of leadership.” - Jeffrey G. Reed & Mary C. Klein, 2005, Concepts & Connections, 13(2), p. 4

4. Background of the MSL Rationale #3: “Higher education plays a major part in shaping the quality of leadership in modern American society.” - Alexander W. Astin & Helen S. Astin, Leadership Reconsidered (2000), p. 2

5. Purpose of the MSL To examine student leadership values at both the institutional and national levels with specific attention to the campus experience factors that influence leadership development in college students.

6. Framework of the MSL Theoretical Framework: Social Change Model of Leadership Development (HERI, 1996) Conceptual Framework: I-E-O College Impact Model (Inputs-Environment-Outcomes) (Astin, 1993, 2001)

7. The Social Change Model

8. Individual Values: - Consciousness of Self - Commitment - Congruence Community Value: - Citizenship Social Change Model: 8 C’s • Group Values • - Collaboration • - Common Purpose • - Controversy with Civility • Central Value: • - Change

9. Overview of MSL: Conceptual Framework Inputs: students' pre-college characteristics (e.g., demographics, high school achievement) • Environment: programs, experiences, relationships, and other factors in the collegiate environment • (e.g., co-curricular involvement, mentoring) Outcomes: students' characteristics after exposure to the college environment (e.g., the eight C’s of the Social Change Model, social change behaviors, leadership self-efficacy (Astin, 1991; 1993)

10. Demographic and Classification Variables • Age • Gender • Sexual Orientation • Ethnic/racial background • Current Living Arrangements • Ability/Disability • U. S. Generational Status • Religious affiliation • Academic Major • Transfer status • Full or part time enrollment • Class year • Political Views • Socioeconomic Status (education of parents and family income; indicates first general students) • College grades (also may be an outcome variable)

11. Pre-College Experiences • Involvement in high school clubs, sports, or service • Involvement in community organizations • Pre-college leadership training Along with retrospective pre-test measures for numerous MSL Scales

12. Campus Experiences (Environments) • Breadth and depth of campus organization involvement • Nature of community service involvement • Academic engagement experiences (e.g., study abroad, internships) • Amount of on- or off- campus work experience • Leadership training participation • Positional leadership frequency (on and off campus) • Active members frequency (on and off campus) • Engagement in socio-cultural issues discussion • Social change behavior frequency • Mentoring and race/gender/role of significant mentor

13. Outcome Measures • SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL SCALES: Consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, collaboration, common purpose, controversy with civility, citizenship, change, and an OMNIBUS SRLS (total score 8Cs) score • Leadership efficacy • Growth in cognitive complexity • Collective racial esteem • Spirituality and meaning-making • Outcomes of mentoring relationships • Social perspective taking • Social change behavior frequency • Open ended: What leadership means to you? • NOTE: Other items could be outcomes (e.g. college grades)

14. Key Research Questions • How do college students score on the eight leadership values associated with the Social Change Model? • How do scores compare across particular demographic factors, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and class-standing? • What environmental factors (e.g., co-curricular involvement, study abroad) contribute to higher scores on the leadership outcomes?

15. Methodology The Survey Instrument: • Web-based (link sent via e-mail) • Average completion time of about 28 minutes • Pilot tested at the University of Maryland, College Park • Survey management by Center for Student Studies (Ann Arbor, MI)

16. Methodology 101 Participating Institutions: • Geographically diverse • Variety of institutional types and classifications e.g.: community colleges, women’s colleges, research universities, liberal arts schools, HBCU’s and HSI’s • Differing levels of leadership programming (extensive at some, nascent at others) • See www.leadershipstudy.net for complete list

17. 2009 Enrolled Schools • Guilford College • Hamline University • Harvard University • Houghton College • Indiana University–Bloomington • Jackson State University • John Carroll University • Kansas State University • Kent State University • Loyola Marymount University • Loyola University Chicago • Mansfield University • Marquette University • Meredith College • Metropolitan State College of Denver • Millikin University • Mills College • Missouri Western State University • Monroe Community College • Montgomery College • Moravian College • North Carolina Central University • North Carolina State University • Northeastern Illinois University • Northeastern State University • Northwestern University • Ohio University • Pacific Lutheran University • Regis University • Roger Williams University • Rollins College • Saint Joseph’s University • Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota • Samford University • Seattle University • Sonoma State University • Southern Methodist University • Suffolk County Community College • SUNY at Binghamton • SUNY at Buffalo • SUNY at Geneseo • SUNY–Potsdam • Temple University • Texas A & M University • Texas Christian University • University of Arizona • University of California–Berkeley • University of Central Florida • University of Central Oklahoma • University of Chicago • University of Colorado at Boulder • University of Detroit Mercy • University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign • University of Iowa • University of Kansas • University of Louisville • University of Maryland–College Park • University of Maryland Eastern Shore • University of Massachusetts–Lowell • University of Minnesota–Twin Cities • University of Nevada–Las Vegas • University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill • University of North Carolina at Greensboro • University of North Carolina–Wilmington • University of Richmond • University of Rochester • University of San Diego • University of San Francisco • University of Scranton • University of South Florida • University of Tampa • University of Wisconsin–La Crosse • University of Wisconsin–Madison • University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh • University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point • Wilson College • Wartburg College • Youngstown State University • Alfred University • Baylor University • Berry College • Bridgewater State College • Brigham Young University–Hawaii • Bryant University • Bucknell University • California Lutheran University • California State University–Sacramento • Clemson University • Colgate University • Colorado State University • Columbia College • Cornell College • CUNY Bernard M Baruch College • CUNY Lehman College • DePaul University • Drake University • Drexel University • Duke University • Elmhurst College • Elon University • Furman University • Gallaudet University • George Mason University • Georgia Southern University • Gettysburg College

18. Methodology Random Samples: • A random selection of undergraduate students from each institution (4,000 for most) was invited to participate; total population was used for campuses with 4,000 or fewer students

19. Methodology Data Collection & Results • Standard data cleaning techniques were employed • Findings were generated using descriptive and inferential statistical methods and summarized in final report for each institution • Raw data was provided to schools for additional analyses

20. University of South Florida Select Findings

21. Response Rates

22. Demographics

23. Demographics

24. Other Demographics

25. Leadership Comparisons

26. Select Findings

27. Recommendations and Strategies Based on National Data

28. Enriching Campus Leadership • Since early 1990, increasing attention on college student leadership development • Growing emphasis in business and industry on teams and collaborative practices • College learning and developmental outcomes movement • Volunteerism, service learning, and civic engagement movement

29. Enriching Campus Leadership • The empowerment of social identity groups and their distinct leadership needs • The development of leadership models for college students • The professionalization of student leadership educator role • The emergence of new leadership associations, conferences, and resources

30. Enriching Campus Leadership • All of these trends are calls to higher education to purposefully develop socially responsible leaders • This task is the responsibility of ALL members of the campus community, not just those teaching leadership courses or working with co-curricular leadership programs.

31. Campus LeadershipPrograms • Expanding since the early 1990’s • 700 leadership development programs established from 1993-1998 • Currently over 1,000 programs nationally (2004)

32. Developing Leaders at USF • Significant gap between theory and practice • Unclear picture of leadership development needs of our students • Uncertainty regarding the influence of the college environment on leadership development outcomes

33. Developing Leaders at USF • Purpose of the MSL is to examine these questions as means to increase the capacity of both leadership educators and institutions in developing the critical leadership skills in students that are so needed by our society. • Beginning the Discussion ---

34. Socio-Cultural Issues • Discuss Socio-Cultural Issues Everywhere • Engaging in conversations across difference was the single-strongest environmental predictor of leadership outcomes. • Discussions on socio-cultural issues should be woven throughout an educational experience, not simply an insular component of an overall curriculum.

35. Involvement • Students must work with others to truly learn leadership • Help students identify and join at least one group of interest to them • Develop new member in-take processes that promote identity development, meaningful involvement, and membership persistence.

36. Leadership Programs • Get students to at least one leadership program • Offer numerous short-term or one-time leadership awareness programs • When designing long-term leadership programs, consider how the curriculum builds in complexity on short term and moderate-term offerings.

37. Campus Wide Leadership • Diffuse Leadership Programs across the Institution • Leadership training must take place campus wide • Consider how leadership development can be built into non-traditional forums

38. Focus on Members • Not just positional leaders • Introduce leadership as a process among members • Label effective member behaviors as leadership, not just good followership • Broaden the number of leadership positions, so more can experience positions of responsiblity.

39. Breadth in Involvement • Being involved in too many different types of group experiences is counter-productive. • More variety is not necessarily better. • Encourage students to persist and go deep in at least one organization • Build on personal commitments, passions and extending both collegiate and personal learning goals.

40. Mentor Relationships • Design processes for students to get personal attention from someone in the college environment • Faculty mentoring continually emerged as a significant predictor of positive leadership outcomes. • Engaging faculty in co-curricular leadership programs

41. Mentor Relationships • Peer mentoring programs for older peers to intentionally link with new or younger students • Require developmental supervision for all on-campus student employment positons

42. Distinct Programs • Connect leadership to other social identities so students can explore their leadership practices and personal leadership identity. • Use specific interventions that make a difference. • E.g. mentoring programs for women, community service programs for men

43. Alignment • Support students in adopting an accurate and healthy self-awareness regarding their leadership capacity. • Helping students to better align their levels of self-efficacy for leadership with actual knowledge and skills.

44. Build Bridges with K-12 • Competence and knowledge that students bring into college largely reflected what they take away from college in terms of leadership outcomes • Build partnerships with K-12 system • Peer leadership mentoring programs • Hosting leadership conferences on college campuses

45. Leadership Defined • What is your definition of leadership? • How do you share this with your students?

46. Leadership Defined • “Being able to take control of others” – USF Male First-Year Student • “The ability to effectively guide others and make a positive influence in the lives of others” –USF Female First Year student

47. Leadership Defined • “Leadership means making the final decision after the debate is over” -USF Senior/Female • “I don’t know much about leadership. I do feel in leading people you have to do a certain amount of sucking up to people you may have no respect for…, I’m not really interested in that” -USF Senior/Female

48. Discussion What does this data tell us about . . . • Our school’s students? • Our school’s leadership programs? • Our school’s culture? • Our school’s values and mission? • Our schools’ strengths and weaknesses? • Our school’s future strategies?

49. Thank You!