MSL 2006, 2009, and BeyondMSL 2006, 2009, and BeyondJohn P. Dugan

Susan R. KomivesJulie 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

Leadership Educators InstituteDecember 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 MSLOverview of MSL

Rationale1. 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:Overview of MSL:Theoretical FrameworkTheoretical Framework

The Social Change Model of Leadership Development 1996

Overview of MSL: Overview of MSL: Conceptual Conceptual FrameworkFramework

Inputs: students' pre-college characteristics

(Astin, 1991; 1993)

Environment: programs, experiences, relationships, and other factors in the collegiate environment

Outcomes: students' characteristics across theoretical measures associated with SCM values after exposure to the college environment

Social Change Model ValuesLeadership Efficacy

Understanding DiversityCognitive Skills

Leadership Identity Development

I – E - O

Overview of 2006 MSL: Overview of 2006 MSL: SampleSample

• 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 2006 Overall Findings Findings

Findings Findings ContinuedContinued

GenderGender

3.4

3.5

3.63.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.14.2

4.3

4.4

Me

an

(1

-5)

Female

Male

Leadership Efficacy

3.083.09

3.1

3.113.123.133.143.15

3.163.173.18

Female Male

Me

an

(1

-4)

Leadership Leadership PredictorsPredictors

Leadership Outcome

Block 5Leadership Efficacy

Block 4College

Environment &

Experiences

Block 3Institutional Characteristics

Block 2 Quasi-Pretests

Block 1DemographicCharacteristics

Leadership Leadership

PredictorsPredictors

• 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.

RecommendationsRecommendations

1. Discuss Socio-Cultural Issues Everywhere

2. Get Students Involved in at Least One Organization

3. Get Students to at Least One Leadership Program

RecommendationsRecommendations

4. Decentralize Leadership Programs

5. Focus on Members not Just Positional Leaders

6. Discourage Too Much Breadth in Involvement

7. Develop Mentoring Relationships

RecommendationsRecommendations

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 2009MSL 2009

104 campuses – Spring 2009Common 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 ScalesMSL 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 ScalesMSL 2009 – New Scales

Campus Climate[core]

Belonging ClimateI feel valued as a person at this school I feel I belong on this campus

Discriminatory ClimateI have observed discriminatory words, behaviors or gestures directed at people like meI feel there is a general atmosphere of prejudice among students

MSL 2009 – New ScalesMSL 2009 – New Scales

Spirituality[sub-study]

Search for meaning/purpose in your life

Think about developing a meaningful philosophy of life

MSL 2009 – New ScalesMSL 2009 – New Scales

Mentoring[sub-study]

Engage in ethical leadership

Develop problem-solving skills

Mentor others

MSL 2009 – New ScalesMSL 2009 – New Scales

Social Perspective Taking[sub-study]

Perspective-takingBefore criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.

EmpathyOther people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal (reverse scored)

MSL 2009 – New ScalesMSL 2009 – New Scales

Racial Salience[sub-study]

Private self-perceptionIn 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)

AffiliationI 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 AnalysisOf leadership program mission

statementsOf institutional mission statementsOf leadership development program

delivery methods

• Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to connect student and institutional scores

MSL-IS 2006Institutional Context

Perceived Stage of All Leadership Programs

sustained insitution

enhancing quality

bldg critical mass

new/emerging

Fre

qu

en

cy

30

20

10

0

MSL-IS Leadership Program Focus

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

To what degree leadership programs focus on the 8 Cs (%)

Cluster Descriptions

Cluster One (n=13; 25% of cases)

Consists of institutions with well funded, highly productive co-curricular 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 StudyMSL – Institutional Study

MSL 2009 Institutional Study

-web version-institution identified materials-focus and goals of MSL-IS 2009

Using MSL in PracticeUsing MSL in Practice

Ways to use MSL data

How are you using your MSL data?

Data briefings (Marquette)Role of Advisory CommitteesUse of data in program design (Minnesota)

For More Information… For More Information…

Registrations for MSL 2010 began December 1, 2008

Multi-Institutional Study of Leadershiphttp://www.leadershipstudy.net