social change leaders at psu: the multi-institutional study of leadership 5 th annual student...
TRANSCRIPT
Social Change Leaders at PSU:
The Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership
5th Annual Student Leadership ConferenceJanuary 26, 2007
Wendy Endress & Shela Perrin
Sponsored by the University of Maryland, National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, ACPA Educational Leadership Foundation, &
NASPA Foundation
MSL/ NCLP, 2006
Presentation Outline• Background & Purpose• Frameworks for the Study• Methodology
– Instrument– Participating Institutions
• Our Institution’s Findings:– Random v. Comparative Samples– Demographic Results – Environmental Results
• Q&A/Discussion
Background of the MSL
Rationale #1:
“Leadership is one of the most observed and least
understood phenomena on earth.”
- James MacGregor BurnsLeadership (1978), p. 2
Background of the MSLRationale #2:
“In every dimension of contemporary society – church, government,
business, and education – we face a crisis of leadership.”
- Jeffrey G. Reed & Mary C. Klein, 2005Concepts & Connections, 13(2), p. 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. AstinLeadership Reconsidered (2000), p. 2
Purpose of the MSL
To examine student leadership values at both the institutional and national levels with specific attention to the environmental factors that influence leadership development in college students.
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)
The Social Change Model
Change
Social Change Model: 8 C’s
• Individual Values:– Consciousness
of Self– Commitment– Congruence
• Community Value: – Citizenship
• Group Values:– Collaboration– Common
Purpose– Controversy
with Civility
• Central Value:– Change
I-E-O Model• 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
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?
Methodology
• The Survey Instrument:– Web-based (link sent via e-mail)– Average completion time of about
20 minutes – Schools could also ask up to 10
institution-specific custom questions
– Pilot tested at the University of Maryland, College Park
Methodology
• 54 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)
Methodology
• Random Samples:– A random selection of
undergraduate students from each institution (3,000 for most) was invited to participate
• Comparative Sample:– Each institution was allowed to
identify a second population (up to 500) to serve as a comparison• e.g., Resident Assistants, Leadership
Majors & Minors
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
Findings
Response Rates
Portland State Univ. Random Sample:• Responses / Invited: 839 / 6000• Response rate: 14%
Portland State Univ. Comparative Sample:• Responses / Invited: 122 / 358• Response rate: 34%
Overall National Sample:• Responses / Invited: 63,085 /
165,701• Response rate: 38 %
Demographics
Portland State Univ.Gender:• Male: 42.2%• Female: 57.7%• Transgender: n/a
Class Standing:• Freshman: 13.3 %• Sophomore: 16.7 %• Junior: 29.7 %• Senior: 40.3 %
NATIONALGender:• Male: 38.3 %• Female: 61.5 %• Transgender: 0.1 %
Class Standing:• Freshman: 23.3 %• Sophomore: 21.7 %• Junior: 26.3 %• Senior: 28.8 %
Demographics
Portland State Univ.Race/Ethnicity:• White: 68.5 %• Black / African
American: 2.3 %• Asian / Asian
American: 11 %• Latino/a: 3.2 %• Amer. Indian: .6 %• Multiracial: 10.5 %• Not Included: 4.0 %
NATIONALRace/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 %
SCM Scores & Statistical Significance• Data highlighted reflects average mean
scores of respondents’ responses to statements scored on a 5-point likert scale in Section 18 of the survey
• While average scores can be higher or lower they may not infer anything unless there is a “significant” difference in the score
• “Significance” means that there is a relationship between two or more variables that statistical analysis indicates is not likely a chance occurrence
Overall ResultsPortland
StateInstitution
TypeAbove 10,000
NationalSample
Self 3.94 3.95 3.95
Congru 4.16 4.17 4.17
Commit 4.21 4.23 4.23
Collab 3.95 3.97 3.98
Common 4.01 4.03 4.04
Civility 3.89 3.83 3.83
Citizen 3.85 3.83 3.84
Change 3.80 3.76 3.75
Random v. Comparative
Random Comparative
Self 3.94 4.13
Congru 4.16 4.31
Commit 4.21 4.36
Collab 3.95 4.24
Common 4.01 4.23
Civility 3.89 4.12
Citizen 3.85 4.12
Change 3.80 3.99Our comparative sample included: Ambassadors, ASPSU Elected and Appointed Leaders, Orientation Leaders, Resident Assistants, SALP Peer Advisors, Student Leaders for Service, Student Organization Leaders, UNST Mentors.
Results by Class Standing
First Yr. Soph. Junior Senior
Self 3.84 3.92 3.94 3.99
Congru 4.05 4.11 4.18 4.20
Commit 4.13 4.14 4.20 4.28
Collab 3.85 3.93 3.94 4.00
Common
3.93 3.99 4.01 4.04
Civility 3.80 3.85 3.90 3.91
Citizen 3.74 3.82 3.85 3.90
Change 3.73 3.80 3.81 3.83
Results by Gender
Male Female
Self 3.95 3.94
Congru 4.15 4.17
Commit 4.18 4.24
Collab 3.93 3.97
Common 3.99 4.02
Civility 3.86 3.91
Citizen 3.85 3.86
Change 3.83 3.79
Results by Sexual identity
Hetero-sexual
Gay or Bisexual
“Rather Not Say”
Self 3.95 3.94 3.92
Congru 4.17 4.14 4.08
Commit 4.22 4.21 4.13
Collab 3.96 3.92 3.84
Common 4.02 3.98 3.92
Civility 3.88 3.97 3.89
Citizen 3.86 3.90 3.77
Change 3.80 3.82 3.83
Results by Race/Ethnicity
White Black Asian Latino Native Multi Other
Self 3.96 4.16 3.73* 3.90 4.03
Congru 4.19 4.23 3.99* 4.10 4.20
Commit 4.23 4.26 4.14 4.21 4.23
Collab 3.94 4.13 4.02 4.06 3.94
Common
4.01 4.11 3.98 4.01 4.04
Civility 3.90 3.83 3.77* 3.81 4.02
Citizen 3.85 3.95 3.81 3.89 3.93
Change 3.80 3.85 3.77 3.73 3.91
Study Abroad Experience
Studied Abroad
Did Not Study
Abroad
Self 3.94 3.94
Congru 4.13 4.16
Commit 4.30 4.21
Collab 4.05 3.94
Common 4.03 4.01
Civility 3.95 3.88
Citizen 3.92 3.84
Change 3.81 3.80
Internship Experience
Did Have Internship
Did Not Have Internship
Self 3.99 3.92
Congru 4.18 4.15
Commit 4.28 4.18
Collab 4.03 3.92
Common 4.06 3.97
Civility 3.94 3.86
Citizen 3.93 3.82
Change 3.84 3.79
Senior Capstone
Senior Capstone
No Senior Capstone
Self 4.00 3.92
Congru 4.20 4.14
Commit 4.29 4.18
Collab 3.99 3.94
Common 4.04 4.00
Civility 3.91 3.87
Citizen 3.91 3.83
Change 3.81 3.80
Results by Residence
Parent/ Family Resid.
Other Private Resid.
Resid. Hall
Other Campus Resid.
Frat./ Sorority House
Other
Self 3.83* 4.02 3.82* 3.91 3.96
Congru 4.08* 4.22 4.07* 4.12 4.10
Commit 4.15* 4.27 4.11* 4.21 4.15
Collab 3.94 4.00 3.90 3.78* 3.84
Common 3.97* 4.05 3.94 3.96 3.96
Civility 3.78* 3.95 3.88 3.81 3.85
Citizen 3.77* 3.92 3.81 3.76 3.83
Change 3.71* 3.87 3.74 3.71 3.89
Organizational Involvement
Much of the Time
Many Times
Some-times
One Time
Never
Self 4.13 3.99 3.96 3.86* 3.92*
Congru 4.36 4.19 4.16* 4.05* 4.16*
Commit 4.41 4.23 4.23 4.16* 4.19*
Collab 4.22 4.11# 4.01@* 3.39*# 3.85*#@
Common 4.22 4.07 4.04* 3.39* 3.97*
Civility 4.06 4.02# 3.89 3.84*# 3.84*#
Citizen 4.11 4.02# 3.92*@ 3.79*# 3.76*#@
Change 4.01 3.91 3.81* 3.75* 3.76*
Holding a Leadership
PositionMuch of the Time
Many Times
Some-times
One Time
Never
Self 4.19 3.94 4.03 3.94 3.92*
Congru 4.36 4.14 4.22 4.12 4.15*
Commit 4.40 4.25 4.29 4.28 4.19
Collab 4.21 4.09 4.13 4.05 3.90*
Common 4.23 4.08 4.15 4.03 3.97*
Civility 3.97 3.99 4.00 3.90 3.86*
Citizen 4.09 4.09 4.04 3.93 3.79*
Change 3.97 3.90 3.88 3.82 3.78
Short-Term Leadership Development Experience
Many Times
Several Times
One Time
Never
Self 4.18 3.99 3.91* 3.91*
Congru 4.41 4.16* 4.15* 4.14*
Commit 4.41 4.22 4.22 4.18*
Collab 4.27 4.03* 4.00* 3.86*
Common
4.27 4.08 4.00 3.95*
Civility 4.12 3.94* 3.91* 3.83*
Citizen 4.20 3.98* 3.85* 3.75*
Change 4.20 3.85* 3.81* 3.74*
Moderate-Term Leadership Development Experience
Many Times
Several Times
One Time
Never
Self 4.11 3.98 3.99 3.91
Congru 4.36 4.14 4.21 4.14
Commit 4.37 4.18 4.25 4.20
Collab 4.22 4.05 4.02 3.89*
Common
4.25 4.06 4.09 3.95*
Civility 4.08 3.95 3.90 3.85
Citizen 4.18 3.96 3.95 3.77*
Change 4.06 3.88 3.82 3.76*
Long-Term Leadership Development Experience
Many Times
Several Times
One Time
Never
Self 4.16 3.96 4.01 3.93
Congru 4.36 4.18 4.17 4.15
Commit 4.38 4.21 4.20 4.21
Collab 4.22 4.04 4.03 3.93
Common
4.25 4.00 4.11 3.99
Civility 4.04 3.80 3.90 3.88
Citizen 4.16 3.95 4.00 3.82*
Change 4.02 3.83 3.86 3.79
Q&A/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?
