1 / 16

Developing Leadership Capacity in College Students Presented by Emily Ambrose and Alexis Kanda-Olmstead Student Leadersh

Developing Leadership Capacity in College Students Presented by Emily Ambrose and Alexis Kanda-Olmstead Student Leadership, Involvement & Community Engagement.

jersey
Download Presentation

Developing Leadership Capacity in College Students Presented by Emily Ambrose and Alexis Kanda-Olmstead Student Leadersh

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. Developing Leadership Capacity in College StudentsPresented by Emily Ambrose and Alexis Kanda-OlmsteadStudent Leadership, Involvement & Community Engagement Sponsored by the University of Maryland, National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, ACPA Educational Leadership Foundation, & NASPA Foundation

  2. Purpose of the MSL To examine the influences of higher education (academic and co-curricular experiences) on college student leadership development.

  3. Working Definition of Leadership “Leadership is a relational process of people together attempting to accomplish change or make a difference to benefit the common good.” - Susan Komives, Nance Lucas, & Timothy McMahon Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference (1998)

  4. Frameworkof 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)

  5. The Social Change Model Change

  6. Individual Values: Consciousness of Self Commitment Congruence Community Value: Citizenship Group Values Collaboration Common Purpose Controversy with Civility Central Value: Change Social Change Model: 8C’s Social Change Model outcomes measured by the Socially-Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS).

  7. I-E-OModel • 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

  8. 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?

  9. Methodology • 100 Participating Institutions: • Geographically diverse, variety of institutional types, differing levels of leadership programming, domestic and international (Canada and Mexico) • National Respondents: 92,573 • CSU Respondents: 872

  10. POP Quiz! • Which “C” did CSU students score highest, Commitment or Citizenship? • Which gender scores higher on the Omnibus SRLS, male or female? • Which gender scores higher on leadership efficacy, male or female? • Nationally, which race (White, Middle Eastern, African American/Black, American Indian, Asian American, Latino, or Multiracial) scores highest on the Omnibus SRLS? • Nationally, which race scores lowest? Commitment Female Male African American/Black Asian American

  11. Most Impactful CSU Leadership Development Experiences • Student employment • Community service • Internships • Living-learning program • Culminating senior experience

  12. Most Impactful CSU Leadership Development Experiences • Social-cultural discussions • Mentoring relationships • Student organization involvement • Leadership programs (retreats, workshops, courses)

  13. Findings of Interest • Students majoring in Education and Interdisciplinary Studies scored significantly higher on the Omnibus SRLS. • Students who studied abroad had higher complex cognitive skills than students who did not. • Students who identified as “very conservative” politically scored higher on leadership efficacy. • Students who identified as “very liberal” politically scored higher on the Omnibus SRLS and Complex Cognitive Skills. • Nationally, students with marginalized identities (i.e., women, students with disabilities, first-generation, and GLBQ) scored lower on leadership efficacy.

  14. National Findings Related to Academic Majors Higher Omnibus SRLS Lower Omnibus SRLS Agriculture Business Computer and Information Sciences Engineering Mathematics Parks/Recreation/Sports Management Physical Sciences Undecided • Communication • Education • Ethnic/Cultural/Area Studies • Foreign Languages and Literature • Health-Related Fields • Humanities • Interdisciplinary Studies • Pre-Professional • Social Sciences • Visual and Performing Arts

  15. MSL Application How can this research be incorporated into your work with students?

  16. For More Information Emily Ambrose, SLiCE Graduate Coordinator Emily.Ambrose@Colostate.Edu Alexis Kanda-Olmstead, SLiCE Assistant Director Alexis.Kanda-Olmstead@Colostate.Edu

More Related