MSL 2006, 2009, and Beyond John P. Dugan Susan R. Komives Julie 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 Institute December 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 MSL Rationale 1.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: Theoretical Framework The Social Change Model of Leadership Development 1996

Overview of MSL: Conceptual Framework 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 Values Leadership Efficacy Understanding Diversity Cognitive Skills Leadership Identity Development I – E - O

Overview of 2006 MSL: Sample 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 Findings

Findings Continued

Gender

Leadership Predictors Leadership Outcome Block 5 Leadership Efficacy Block 4 College Environment & Experiences Block 3 Institutional Characteristics Block 2 Quasi- Pretests Block 1 Demographic Characteristics

Leadership Predictors 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.

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

Recommendations 4. Decentralize Leadership Programs 5. Focus on Members not Just Positional Leaders 6. Discourage Too Much Breadth in Involvement 7. Develop Mentoring Relationships

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

MSL campuses – Spring 2009 Common 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 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 Scales Campus Climate [core] Belonging Climate I feel valued as a person at this school I feel I belong on this campus Discriminatory Climate I have observed discriminatory words, behaviors or gestures directed at people like me I feel there is a general atmosphere of prejudice among students

MSL 2009 – New Scales Spirituality [sub-study] Search for meaning/purpose in your life Think about developing a meaningful philosophy of life

MSL 2009 – New Scales Mentoring [sub-study] Engage in ethical leadership Develop problem-solving skills Mentor others

MSL 2009 – New Scales Social Perspective Taking [sub-study] Perspective-taking Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. Empathy Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal (reverse scored)

MSL 2009 – New Scales Racial Salience [sub-study] Private self-perception In 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) Affiliation I 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 Analysis  Of leadership program mission statements  Of institutional mission statements  Of leadership development program delivery methods Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to connect student and institutional scores

MSL-IS 2006 Institutional Context

MSL-IS Leadership Program Focus NoneSomeOftenVery often Consciousness of self Congruence Commitment Collaboration Common purpose Controversy w/civility Citizenship Change 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 Study MSL 2009 Institutional Study -web version -institution identified materials -focus and goals of MSL-IS 2009

Using MSL in Practice Ways to use MSL data How are you using your MSL data? Data briefings (Marquette) Role of Advisory Committees Use of data in program design (Minnesota)

For More Information… Registrations for MSL 2010 began December 1, 2008 Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership