LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN STUDENT AFFAIRS GRADUATE PREPARATORY PROGRAMS

by

Kelly Anne Nelson

_____________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 2010

Copyright 2010

Kelly Anne Nelson

UMI Number: 3434553

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3434553 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my daughters Charlotte Joy and Annabelle Jane; to my husband (and fellow Ed.D. graduate!), Matt; and to my mother, Melissa Carmody. Without their support and sacrifice, none of this would have been possible. I love you all and promise to spend more time with each of you!

ii

Acknowledgements

To my committee, Dr. Adrianna Kezar, Dr. Alex Jun, and Dr. Amy Johnson, thank you for not giving up on me! As I finish these last few edits from thousands of mile away, I am eternally grateful for your support, guidance, and unwavering belief that I would finish. To my classmates, particularly Chris Zacharda and Michelle Yeung, thank you for paving the road ahead of me and for sharing your experiences with me. Chris and Michelle, thank you for listening to me whine and complain. I wouldn’t have made it without you!

iii

Table of Contents

Dedication

ii

Acknowledgements

iii

List of Tables

v

List of Figures

vi

Abstract

vii

Chapter I:

Leadership Development in Student Affairs Graduate Preparatory Programs

1

Chapter II:

Review of the Literature

15

Chapter III:

Methodology

58

Chapter IV:

Data Analysis

85

Chapter V:

Results

146

References

182

Appendices Appendix A: ACPA Leadership and Management/Administration Professional Competencies Appendix B: Emails sent to CSP-Talk List and to Case Study Sites Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Program Directors Appendix D: Group Interview Protocol for Faculty Appendix E: Group Interview Protocol for Supervisors Appendix F: Group Interview Protocol for Students Appendix G: Observation Protocol Appendix H: Document Review Protocol

192 192 198 199 201 203 205 207 208

iv

List of Tables

Table 1:

Center for Creative Leadership: Roles Played by Others in Developmental Relationships

39

Table 2:

Components of Leadership Development

43

Table 3:

Data Collection Methods by Site

67

Table 4:

Curricular Design of Courses Related to Leadership

96

Table 5:

Supervised Practice Opportunity Requirements

101

Table A1: Resource Management Competencies

192

Table A2: Human Resources Competencies

193

Table A3: Organizational Development Competencies

194

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Leadership and Administration/Management Sub-competencies

20

Figure 2: Kolb: Cycle of Learning

28

Figure 3: Boyatzis: Theory of Self-Directed Learning

33

Figure 4: Center for Creative Leadership: Developmental Process

36

Figure 5: Center for Creative Leadership: Developmental Experiences

37

Figure 6: Conger: Four Approaches to Leadership Training

40

Figure 7: Teaching and Learning Methods

87

vi

Abstract

As colleges and universities increase in complexity, so do the leadership demands of student affairs professionals. Today, entry-level professionals are expected to be competent leaders. As a result, student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) have an obligation to foster the leadership development of their enrolled students. This qualitative study explores how student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. Students, faculty, and internship supervisors from two universities were interviewed on their perceptions of how and where leadership development was being taught in the SAGPP. The findings demonstrate that leadership development in SAGPPs is fostered through a process involving knowledge acquisition, skillbuilding, feedback, and reflection. Faculty and supervisors unanimously agreed that leadership is an important learning outcome for SAGPP students. Unfortunately, there are many competing priorities that can interfere with providing leadership development in the classroom and in the internship setting. The findings indicate that students are highly motivated to learn and grow as leaders. They have found ways to ensure that their leadership development needs are met. These methods include involvement in extracurricular activities and the cultivation of significant relationships with faculty, supervisors, mentors, advisors, and peers. These relationships were shown to be highly effective in nurturing students’ leadership vii

development. Two of the most interesting findings were 1) the importance of verbal processing and 2) the need for faculty and staff to have a strong sense of their role as leadership educators. Implications for SAGPPs seeking to maximize the leadership development opportunities for students include: 1) cultivating a strong leadership educator identity among faculty and supervisors, 2) increasing the amount of time spent talking about leadership, 3) building strong relationships between SAGPP faculty and internship supervisors, 4) ensuring that students have a developmental network made up of multiple significant relationships, and 5) increasing the quality, frequency and amount of feedback and reflection used to foster leadership development.

viii

Chapter I Leadership Development in Student Affairs Graduate Preparatory Programs

Introduction and Background of the Problem Leadership is particularly important in today’s educational environment which is “faced with economic uncertainty, eroding public confidence, demands for accountability, and growing numbers of students from historically under-represented groups” (Jacoby, B. & Jones, S. R., 2001, p. 405). Many major documents and textbooks in the field of student affairs cite the importance of leadership in student affairs administration (AAHE, ACPA, & NASPA, 1998; Barr, Desler, & Associates, 2000; Blimling & Whitt, 1999; Clement & Rickard, 1992; Evans & Tobin, 1998; Komives, Woodard, & Associates, 1996; Love et al., 2007; Love & Estanek, 2004; Miller & Winston, 1991; NASPA & ACPA, 2004; Rentz, 1994; Winston, Creamer, Miller, & Associates, 2001). As leadership theories begin to recognize the importance and value of less hierarchical forms of leadership (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006), it becomes critical for administrators at all levels, including entry-level practitioners, to have well-developed leadership skills (Burkard, Cole, Ott, & Stoflet, 2004; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk, Cobb, & Forrest, 2007; Waple, 2006). Numerous studies that examined the competencies of successful professionals in student affairs found leadership, or aspects of leadership, to be essential to the success of student affairs administrators (Burkard et al., 2004; 1

Herdlein, 2004; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk et al., 2007; Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Pope & Reynolds, 1997; Roberts, 2005; Waple, 2006). While it is clear that “leadership” is needed in student affairs, trying to define “leadership” in general is a difficult and complex task. None of the studies cited above offer a clear definition of leadership or a specific set of leadership competencies. Lovell and Kosten (2000), in their metaanalysis of thirty years of research, found that 83% of studies cited “administration and management” skills as “critical to the success of a student affairs professional” (p. 561), while only 43% felt that “leadership” was essential (Lovell & Kosten, 2000). It is not possible, after reviewing the competency literature, to determine if there is a distinction between administrative, management and leadership skills. Some studies group these terms into one category, while others like the Lovell and Kosten study split them into separate categories. It is unclear if this distinction is important in terms of defining leadership. While the literature base has not yet reached consensus about the set of skills or competencies required for a successful “leader” in student affairs, the Association of College Personnel Administrators (ACPA), one of two major organizations that guides the field of student affairs, recently published a “Document on Professional Competencies” (Love et al., 2008). The report identified eight competency areas and listed a set of basic, intermediate and advanced skills for each area. The competency area of Leadership and Administration/Management is broken down into four subcategories: resource management, human resources, organizational development, and social responsibility/civic engagement. Given the lack of a research-based definition 2

and ACPA’s important role in the field of student affairs, this document provides a partial framework for this study and offers specific leadership skills and competencies that can be explored within the SAGPP context. Student affairs administrators clearly need strong individual leadership skills, but they also need the ability to use those skills within the process of organizational leadership. A recent review of leadership research cautions against seeking a laundry list of traits and behaviors that will easily improve a practitioner’s leadership ability (Kezar et al., 2006). Kezar and her colleagues (2006) remind us “leadership is a complex, dynamic phenomenon with few quick answers or easy solutions” (p. 158). However, because leadership is not an innate skill it must be developed. Thus, “leaders are urged to learn a basic set of skills and competencies but be sensitive to varying their approach based on institutional culture and context or the situation at hand (Kezar et al, 2006, p. 162). For the purposes of this study, leadership is defined as a relational process, involving influence and based upon mutual goals, where people work together to create or respond to change. With a definition in place to frame the conversation, the next question is where and how leadership skills should be developed. Leadership Development in Student Affairs A new professional in university administration was once paired with an experienced practitioner who mentored the new employee into the field and gave him or her increasing autonomy while carefully ensuring that any mistakes made were not truly detrimental (Stage & Dannells, 2000). With the passing of the G.I. 3

Bill, enrollment in U.S. colleges and universities swelled from the late 1950s through the 1970s (Komives et al., 1996). This rapid growth brought with it an increased number of specialized student affairs positions, but also required an “increased reliance on paraprofessionals and peer advisors” (Komives et al., 1996, p. 35). With the sudden proliferation of students, job specialization, and increase in the use of student employees, the one-on-one apprenticeship model of mentoring became too time-consuming. Increasingly, student affairs administrators expected entry-level practitioners to be ready to work from day one and to have the ability to apply their graduate school knowledge and experiences (Kuk et al,, 2007; Phelps, 1998). While this may be an unrealistic expectation, in today’s organizational landscape, new professionals may find that they are handed the keys to their office and expected to simply start working (Renn & Hodges, 2007). However, several authors suggest that graduates from student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) may not be adequately prepared to “hit the ground running” as a new professional in student affairs (Ambler, Amey, & Reesor, 1994, as cited in Amey & Reesor, 1998; Jablonsky, 1998; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Stamatakos, 1981; Upcraft, 1998). Recently, there has been an effort to examine new professionals’ perceptions of their own skill or competency levels. Roberts (2005) surveyed student affairs practitioners to assess their self-perceived level of skill development and found that new professionals ranked leadership as something they were “working on and concerned with” but had not yet “mastered.” The Report on the New Professional Needs Study (Cilente, K., Henning, G., Skinner Jackson, J., Kennedy, D., & Sloan, 4

T., 2007) asked new professionals to rate their need for professional development in 30 areas. Respondents rated these items on a scale of 1 to 10 with a 10 representing “high need.” “Enhancing leadership skills” ranked 10th with a score of 7.15. It can be expected that young professionals would not have fully-developed leadership skills, but it seems evident that they would benefit from additional leadership training. Student affairs professionals need and want leadership development. While entry-level professionals are expected to have strong leadership skills, it is unclear where and how they should learn those skills. An ongoing debate exists concerning the best ways in which to teach and develop the skills needed to be a successful affairs administrator. Does a student affairs professional need a master’s degree to be successful? Does she need a doctoral degree? Should he come from a particular type of employment background or have a particular set of prior experiences? What is it that makes one administrator more successful than another? In 1979, Paul Bloland, a well-known scholar in the field of student affairs, argued that even a senior student affairs officer (SSAO) did not need to have any special training or background so long as he possessed solid leadership and organizational skills. The question is where should an aspiring student affairs practitioner learn these leadership and organizational skills? Employers expect new professionals to possess leadership skills but currently do not offer any significant training or orientation for these entry-level staffers (Renn & Hodges, 2007), thus it is critical that the development of basic leadership competencies occur prior to their first professional position. A master’s degree is 5

required for most entry-level positions in student affairs and employers assume that an earned degree means the graduate has been “adequately prepared for entry-level employment” (Kretovics, 2002, p. 912). While there is no research on how leadership skills differ between those who graduate from a student affairs preparation program and those who do not, a master’s degree has now become a common requirement for entry-level student affairs practitioners (Kretovics, 2002; Kuk et al., 2007; McEwen & Talbot, 1998). Since leadership is essential for new professionals, it seems natural to assume that leadership development is addressed in student affairs graduate preparatory programs. Unfortunately, very little research looks specifically at what SAGPP graduate students are learning about leadership and how leadership development is taught in these programs. Leadership Development in Graduate Preparatory Programs In the late 1980s, Judy Rogers (1991, 1992) conducted a study exploring leadership development in student affairs graduate preparatory programs. Her research was conducted in two parts with the first focusing on the perspectives of faculty and the second of students. She found that faculty believe leadership is an objective of student affairs graduate programs, although not always a primary one (Rogers, 1991). Given the importance of leadership in the field of student affairs, it is interesting that leadership is not necessarily seen as a primary learning objective for students in SAGPPs. In Rogers’s study, twenty-two faculty from 11 graduate preparatory programs were surveyed and they reported group projects, class presentations, and mentoring as the main techniques used to develop leadership in 6

their students. They also “intentionally designed program environments that stressed cooperation and community” (Rogers, 1992, p. 178) and assumed that students were learning leadership skills in their internships (Rogers, 1991). However, the impact of these techniques and experiences were not assessed. Rogers did not include student affairs administrators in her study, but it would have been interesting to see if they agreed with the faculty perspective. In the second portion of her research, Rogers (1992) surveyed 61 students at 10 institutions. Most of the students reported that their graduate programs were significant in their development as leaders and they cited assistantship supervisors, followed by faculty, as those primarily influential in aiding their leadership development (Rogers, 1992). As a result of her research, Rogers found that “most faculty recognize how significant a role the practicum/internship experience plays in a student’s leadership development, but the link between these experiences and formal theories is often, as a faculty member put it ‘indirect, informal, and implicit’” (1992, p. 178). We do not know if or how current SAGPPs are intentionally using assistantships to foster leadership development. Supervised Practice in Graduate Preparatory Programs According to the Council for Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), leadership development should be addressed in the classroom as well as through what they call “supervised practice” (CAS, 2006). Supervised practice in student affairs graduate programs generally occurs during an internship or assistantship. These assistantships seem to have taken the place of the 7

apprenticeship-like relationships that used to be commonplace and offer future administrators a type of laboratory where they can apply, in a real-life setting, the leadership theories learned in the classroom. Specifically, the CAS standards offer guidelines for masters-level graduate programs in student affairs including that the curriculum “must include studies of organizational, management, and leadership theory and practice; student affairs functions; legal issues in higher education; and professional issues, ethics, and standards of practice” (CAS, 2006, p. 352). The standards and guidelines also state that students should complete 300 hours of “supervised practice” which should encompass two unique experiences. There are also recommendations that a supervisor should possess “at least a master’s degree in student affairs or related area of professional study” and “several years of successful professional experience” (CAS, 2006, p. 353). In the absence of a formal accreditation process, the CAS standards are the best tool for designing and evaluating a graduate preparatory program. One study of entry-level competencies made the assumption that “if the program curriculum is aligned with the standards and guidelines set forth by CAS, then the graduates should be adequately prepared for entry-level employment within student affairs departments throughout higher education” (Kretovics, 2002, p. 912). A study by Young and Janosik (2007) found that graduates from CAS-compliant programs showed “greater confidence in 48 of 60 outcomes” in the Foundational Studies area (which does not include leadership) as compared to graduates from programs that do not meet CAS standards (p. 361). However, the CAS standards fail to offer any 8

guidelines to evaluate the quality of the supervised practice experiences or suggestions for how these experiences can be linked to the academic content of the program (Kuk et al., 2007). This leaves us without a “stated connection or clear link between these experiences and the actual development of professional competencies that intentionally integrate theory and practice” (Kuk et al., 2007, p. 666). The CAS Standards offer guidelines for what should be taught and by whom, but it does not suggest how to ensure that the students can apply their classroom knowledge in the supervised practice opportunities or positions of future employment. However, a large body of literature exists which suggests that SAGPPs can link classroom learning with supervised practice opportunities by using experiential learning to increase these theory-to-practice connections in leadership development. Connecting Theory to Practice Teaching leadership is a complex task and research demonstrates that leadership cannot, and should not, be taught solely in the classroom (Conger, 1992). Several scholars argue that theory-to-practice transfer can be enhanced through the use of experiential learning (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Schein, 1972). For an applied field such as student affairs, experiential learning is important because it provides opportunities for students to practice their developing leadership skills. The importance of practical experience has long been valued in SAGPPs. The first master’s degree in student affairs, granted in 1914 at Teachers College, Columbia University, required a “practicum in which concrete problems confronted by the dean of women were discussed” (Lloyd-Jones, 1949, p. 263; as 9

cited in McEwen &Talbot, 1998, p. 129). Assistantships offer future administrators a natural setting where they can apply, in a real-life setting, the leadership theories and skills learned in the classroom. However, simply offering assistantship opportunities is not enough to ensure that theory-to-practice connections are occurring. What sets experiential learning apart is that the “experience of the learner occupies the central place in all considerations of teaching and learning” (Andresen et al., 1995, p. 225). This implies that the assistantships should be primarily a learning opportunity rather than a traditional position of employment. The quality of these supervised practice experiences in SAGPPs has not been widely regulated (Komives, 1998) and has been frequently questioned (Jablonsky, 1998; Komives, 1998; Kuk et.al, 2007; McEwen & Talbot, 1998; Upcraft, 1998). Students have often reported the “need for more developmental supervision and more integration of their formal classroom learning with their job expectations” (Komives, 1998, p. 185). Leadership development theory can be used, along with experiential learning theory, to design SAGPP curriculum and assistantships in a way that maximizes theory-topractice learning. Experts in leadership development have proposed several models to describe how leadership is learned (Boyatzis, 1999; Conger, 1992; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). Leadership appears to be learned through a process that involves components of knowledge acquisition, skill-building experiences, feedback, reflection, and the application of learning. These concepts will be explored, in greater detail, in chapter II. To date, there are no studies that explore how experiential learning or leadership 10

development theory is being used to teach leadership in student affairs graduate preparatory programs. As a result, we do not know if the SAGPPs are using the components of leadership development described above. Statement of the Problem The literature demonstrates three points that are highly relevant to this study: 1) leadership is an important competency for student affairs practitioners and leadership skills are needed even in entry-level positions, 2) leadership development should be a significant focus of graduate preparatory programs because student affairs practitioners expect new professionals to possess foundational leadership skills, and 3) it is difficult to teach leadership without an experiential component. However, while evidence supports the role of experiential learning, we do not know the role that graduate assistantships play in skill attainment (Waple, 2006), or how supervised practice opportunities are intentionally designed to foster leadership competencies (Kuk et al., 2007).Through documents produced by ACPA and CAS, educators have a framework to define leadership and competencies for practitioners as well as guidelines for curriculum and supervised practice in graduate preparatory programs. However, little research exists that describes how leadership, both the theoretical and practical components, is taught in current preparatory programs. Purpose of the Study In this study, I will examine how student affairs graduate programs prepare students to be effective leaders in the higher education environment. The focus will be on how leadership development is taught in student affairs graduate programs. 11

Specifically, I will explore how graduate preparatory programs use experiential learning to enhance theory-to-practice transfer. I will collect data that illustrates the students’ exposure to and experiences in leadership development during their coursework and assistantship. Multiple models of leadership development, described in chapter II, will be used to identify and evaluate the leadership development opportunities provided in these programs. By providing a look at how leadership is addressed in the curriculum of student affairs graduate preparatory programs and offering best practices, taken from two case studies, this study will provide strategies for how theory-to-practice connections in leadership development can be enhanced. Research Questions The main research question for this study is: How do student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership? Specifically, I will explore: 

Where and how, in the curriculum, are students taught leadership theory and skills/competencies?



Where and how do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge in ways that enhance theory-to-practice learning?



Where and how is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed?



Have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

12

Significance of the Study Much of the competency literature suggests that recent graduates of student affairs preparation programs often find themselves in entry-level jobs that require significant leadership skills that include supervision, crisis and conflict management, collaboration, teambuilding, managing organizations and groups, and dealing with change (Burkard et al., 2004; Kuk et al., 2007; Scott, 2000; Waple, 2006). According to Burkard et al., these “competencies represent a significant change in expectations” (p. 298), which may be a result of the changing role of new professionals in student affairs. Since professionals entering the field of student affairs need strong leadership skills, it is important to know how best to facilitate leadership development in graduate preparatory programs. This study will contribute to the profession’s understanding of what and how leadership is being taught in SAGPPs. It will also provide suggestions for improving the curricular experience to enhance leadership development. These findings will be useful to graduate preparatory faculty, internship/assistantship supervisors, and supervisors of new professionals. The results of this study will also be beneficial to graduate preparation programs that are interested in intentionally designing their students’ experiential learning opportunities for maximum leadership development. It will provide suggestions for how graduate preparatory programs can ensure that their students develop an appropriate theoretical knowledge base and the ability to apply that knowledge in a real-world setting.

13

Since not all assistantships are tightly connected to academic programs, the findings in this study could provide an argument for a more formal relationship between assistantship programs and the academic curriculum if assistantships are found to have a significant influence in the development of leadership skills. Ultimately, this study will provide valuable information to graduate preparatory program faculty and student internship supervisors who are interested in better preparing leaders for the field of student affairs.

14

Chapter II Review of the Literature

Given the ever-changing landscape of U.S. colleges and universities, student affairs administrators will be challenged to provide leadership in increasingly complex and evolving organizations. This leadership will need to come from professionals at all levels, including entry-level administrators. Since a master’s degree has become a common requirement for most entry-level positions (Kretovics, 2002; Kuk et al., 2007; McEwen & Talbot, 1998), student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) are an ideal place for future professionals to develop leadership knowledge and skills. We know that leaders learn through leading (Day, 2001; McCall, 2004), so it is important for SAGPPs to offer a curriculum that provides students the opportunity to practice their leadership skills. By studying the process of how leadership is learned, SAGPPs can design curricular programs that intentionally foster leadership development and help students learn to become effective leaders in the higher education milieu. The literature review that follows will explore the definitions of leadership, what we know about how leadership is taught in SAGPPs, theories of how leadership is learned, and finally, five components that appear to be significant in the development of leadership. First, a brief description of current and relevant attempts to define leadership and corresponding competencies will be provided. Before moving into the narrow topic of leadership development in SAGPPs, it is important 15

to understand what is meant by the global term “leadership.” A document by the American College Personnel Association, one of the major professional organizations for student affairs administrators, will be used to provide a framework of leadership and related competencies. After discussing definitions and competencies, I will then explore what is known about leadership development in graduate preparatory programs. This section will be used to explain what little has been studied and what remains unanswered. I will conclude by exploring experiential learning theory and leadership development theory, which will offer several ideas on the process of how leadership can be learned. While there are numerous published leadership development theories, the ones I have selected were created by wellrespected scholars in the field of learning and/or leadership development. There are no existing models of leadership development specifically for student affairs but I will discuss how these chosen theories may be adapted for use by faculty and/or supervisors of students enrolled in SAGPPs. These models are critical to the design of my study and provide a framework to guide my data collection and analysis. What are Leadership and Leadership Development? It is difficult to explore the process of leadership development without a clear understanding of what is meant by the term “leadership.” In order to examine the way in which leadership is taught in SAGPPs, a working definition is needed. Should courses on management, group dynamics, and/or finances be considered leadership development? Do internships offer ways to develop leadership skills? Without a framework to guide this study, it would be impossible to know where to begin in the 16

exploration of how leadership is taught in SAGPPs. This section will offer clarity regarding current opinions on the broad definition of leadership, the differences between leader and leadership development, and leadership competencies in student affairs. Trying to define “leadership” is a complicated task. In 1985, Bennis and Nanus identified over 350 definitions for the term leadership. Klenke (1993) emphasizes the thorniness of this problem by stating “there are probably few areas of inquiry and practical importance which have produced more divergent, inconsistent, overlapping definitions, theories, and educational models than leadership” ( p. 112). Traditionally, leadership has been defined in terms of individual-level skills (Day, 2001) and the majority of leadership theories fall under one of five categories: trait, behavioral, situational, power-influence, and transformational (Brungardt, 1996). However, more recent explorations have sought to integrate these categories and also acknowledge that leadership is complex and relational, involving not only the individual leader but also the social and organizational environment (Brungardt, 1996; Fiedler, 1996; Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998). Northouse defines leadership as a “process involving influence occurring within a group context involving goal attainment” (2001, p. 3). A definition by Komives, Lucas, and McMahon is more explicit in its view that leadership is about more than a single leader. They state that leadership is a “relational process of people together attempting to accomplish change or make a difference to benefit the common good” (1998, p. 21). These definitions provide a challenge to those who 17

teach in SAGPPs. While it is important for future student affairs administrators to develop individual leadership skills, they also need to understand the “process” of leadership and how to effectively contribute to that process in the workplace. To further complicate the task of defining “leadership,” recent literature draws a distinction between leader development and leadership development (Day, 2001; Kezar et al., 2006; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004; and Winston, et al., 2001). Leader development focuses primarily on individual knowledge and skills while leadership development emphasizes the complex interactions between leaders and organizations. This distinction, which is highly relevant in higher education, emphasizes the fact that a leader does not work in isolation. My study will explore both individual skills as well as competencies related to the process of leadership. McDaniel, in 1972, reminded us that graduate preparatory programs “cannot ignore the fact that a student personnel worker is part of an administrative structure and that the future success or failure of the trainee will largely be a function of his ability to contribute to the effectiveness of the organization (p. 110). Graduate preparatory programs must strive to prepare their students to be effective leaders who are also able to meet the leadership demands of the educational environment. For the purposes of this study, leadership is defined as a relational process, involving influence and based upon mutual goals, where people work together to create or respond to change. This definition helps separate “leadership” from “management” by acknowledging that change is an important dynamic in situations where leadership is involved. Management has frequently been seen as simply 18

maintaining the current status quo. The definition offered also requires the commitment to the interactive and relational nature of the process of leadership. Leadership in Student Affairs Determining the leadership demands for new professionals is another challenge faced by the SAGPPs. In order to meet the obligation of developing the leadership talents of their students, these programs must first be able to identify what leadership knowledge and skills are necessary for success in the workplace. Five recent studies (Burkard et al., 2004; Herdlein, 2004, Kretovics, 2002; Kuk et al., 2007; Waple, 2006) demonstrate the importance of leadership skills in new student affairs professionals, but the research has yet to reach consensus on a set of core competencies required for entry-level practitioners (Pope & Reynolds, 1997). A recent document created by the A.C.P.A Steering Committee on Professional Competencies (Love et al., 2007) does offer a promising look at the skills necessary for student affairs professionals at different positions along the experience continuum. The Steering Committee was “charged with the development of an agreed upon set of competency areas to serve as the foundation for student affairs professionals” (Love et al., 2007, p. 2). This report identified eight competency areas, one of which is “Leadership and Administration/ Management.” The Leadership and Administration/Management competency area is further broken down into four sub-competencies (see figure 1), each with a list of specific skills sorted into “from” (basic), “through” (intermediate), and “to” (advanced) levels. A

19

full description of each of the sub-competencies and corresponding knowledge and skills can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 1: Leadership and Administration/Management Sub-competencies (Love et al., 2007)

The ACPA report is a comprehensive document that was created by a committee of 18 well-known and respected scholars in the field of student affairs and higher education. Given the prominence of the organization that produced this document, it can be seen as a prototype for a set of core competencies. The applied nature of student affairs work and the understanding that a master’s degree is commonly accepted as a minimum requirement for entrance into the field of student affairs (Kretovics, 2002; Kuk et al., 2007; McEwen & Talbot, 1998), make graduate 20

preparatory programs an ideal environment for both leader and leadership development. The Leadership and Administration/Management area of this document will be used to partially frame what is being taught about leader and leadership development in SAGPPs. The competencies under Resource Management, as well as the Hiring component under Human Resources, will be excluded because they are not supported by the working definition of leadership used for this study. The following section will review several studies which explored leadership development, education, and training in SAGPPs. Leadership Development, Education, and Training in Student Affairs Graduate Preparatory Programs In the context of teaching leadership, it is helpful to distinguish between leadership development, leadership education, and leadership training. Brungardt, in a 1996 review of the literature, offers distinct descriptions of each. Leadership development “involves those activities designed to provide an interactionist environment which encourages development in an ordered hierarchical sequence of increasing complexity” (Roberts, 1981, p. 22). This definition reminds us that leadership development is a long-term process and will occur throughout the entire graduate school experience (and over an entire lifetime). On the other hand, “leadership education” refers to the specific activities and environments that are designed to cultivate leadership abilities (Brungardt, 1996). Finally, “leadership training” involves specific activities that assist with the translation of a specific skill or piece of knowledge so that it can be applied in a current and “real” situation 21

(Roberts, 1981). In the framework of a graduate preparatory program, leadership education could be a specific course or supervised practice opportunity, while leadership training would be learning activities that occur within those contexts. Both leadership education and training serve to enhance leadership development. While several studies have found leadership, or at least leadership skills and traits, to be an essential competency for student affairs work (Burkard et al., 2004; Herdlein, 2004; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk et al., 2007; Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Roberts, 2005; Waple, 2006), very few of these studies have asked more than what student affairs professionals should know in order to be successful. Three of the studies attempted to determine if these competencies were being used with any degree of proficiency (Herdlein, 2004; Roberts, 2005; and Waple, 2006). Richard Herdlein (2004) asked chief student affairs officers (CSAOs) to comment on the graduate preparation of new professionals. Herdlein’s (2004) study was the only one that sought to evaluate SAGPPs’ effectiveness. He found an overall “satisfactory to moderately high level of satisfaction relative to the learning outcomes of new professionals” (Herdlein, 2004, p. 60), but also that “substantial shortcomings may exist in certain areas currently recognized as having significant importance to successful practice” (Herdlein, 2004, p. 62). Herdlein’s (2004) findings show that only 62% of new professionals were described as being proficient or above average in leadership. The CSAOs reported a need for SAGPPs to provide more “practical administrative skills and supervision” as well as additional training in areas such as strategic planning, finance and 22

budgeting, and campus politics (Herdlein, 2004, p. 66). All of these competencies are included in the ACPA Leadership and Management/Administration Area. However, the study by Herdlein (2004) is limited by the fact that he asked CSAOs, who rarely provide direct supervision of entry-level staff, to rate the level of preparation of new professionals who had recently graduated from a SAGPP. The study by Waple (2006) went a step further than some of the other studies by asking 1) the degree to which a skill was attained in an SAGPP and 2) the degree to which it was being used by entry-level practitioners. Waple's results, supported by a 2008 study conducted by Renn & Jessup-Anger, show that entry-level practitioners report feeling underprepared to meet the leadership demands of their positions. These studies support that leadership is an important competency and that new professionals would benefit from additional leadership education and training. However, only one study bothers to ask where these competencies should be learned (Kuk et al., 2007). Kuk, Cobb, & Forrest (2007), asked middle- and senior-level administrators, as well as graduate preparatory faculty, to identify professional competencies that are important for new professionals in student affairs. Faculty placed the greatest emphasis on professional knowledge content and perceived the other three competency categories (individual practice and administrative skills, goal setting and the ability to deal with change, and managing groups and organizations) to be less important than did the two administrative groups. The authors suggest that this may be because faculty are “less focused on preparing students with the readiness to 23

apply their professional knowledge to practice” and may see the “practicum and assistantship experiences as the primary venue for the development of competencies that are not knowledge-based” (Kuk et al., 2007, pp. 679-680). While this study found a difference in perceptions of faculty, CSAOs, and mid-managers related to necessary competencies and where those competencies should be learned (within preparation programs or on the job), the researchers did not ask if the respondents felt that graduate preparatory programs were effectively teaching these competencies. Unfortunately, this study did not clearly state whether assistantships were considered to be “in the preparation program” or “on the job” in terms of where learning occurred. The study by Kuk et al., (2007) attempted to ascertain where the knowledge and skills should be learned, but it did not attempt to ascertain the effectiveness of the SAGPPS nor did it offer many suggestions on the process of teaching these competencies. These researchers suggest that preparatory faculty may want to “evaluate to what extent practicum and internship experiences are assessed and linked with the knowledge-based curriculum through both competency assessment and reflective processes such as portfolios” (Kuk et al., 2007, p. 680). Ultimately, faculty and administrators need more discussion, perhaps focusing their efforts on developing a set of core competencies to be taught in graduate preparatory programs, how “theory to practice experiences can be more effectively integrated and assessed,” and “how administrators and faculty can work together to enhance the

24

curriculum and supervised practice experiences in order to enhance student learning” (Kuk et al., 2007, p. 685). How the practical and academic components of SAGPP curricula should be integrated is a topic that has not been extensively studied and there is almost no research on how this integration could be used to foster leadership development. Most students enrolled in an SAGPP participate in some sort of an internship (McEwen & Talbot, 1998). We do not know if leadership is being learned during the internship, if the internship is being used to intentionally foster leadership, or even if leadership development is an unintentional byproduct of the internship experience. Many SAGPPs require students to take a course that is connected to the internship experience and/or offer a course in leadership, administration, and/or management. However, we do not know if programs that offer these courses are using the internships as an opportunity for students to practice their leadership skills and to apply what is being taught in the classroom. This study will help close the knowledge gap by exploring how the SAGPP curriculum can be shaped by learning theory and leadership development theory. Learning Theory and Leadership Development Theory A thorough review of the literature on leadership development was conducted that explored both general learning theory, with an emphasis on experiential learning and the role of internships, and how leadership is learned. Even with a set of agreed upon knowledge, skills, and competencies, Argyris and Schon remind us that “whatever competence means today, we can be sure its meaning will have changed 25

by tomorrow” (1974, p. 157). What is important is that we teach the capacity for learning. This requires a clear understanding of how learning occurs. Before discussing the specific mechanisms for teaching leadership, it is helpful to review some important concepts in learning theory. The following section will describe the challenge of connecting theory to practice and the role that experiential learning can play in enhancing these connections. Using experiential learning to connect theory to practice. An important but difficult part of learning leadership in SAGPPs is connecting what is learned in the classroom to real-world settings or linking theory to practice. The idea that people are not always able to transfer learning from one setting to another is not new in the learning theory arena. Learning embedded in the context of a classroom can be very challenging for students to practically apply outside of the classroom environment (Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998). Several authors have noted the difficulty student affairs professionals have in linking theory to practice (Caple & Voss, 1983; Parker, 1977; Plato, 1983; Stage, 1994; Stage & Dannells, 2000; Upcraft, 1994; Upcraft, 1998). This difficulty was explained by Parker (1977) as a “paradox inherent in the creation of theory” (as cited in Stage & Dannells, 2000, p. 5). Theories are created through research so that they can be generalized to broader situations and used to guide the practice of student affairs. However, this generalization requires practitioners to ignore the very quirks that make situations and people so unique. It is this very uniqueness that makes theories so hard to apply in practice (Stage and Dannells, 2000). The National Study 26

of New Professionals in Student Affairs (Renn & Hodges, 2007) asked new professionals to identify “in what areas should master’s programs in higher education and student affairs prepare graduate students for the transition to full-time work in the field?” Some of the respondents reported difficulty in applying theoretical knowledge they had learned in their programs, in part because “their graduate programs prioritized knowledge attainment over application” (Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008). Graduate preparatory programs must find effective ways to help students make connections between theory and practice so that leadership skills can be applied in their student affairs work. One of the ways that theory-to-practice transfer can be enhanced is through the use of experiential learning (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Kolb, 1984; Schein, 1972). For an applied field such as student affairs, experiential learning is important because it provides opportunities for students to practice their developing leadership skills. David Kolb’s 1984 experiential learning theory (ELT), based heavily upon the work of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget, is one of the most cited theories in studies exploring experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). According to Kolb, “knowledge is a transformation process, being continuously created and recreated, not an independent entity to be acquired or transmitted (1984, p. 38). His cycle of experiential learning (see figure 2) says that after a direct experience, the learner reflects upon the experience which leads to rational conclusions and emotional insights. The learner then applies those conclusions and insights in action.

27

Essentially, an experience causes the learner to reflect, then think, and then act (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Figure 2 depicts the Cycle of Learning (Kolb, 1984) involved in ELT.

Figure 2: Kolb: Cycle of Learning (1984)

Kolb’s theory defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). This constructivist theory is in radical contrast to how many college and university courses are taught. If knowledge comes from the learner’s experiences, rather than from being transmitted by an “expert,” traditional lecture-based coursework should be viewed as insufficient 28

for teaching an applied skill like leadership. While Kolb’s theory offers great insight into the need for more than just classroom-based teaching, it seems to imply that a learner should simply suffer through a series of trial-and-error experiences until finally developing the skills he or she seeks. It could be inferred that formal training is unnecessary and that someone who wants to be a student affairs practitioner would be just as successful if he or she skipped the graduate degree program and simply entered the work-force. Unfortunately, there are not any studies that compare student affairs professionals who are SAGPP graduates to those who are not. Since a master’s degree is now seen as a pre-requisite to employment, SAGPPs have an obligation to design their curricula in a way that maximizes meaningful and relevant learning. One way they can do this is to use Kolb’s theory to structure their curriculum in a way that helps students learn to participate in the process of leadership by making meaning of their experiences and using reflection. Providing a student with both theoretical knowledge and experiential learning opportunities could enhance leadership development. In an effort to create theory-to-practice connections, some graduate programs, such as medicine and psychology, require extensive internships, while other disciplines (like law) require a more limited experience (Komives, 1998, p. 192). Most SAGPPs require some form of internship or assistantship. However, there are no studies that explore whether SAGPP internships use Kolb’s ELT to foster leadership development. Additionally, there is no research that examines if and how these SAGPP internships are used to 1) enhance theory-to-practice learning and 2) 29

foster leadership development. Internships may prove to be an ideal venue for this type of learning, but no one has studied the role that internships in SAGPPs have in the development of leadership. At the present time, we do not know how SAGPPs are teaching neither the theoretical knowledge nor the practical application of leadership. Fortunately, there are several models of leadership development, although they are not specific to student affairs administration, which can offer a guide for how leadership is learned and suggestions for how it can be taught in SAGPPs. Learning leadership. The question of how leadership is learned has only recently become a serious research topic (Brungardt, 1996). There remains no universal theory of this complex phenomenon. Brungardt, when discussing leadership development theory and how leadership is learned, says that “both fields are in the process of clearly defining themselves and their research needs to move from merely explaining what is happening to proposing models for intervention (1996, p. 91). According to Brungardt, “leadership development research looks across the entire spectrum of leader development…whereas, learning leadership theory searches more narrowly for the role leadership education plays in the development of leaders” (1996, p. 84). This paper focuses primarily on “learning leadership” as it relates to student affairs graduate preparatory programs. While several authors (Allen & Hartman, 2008; Brungardt, 1996; Collins & Holton, 2004; and Conger, 1992) point out the lack of empirical research evaluating 30

the effectiveness of leadership education programs, Day (2001) argues “effective leadership development is less about which specific practices are endorsed than about consistent and intentional implementation” (p. 606). Despite the scarcity of empirical data to support specific interventions such as developmental assignments, coaching, mentoring, and 360-degree feedback, they are widely used techniques that may play an important role in future leadership development programs (Collins & Holton, 2004, p. 240). Day (2001) suggests that the “preferred approach is to link leader development with leadership development such that the development of leadership transcends but does not replace the development of individual leaders” (p. 605). This holistic view of leadership development is an important concept for SAGPPs who must focus on developing individual leaders who will be ready to work within complex leadership environments. Minetti (1977), in a dissertation on student affairs graduate programs, asserted that SAGPPs have a responsibility to determine how to best design their curricula in a way that will prepare their students to be effective leaders within the higher education arena. The following sections explore theories of how leaders learn and how several well-known theories of leadership development connect with the SAGPP curriculum. First, I will discuss and critique the work of Boyatzis and his colleagues, Goleman and McKee (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee (2002). Boyatzis’ Theory of Self-Directed Learning is a leadership development model that is highly congruent with the broader ELT developed by Kolb. The Boyatzis model could serve as a curricular framework for a course connected to a SAGPP internship. Next, I will 31

introduce the work of The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). This two-part model was selected because it might be easily adapted by internship supervisors as a method of enhancing leadership development through experiential learning techniques. Finally, Jay Conger’s (1992) Four Approaches to Leadership Training will be discussed. The model created by Conger was one of the first to explore the effectiveness of leadership training and it remains one of the most well respected models in the literature. Conger’s model offers great insight into how SAGPPs can create curricular experiences that maximize leadership development. After describing the three models, I will then explore what these models have in common with each other and discuss five components essential to leadership development: knowledge acquisition, skill-building experiences, feedback, reflection, and the application of learning. The theory, techniques, and potential implications for SAGPPs will be discussed for each of these components. Richard Boyatzis’ theory of self-directed learning. Boyatzis’ theory of self-directed learning is presented in a book on leadership and emotional intelligence by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002). The book “Primal Leadership” focuses on the emotional impact of a leader’s words and actions and defines a successful leader as one who is “resonant” (Goleman et al., 2002). A resonant leader is one who is attuned to the feelings of others and able to move them in a “positive emotional direction” (Goleman et al., 2002, p. 20). The authors describe six styles of effective leadership that can be used in isolation or in conjunction with one another. The model by Boyatzis is used to explain how a leader 32

can learn to be resonant through increasing their emotional intelligence. This model is a “self-directed learning process” but it acknowledges that this work cannot be done without the input of others. This model of learning requires “intentionally developing or strengthening an aspect of who you are or who you want to be, or both” through comparing your ideal self to your current self (Goleman et al., 2002, p. 109). MBA and executive education programs have successfully implemented this leadership model (Goleman, et al., 2002) and it seems like a natural fit for SAGPPs. In his model, Boyatzis proposes five “discoveries” (see figure 3) that occur sequentially.

Figure 3: Boyatzis: Theory of Self-Directed Learning (Goleman et al., 2002, p. 110)

33

The first step in this cycle involves “uncovering an ideal vision” of oneself that becomes the motivation to want to develop additional leadership skills (Goleman et al., 2002). Boyatzis believes this vision can come from many different sources. It is possible that one source could be in-class exposure to leaders and leadership models. The vision of the type of leader a student wishes to be motivates the student to continue with the arduous process of change (Goleman et al., 2002). The second discovery comes when a leader identifies a gap between his or her current performance and his or her “ideal self”. The detection of individual strengths and weaknesses can come from internal reflection or feedback garnered from others. In order to begin the transformation from “real” or current self to that of “ideal” self, the leader must create a “learning agenda.” SAGPP faculty and supervisors can assist students with this third discovery by building these action plans into the curriculum and/or work environment. The fourth discovery is simply practicing the skills identified in the learning agenda. The last discovery, “developing trusting relationships”, can be experienced at any point during the learning cycle. Even though this model is a “self-directed learning process,” this last discovery acknowledges that “without others’ involvement, lasting change cannot occur” (Goldman et al., 2002, p. 111). The five discoveries could be used as a framework for designing a course that is connected to a SAGPP internship. The students could be moved through the cycle over the course of the semester so that they are able to learn from their current experiences, and also have the necessary framework to learn from future 34

experiences. This model works best if the learner has a “strong commitment to a future vision of oneself-especially during stressful times or amid growing responsibilities” (Goleman et al., 2002, p. 116). Graduate students enrolled in a SAGPP might easily fit this description and this model can be used and taught to students so that they become lifelong, self-directed learners. Center for Creative Leadership’s leader development model. The work of the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) offers “both a conceptual understanding of the elements of leader development and practical ideas about how organizations can contribute to that process” (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004, p. 2). Leader development is defined as the “expansion of a person’s capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes: setting direction, creating alignment, and maintaining commitment in groups of people who share common work” (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004, p. 2). The process of leader development is described in a two-part model that emphasizes the importance of well designed experiential learning opportunities but acknowledges that not all experiences are equal in terms of potential for leadership development. The first part of the model (see figure 4) proclaims that a particular experience has maximum impact on leader development when the following three things occur: “the experience is linked to other experiences, work is done to enhance an individual’s ability to learn, and the experiences are embedded and aligned in a supportive organizational context” (Van Velsor, Moxley, & Bunker, 2004, p. 204). The first two elements impact each other; the ability to learn can be enhanced by 35

experiences and a variety of experiences may be sought out by individuals with a high ability to learn (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004).

Figure 4: Center for Creative Leadership: Developmental Process (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004, p. 4)

The second part of the CCL model (see figure 5) of leader development defines developmental experiences as those that lead to change and says that these experiences are most impactful if they include elements of assessment, challenge, and support (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). Developing leaders must receive feedback on their performance, and be challenged or stretched outside of the normal comfort zones. This should occur in an environment that feels supportive to learners 36

so that they are more likely to be receptive to the feedback and feel safe enough to take risks as they experiment with new styles of leadership. This idea of challenge and support is similar to a theory by Nevitt Sanford (1968) which also stipulates that a student must be “ready” for the lessons being presented.

Figure 5: Center for Creative Leadership: Developmental Experiences (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004, p. 4)

Similar to the model of developmental experiences, the CCL also supports the need for “developmental relationship” as a vital part of the leader development model (McCauley & Douglas, 2004, p. 86). These relationships consist of the same elements described in figure 5: assessment, challenge, and support (McCauley & Douglas, 2004). People playing different roles can provide one or more of each of these elements. Table 1 shows all of the roles and functions played by others in developmental relationships. According to McCauley and Douglas (2004), one

37

person can play multiple roles and some relationships are more developmental than others. Those that are most developmental either provide more roles and/or provide “just the right role that the person needs at the time” (McCauley & Douglas, 2004, p. 91). Mentors and bosses are two of the most common categories of people who can provide a developmental relationship, but most individuals seek assistance and support from what McCauley and Douglas call a “developmental network” (2004, p. 93). A developmental network is actually a group of people, in superior, lateral, subordinate, or external positions, who provide multiple roles (McCauley & Douglas, 2004). The idea of a developmental network is highly relevant to SAGPPs where students may seek guidance from faculty, supervisors, and peers. Given the complex nature of these types of graduate programs, it seems likely that SAGPP students would find it necessary to have their needs met by developing relationships with multiple people. The leader development model by the CCL, through its exploration of developmental experiences, offers guidance for structuring and supervising SAGPP internships. However, the model is incomplete for the needs of SAGPPs because, like the Boyatzis model described above, it lacks a component that specifically addresses where employees should be exposed to the leadership knowledge base. It also seems to assume that people will reflect upon the feedback they are given and will then apply that knowledge in a work setting. This model is most appropriate for SAGPPs to use when determining internship requirements and structure. It can also be used as a supervision technique in an internship setting. Additionally, it might 38

serve SAGPPs well to explore the CCL's concept of “ability to learn” in regards to their admission processes.

Table 1: Center for Creative Leadership: Roles Played by Others in Developmental Relationships (McCauley & Douglas, 2004, p. 87) Element

Role

Function

Assessment

Feedback provider

Ongoing feedback as person works to learn and improve

Sounding board

Evaluation of strategies before they are implemented

Comparison point

Standards for evaluating own level of skill or performance

Feedback interpreter

Assistance in integrating or making sense of feedback from others

Dialogue partner

Perspectives or points of view different from own

Assignment broker

Access to challenging assignments

Accountant

Pressure to fulfill commitment to developmental goals

Role model

Example of high (or low) competence in areas being developed

Counselor

Examination of what is making learning and development difficult

Cheerleader

Boost in own belief that success is possible

Reinforcer

Formal rewards for progress toward goals

Companion

Sense that you are not alone in your struggles and this if others can achieve their goals, you can too

Challenge

Support

39

Jay Conger’s four approaches to leadership training. According to Jay Conger, “leaders are individuals who establish direction for a working group of individuals, who gain commitment from these group members to this direction, and who motivate these members to achieve the direction’s outcomes” (1992, p. 18). Conger’s book “Learning to Lead” (1992) was based on one of the first studies that critically examined the effectiveness of leadership training. He sought to discover whether leadership could be learned though training and if so, which methods were most effective. His findings suggest that there are four approaches to leadership training: personal growth, conceptual awareness, feedback, and skill-building (figure 6).

Figure 6: Conger: Four Approaches to Leadership Training (Conger, 1992)

40

The most effective programs use more than one approach. Personal growth occurs through the process of “finding what your true self is and wants” (Conger, 1992, p. 57). Conceptual awareness involves developing a “cognitive understanding of the phenomenon” of leadership (Conger, 1992, p. 48). Assuming that almost everyone possesses some degree of leadership skill, Conger asserts that feedback can be used to identify individual strengths and weaknesses. Skill-building is simply the teaching of specific leadership skills and then providing the opportunity for the practicing of those skills. Conger (1992) describes an “ideal leadership program” as a week-long event that starts off with a conceptual overview of a specific leadership model. This would be followed by feedback from supervisors, colleagues, and subordinates (known as 360-degree or multi-rater feedback) so that the participants can develop an accurate sense of how well they measure on the leadership models’ specific dimensions (Conger, 1992). The next few days would be spent on skill-building exercises designed to increase leadership competencies, followed by feedback (Conger, 1992). Personal growth activities related to job experiences and team-building would be included (Conger, 1992). Mid-week, participants would create an action plan for leadership development that they would take back and implement in their workplace (Conger, 1992). After six months, the participants would return for a four-day training session focusing on more complex leadership skills, additional feedback, benchmarking of progress made, and individual coaching sessions (Conger, 1992). After another six to nine months, a final session would allow participants to assess 41

their leadership effectiveness using assessment tools, feedback, and additional classroom work (Conger, 1992). A program such as this could easily be adapted by SAGPPs. While Conger (1992) suggests that leadership development should include all four approaches, he does not assert that all four approaches must be used nor does he discuss whether there is an ideal sequence of these approaches that leads to optimal learning. Kolb’s (1984) research, as well as the work of Richard Boyatzis (1999), clearly demonstrates that learning follows a specific sequence. Conger’s (1992) model is useful because it reminds SAGPPs that learning is enhanced by the use of multiple approaches to teaching and learning. These four approaches can be used in the classroom as well as the supervised practice components of the SAGGP. Significant components of leadership development. Insights from David Kolb (1984), Richard Boyatzis (1999), the Center for Creative Leadership (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004), and Jay Conger (1992) can be combined to understand how leadership might best be learned. Leadership appears to be developed through a process that involves several components which may include knowledge acquisition, skill-building experiences, feedback, reflection, and the application of learning. Table 2 shows the connections between each of the models described above. Following the table, I will discuss each component in relation to general strategies, current research, and how the component can be utilized within the SAGPP curriculum.

42

Table 2: Components of Leadership Development Component of Leadership Development

Description

Knowledge Acquisition

Development of cognitive and theoretical knowledge

Skill-building Experiences

Opportunities to practice leadership skills that offer a challenge or problem to be solved

Experience is primary source of learning

Feedback

Assessment of leadership skills

Not a specific component, but comes from selfreflection

Reflection and Internalization

Making meaning of prior experiences and feedback received

Application of Learning

Incorporation of prior knowledge, skills, feedback and reflection and then applying this in a reallife setting

Van Velsor & McCauley (2004)

Boyatzis (1999)

Conger (1992)

Could lead to process of identifying “ideal self”

Conceptual Awareness: increase knowledge through exposure to leadership theory

Developmental Experiences

Experimenting and Practicing

Skill-Building: breaks LS skills “down into actual mechanical processes”

Assessment, Challenge, and Support

Comes from Trusting Relationships

Feedback: assessing strengths and weaknesses

Reflective Observation

Connected to the process of identifying “Ideal Self” and “Real Self”

Personal Growth: causes reflection on behaviors and values

Active Experimentation

Experimenting and Practicing

Could occur after any of the above approaches

Kolb (1984)

Knowledge comes from “Concrete Experience”

43

Knowledge acquisition. Most of the leadership development and learning theory models make little mention of the attainment of knowledge, but it can be inferred that in order to apply knowledge it must first be acquired. For the purposes of this study, knowledge acquisition is defined as the development of conceptual and theoretical understandings of leadership. According to Thorpe (1988), theory provides a common language and gives practitioners a frame of reference to be used in analysis of leadership behavior. It is unclear if knowledge acquisition is the first step in intentional leadership development, but we do know that lectures and discussion are among the most frequently used practices for providing leadership education, second only to skill-building approaches (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Conger, 1992). While there are several models of leadership development that are popular in student affairs (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Bolman & Deal, 1991; Komives et al., 1998; Kouzes & Posner, 2002), these models are about what a leader does rather than how one develops as a leader. Due to that important distinction, these models will not be covered in this chapter. Additionally, given that the focus of this paper is on learning that occurs in SAGPPs, knowledge acquisition is being given a more significant role in leadership development than is found in many of the most popular models of leadership development. A strong background in leadership theory might help a student understand how to use theory to solve different problems in different contexts (Raelin, 1997). Educational learning theory tells us that a major goal of learning is for the student to 44

be able to transfer that knowledge from one problem to another and from the classroom to real-life situations (National Research Council, 2000). The National Research Council (NRC) believes that there are several elements that promote learning including mastery of the subject matter, time to learn, and motivation (2000). Students in a SAGPP need to be motivated to develop as leaders and must be given sufficient time to learn the theoretical concepts of leadership so that they have a solid understanding of how leaders interact in the student affairs and higher education environments. Conceptual awareness is one of the easiest components of Conger’s (1992) model for graduate preparatory programs to implement since it fits most easily within the traditional curriculum. This component focuses on exposing students to and increasing their knowledge of leadership theory. Boyatzis (1999) hints that knowledge acquisition might need to occur prior to skill-building when he speaks of developing a learning agenda or a plan of action, but does not specify where this knowledge should come from. The CAS Standards have an expectation that SAGPP curriculum should include “studies of organizational, management, and leadership theory and practice” (CAS, 2006, p. 19). While CAS Standards require that students are exposed to leadership theory, there is no data available that shows what theories are being taught in SAGPPs. Given the difficulty in defining the term “leadership” it seems unlikely that all SAGPPs are teaching the same model of leadership. However, there may be some models that are being taught more frequently than

45

others. This study hopes to identify trends in the content of SAGPP leadership curriculum. However, leadership cannot be learned solely in the classroom and in fact, the classroom component may well be the least critical for leadership development (Hernez-Broome, Hughes, & Center for Creative Leadership, 2004). Shadowing is one popular way for students to gain knowledge of leadership in student affairs. However, a study by Boyatzis reminds us that “knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient for superior performance” as a leader (1994, p. 304). An interesting study on the differential effects of experiential learning activities and traditional lecture classes compared students taught in a “traditional” manner to those who received the same instruction supplemented with experiential learning techniques. When tested six weeks after instruction, those students in the experiential learning class had retained the conceptual knowledge at a significantly higher rate (Specht & Sandlin, 1991). This study seems to indicate leadership development can be maximized when knowledge acquisition is paired with other techniques, such as skill building, feedback, and reflection. Skill-building experiences. Skill-building, the opportunities to practice leadership skills, can begin in the classroom but, in order for learning to genuinely occur, the skills must be applied, revised, and re-applied over a period of time. Examples of skill building opportunities include developmental job assignments, simulations, personal development plans, action learning, and job enrichment/enhancement/rotation (Allen 46

& Hartman, 2008; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). These experiences can be linked so that classroom assignments are applied in a real-life setting which is supported with feedback and reflection. Conger (1992), along with Kolb (1984), notes the importance of experiential learning and offering the opportunity for students to apply their learning in a realworld setting. What Kolb (1984) referred to as “concrete experience,” Conger (1992) calls “skill-building” and Boyatzis (1999) identifies as “experimenting.” Skillbuilding is the “most applied and fastest method of learning and implementing new skills” (Conger, 1992, p.4). The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) goes even further by suggesting that a single experience is not enough to produce learning (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). Internships therefore seem to be a perfect place for skill building to occur. The CCL idea of offering a “variety of rich developmental experiences” is also supported by CAS Standards which requires a “minimum of 300 hours of supervised practice consisting of at least two distinct experiences” so that students are exposed to “both the breadth and depth of student affairs work” (CAS, 2006, p. 20). One theorist believes that once a knowledge foundation has been built, students need the opportunity to apply that knowledge in several other settings before it acquires any meaning or value for the students (Komives, 1998). The SAGPP internships could provide this opportunity. While the research is mixed on whether knowledge should come before experience, the importance of practical (skillbuilding) experience has long been valued in SAGPPs. 47

The first master’s degree in student affairs, granted in 1914 at Teachers College, Columbia University, required a “practicum in which concrete problems confronted by the dean of women were discussed” (Lloyd-Jones, 1949, p. 263, as cited in McEwen & Talbot, 1998, p. 129). What sets this type of experiential learning apart is that the “experience of the learner occupies the central place in all considerations of teaching and learning (Andresen et al., p. 225). Assistantships offer future administrators a natural setting where they can apply, in a real-life setting, the leadership theories learned in the classroom. However, the quality of these experiences has not been widely regulated (Komives, 1998) and has been frequently questioned (Jablonsky, 1998; Komives, 1998; Kuk et al., 2007; McEwen & Talbot, 1998; Upcraft, 1998). Students have often reported the “need for more developmental supervision and more integration of their formal classroom learning with their job expectations” (Komives, 1998, p. 185). While the CAS Standards are clear, no research has been conducted that provides a national picture of the makeup of SAGPP internships or the extent to which they are being used for the development of leadership skills. We also do not know how (or if) skill-building is used in leadership courses or internships to enhance theory-to-practice learning. This study hopes to discover a few best practices in this area. What we do know is that while experience may be an excellent teacher, all too often students do not learn from the experiences provided. Additional techniques can be used to help students learn from these opportunities.

48

Feedback. Argyris and Schon (1974) believe that supervised practice is not simply giving the student practical experience, but that feedback is also an obligatory component of the educational process. They argue that without a feedback component built into the internship, the student may “find himself paying tuition fees to learn something for which… he could be paid to learn if he took a job and began to work” (1974, p. 188). Feedback can be defined as an accurate analysis of an individual’s leadership skills that 1) motivates a person to want to make changes and 2) gives a person guidance in terms of future course of action (Hollenbeck & McCall, 1999). In an SAGPP, this feedback could come from a variety of sources including, but not limited to faculty, supervisors, and peers. Feedback can be offered as coaching, through the use of assessment instruments, and by implementing a multi-source evaluation process that allows students to get feedback from a variety of people including peers (Allen & Hartman, 2008; Conger, 1992; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). Evaluative feedback that offers specific information on which behaviors worked or did not work is more effective than non-evaluative feedback (Goleman et al., 2002). The 360-degree (or multi-rater) method which provides feedback from multiple perspectives, allows the learner to establish a sort of consensus of his or her leadership abilities assuming that 1) the reviewers interact with the participant frequently and 2) the participant has allowed the reviewers to see his or her “real” self (Goleman et al., 2002).

49

Conger (1992) emphasizes the importance of feedback or “coaching.” In his model, a coach can be the supervisor (who has been previously trained in leadership) or the leadership “trainer,” which in the higher education model would be the faculty member. He does not discuss the possibility of both the supervisor and the trainer serving as a coach. Kolb (1984) does not make any reference to external feedback and while Boyatzis (1999) does not specifically refer to feedback in his theory, he acknowledges the importance of relationships with others as a way to impact the four primary aspects of his model. Unfortunately, the impact of feedback on leadership development is mixed (Day, 2001; Hollenbeck & McCall, 1999). In fact, some research shows that feedback actually decreases performance over one third of the time (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). This could occur because people are not open to the feedback or, alternately, they view the feedback as accurate but do not want to make the suggested changes (Day, 2001). Additionally, feedback that is too complex or inconsistent cannot be successfully implemented unless someone is able to serve as a sort of translator of the information (Day, 2001). Part of this problem can also be explained by the CCL model which states that developmental experiences must include appropriate degrees of assessment, challenge, and support (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). Feedback is almost all “assessment,” but the translator could provide the challenge and support required in the CCL model. In the business world, this translator role can be seen in executive coaches. In SAGPPs, this coaching could come from a supervisor, faculty member, and/or a mentor. 50

Kolb (1984) does not discuss the idea of external feedback because his model is an internal, self-guided process, but graduate preparatory programs have the unique opportunity to provide feedback in more than one setting. Feedback and assessment allow faculty, supervisors, and students to measure the degree to which students are able to apply theoretical knowledge in a practical setting. Peer feedback, which has the “most predictive validity of a leader’s actual effectiveness” (Goleman et al., 2002, p. 136), could be collected at multiple points during the academic program. This feedback could be reviewed with the participant by the faculty and/or internship supervisor. Feedback appears to be a critical part of the leadership development process, in part because it provides fodder for the next step, reflection. However, we do not know how, in a graduate preparatory program, faculty and supervisors can work together to provide feedback or simultaneous coaching, to cultivate leadership skills Reflection and internalization. Experience and feedback alone are not enough to ensure learning; leadership development requires an individual to make meaning from these experiences and feedback. Kolb’s (1984) theory reminds us that in order to “extract” the lessons from our experiences, observation and reflection are critical. Reflection is “the ability to uncover and make explicit to oneself what one has planned, observed, and achieved in practice” (Raelin, 1997). Reflection is integral to the process for true meaning making, as it allows the learner to generalize and intellectualize the reality experience” (Lukenbill, 1976, p. 57). 51

Cognitive psychologists believe that reflection is as much a factor in learning as experience alone. Kolb (1984) and Conger (1992) both stress the importance of reflection and internalization, although Conger refers to it as “professional growth” and Kolb’s model uses the terms “reflective observation” and “abstract conceptualization”. The essence of Kolb’s (1984) model is that the student directs his or her own development through reflecting on experience. Without the reflection component, learning cannot occur. Boyatzis (1999), as a self-directed model, starts with reflecting on one’s “ideal self,” but unlike Kolb (1984), he sees reflection as a starting point rather than something that comes later in the developmental process. Boyatzis’ (1999) model calls for the creation of a “learning agenda” which is created after exploring the areas of congruence and incongruence of the “ideal self” and the “real self.” Creating a learning agenda implies that reflection has occurred. The feedback provided must be reflected upon and then internalized so that it can then be applied during the next leadership opportunity. Interestingly, there is also evidence that supports the use of “mental rehearsal” as a way to improve skill-based learning (Goleman et al., 2002). It seems plausible to think that a student could develop some leadership skills by reflecting on past experiences and “mentally rehearsing” a different way to address a problem in the future. Morton, Foster, and Ward (1998) reported several ways that theory-topractice learning can be enhanced through the use of reflection. They found that participation in reflective seminars, courses tied to the internship experiences, provided students the opportunity to discuss their experiences with their peers 52

(Morton, Foster, & Ward, 1998). These interactions fostered self-reflection through readings, journaling, and peer support, all of which enhance problem solving (Morton et al., 1998). Discussion on a list-serv for SAGPP faculty has shown an increased interest in the use of reflective capstone projects rather than the more traditional comprehensive examinations (CSPTalk, 2008). Reflection can be used to enhance leadership development and also to encourage the development of a self-directed learning philosophy. Komives (1998), in a book exploring the current state of SAGPPs, states that “internships … supported by reflective seminars exist in almost all programs and have long served as the best example of preparation-practice collaboration” (p. 186). But, she also reports that “in too many programs, students seek and manage their own field work experiences with little to no involvement from busy faculty (Komives, 1998, p. 183). Komives believes that programs should hire clinical or adjunct faculty who are “keenly in touch with issues of practice” to oversee these seminars (1998, p. 188). This faculty member would “process the learning with the students and inform site supervisors about the role of this type of learning in the students’ program (Komives, 1998, p. 188). Komives (1998) brings up the familiar theme of faculty and supervisors working together to enhance student learning. However, there is no research on how these reflective seminars are constructed or how they are used to support leadership development. Nor is there any research on how reflection is used in SAGPPs to foster leadership development.

53

Application of learning. Leadership knowledge obtained in the classroom must be experimented with over time before it is assimilated into a leader’s repertoire of process models (Kouzes & Posner, 1990; Wren, 1994). The “primary source of learning to lead…is experience” (McCall, 2004, p. 127). The application of learning is very similar to skill-building, both theoretically and in technique, but it involves the incorporation of prior knowledge, skills, feedback and reflection into learning that is then applied in a real-life setting After gaining new knowledge, testing that knowledge, receiving performance feedback, and then reflecting upon the feedback, the student must then have the chance to practice the skill again in a similar situation (Kolb, 1984). However, in this part of the process, students are experimenting with leadership skills they have attempted to use previously and are seeking to hone the skills rather than test them out for the first time. Conger (1992) repeatedly discusses that leadership learning occurs over time and Goleman et al. (2002) stresses that true mastery can only come with repeated practice. Repetition and practice are required to master a new skill which is why it is so hard to learn leadership competencies in a classroom (Goleman et al., 2002). These ideas are based, in part, on the work of John Dewey (1916) who stressed the importance of learning by “doing.” While the complexity of leadership decisions that must be made in the “real world” can be almost impossible to recreate in a classroom setting, several learning theorists suggest that internships are an effective way to bridge the theory-to-practice 54

learning gap (Dewey, 1938; Schein, 1972; Stage et al., 1998). According to Schein, internships allow students to “integrate the basic and applied knowledge…with actual professional experiences in a situation in which he is ‘playing for keeps’” (1972, pp. 116-117). Graduate preparatory programs are unique leadership laboratories in that they provide an unusual combination of classroom-based teaching with an on-site practical experience. Student Affairs Graduate Preparatory Programs can, through the use of supervised practice opportunities, provide venues for students to develop their leadership skills using the techniques described above. This may require internship supervisors to view the internship as an intentional extension of the classroom as opposed to a “job.” This might mean being more tolerant of mistakes made by interns than a supervisor might be with a full-time employee. “Learning for leadership works best under conditions where people feel safe” and “can experiment with little risk of embarrassment or fear of the consequences of failure” (Goleman et al., 2002, p. 164). SAGPPs should explore the duration of the internships or fieldwork placements to ensure that students have enough time to work their way through this entire model. “To optimize learning, people need to remain in an assignment long enough to be able to see the consequences of their actions and decisions” (Ohlott, 2004, p. 180). While the “research that helps us understand how individual leaders themselves grow and develop is very limited” (Kezar et al., 2006, p.172), one thing

55

seems clear: “leadership is developed through the enactment of leadership” (Day, 2001, p. 605). Deciding what theoretical knowledge should be taught and how to create opportunities that support theory-to-practice learning is one of the greatest challenges of a student affairs graduate preparatory program. Learning theory and leadership development theory offer guidance for graduate preparatory programs who wish to excel in preparing future student affairs practitioners to be leaders in the field. My study hopes to find model graduate preparatory programs that are effectively using leadership theory and experiential learning to enhance theory-topractice connections in an attempt to foster leadership development. Conclusion Are graduate preparatory programs preparing new professionals for the leadership demands of entry-level positions? Upcraft says, “Not yet. Preparatory programs must, above all, be connected to and reflect the realities of current and future practice, if they are to really prepare practitioners for the millennium and beyond” (1998, p. 237). This opinion is shared by Jablonsky, who agrees that “our graduate preparatory programs fall short in preparing new professionals for today’s organizational turbulence” (1998, p. 203). Additionally, we know from the literature discussed above that new professionals report feeling underprepared and unsure of their leadership abilities. In terms of leadership development, the curriculum must include theory and practice, with an emphasis on theory-to-practice translation (Upcraft, 1998, p. 231). 56

If you consider the amount of time spent in the SAGPP classroom compared to the number of hours CAS recommends for supervised practice, the curricula seems to have a disproportionate focus on theoretical knowledge. According to a leading student affairs scholar, “the curriculum must be made more relevant to practice” and have a greater “emphasis on the translation of theory to practice” (Upcraft, 1998, p. 231) Theory is, and should be, an important part of SAGPPs, but the students must enter the workforce with the ability to apply that knowledge in practice. Internships may prove to be the perfect opportunity for students to apply the leadership knowledge and skills they are learning in their graduate programs. However, to increase the chances that theory-to-practice connections are being made, internships could be intentionally designed, using experiential learning and leadership development theories. This study explored how graduate preparatory programs are designed to enhance theory-to-practice learning, in regards to leader and leadership development. We do not yet know how the practical and academic parts of the curriculum should be integrated, but my study sought to identify best practices in this area. To achieve this, my study examined two SAGPPs in hopes of finding “direct, formal, and explicit links between leadership theory and students’ practical experiences” (Rogers, 1992, p. 179).

57

Chapter III Methodology

The purpose of the study was to acquire new knowledge in an attempt to better understand the ways in which we teach leadership, both the theoretical constructs and practical skills, to future student affairs practitioners. I explored, described, and analyzed how graduate students are prepared by their graduate programs to be effective leaders in the higher education environment. Specifically, I focused on how and where in the curriculum students are exposed to leadership theory and provided opportunities to practice that knowledge in real-life settings. Because the role assistantships play in leadership development is significant, I paid particular attention to these supervised practice opportunities. Additionally, I was interested in how graduate preparatory programs use experiential learning to enhance theory-to-practice connections in the area of leadership development. I collected data that demonstrated students’ exposure to and experiences with leadership during their coursework and assistantship. By providing a look at how leadership is addressed in the curriculum of student affairs graduate preparatory programs and offering best practices, taken from two case sites, this study provides strategies for how theory-topractice connections in leadership development can be enhanced. Yin states that “the research design is the logic that links the data to be collected (and the conclusions to be drawn) to the initial questions of study” (1994, p. 18). The qualitative design of this study was dictated by the research questions. As 58

discussed in chapter I, the overarching research question for this study was: How do student affairs graduate preparatory programs teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership? Specifically, I explored: 

Where and how, in the curriculum, are students taught leadership theory and skills/competencies?



Where and how do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge in ways that enhance theory-to-practice learning?



Where and how is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed?



Have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

I explored two student affairs graduate preparatory programs that were identified as exemplars in leadership development. This case study method “provided depth, detail, and individual meaning” (Patton, 2002, p. 16). This chapter describes the research methodology of this study, beginning with a more detailed justification for the qualitative approach. Sections on the research design, settings and context, data collection, and data analysis give the reader a comprehensive understanding of how the study was conducted. The final sections on trustworthiness and limitations provide information that allows the reader to begin evaluating the validity and reliability of the potential findings.

59

Qualitative Design Methods A case study approach is appropriate for examining an educational process in a way that “brings about understanding that in turn can affect and even improve practice” (Merriam, 1998). Specifically, I conducted an evaluative case study which involves “description, explanation, and judgment” (Merriam, 1998, p. 39) and can be used to “develop a better understanding of the dynamics of a program….when it is important to be responsive and to convey a holistic and dynamically rich account of an educational program” (Kenny & Grotelueschen, 1980, p. 5, as cited in Merriam, 1998). A qualitative, evaluative case study methodology will be used for this research because I also studied the process of how leadership is taught to graduate students in student affairs preparatory programs. I used a national listserv for faculty and administrators of SAGPPs to identify two programs that are considered to be exemplary in the area of leadership development. Using qualitative methods to study the curriculum, assistantships, and faculty-administrator collaborations, I was able to reveal how these individual components of leadership education come together to enhance the leadership development of future student affairs administrators (Merriam, 1998). The heuristic quality of this case study illuminated “unknown relationships and variables” that could lead to a new understanding of leadership development in graduate preparatory programs (Stake, 1981, p. 47). Given that “qualitative inquiry focuses on meaning in context” (Merriam, 1998, p. 1), interviews, conducted at two exemplary sites, were used to provide an 60

“in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved” (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). According to Patton, a qualitative design “needs to remain sufficiently open and flexible to permit exploration of whatever the phenomenon under study offers for inquiry” (2002, p. 255). I studied two cases because this allowed me to evaluate and summarize similarities and differences in a way that will increase the future applicability of the best practices I identify (Merriam, 1998). Naturalistic inquiry techniques (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) were used because they allow assumptions to emerge naturally from the data as opposed to from previously stated hypotheses. To provide me with a deeper understanding of how leadership development is fostered at my case study sites, I reviewed syllabi and lesson plans from relevant courses. I also reviewed the mission and goals of the program, course descriptions, and the academic course of study. These documents helped me begin to determine how leadership development is addressed in the curriculum. Additionally, I reviewed several assistantship documents, related to leadership, such as learning contracts, manuals, and evaluation tools so that I could identify other places where leadership is being addressed. I also observed several leadership, internship, or capstone type courses to assess the degree with which the theory to practice connection is being addressed in the curriculum. I conducted interviews with the program directors, faculty, and assistantship supervisors that explored the process of how leadership is taught in the graduate preparatory programs and focused on the intentional collaboration of faculty and 61

student affairs administrators that aims to foster theory-to-practice connections of future student affairs administrators. I spoke with students in a focus group to gather data on their perceptions of what they are learning and how they are applying this knowledge in their assistantships. Two intrinsic case sites were identified using purposeful sampling through experts. I sent an email to the SAGPP faculty listserv asking these faculty to nominate cases that are exemplars of intentional leadership development using experiential learning to enhance theory-to-practice connections. This sampling method allowed me to discover cases which have a great deal to teach us about leadership development of future student affairs practitioners and are thus “worthy of in-depth study” (Patton, 2002). Once each institution was identified, I contacted the program directors to solicit their participation and assistance. I explained the purpose of the study and asked them for copies of the program’s course of study, syllabi (for leadership, administration, management, internship/fieldwork, and capstone-type course), and assistantship documents, I also asked the Directors to identify faculty and administrators who would be willing to speak with me about the leadership development of their students. These individuals were contacted by email and informed of the study’s purpose, the expectations for participation, and the informed consent process. Once consent to participate was confirmed, a campus visit was arranged. I used the syllabi and the Director’s suggestions to determine which classes

62

to observe. Each site scheduled the faculty and supervisor interviews as well as the student focus groups. Setting and Context Expert recommendations received from the listserv provided me with a list of ten programs. Two programs were suggested at a much higher frequency than any other institution. I explored the website of those two programs and determined that there were compelling reasons to select both of them as a case study site. The first program, from the Midwest University (MU), dedicates a three-credit course, which is connected to the students’ internships, to reflections and discussions on leadership. This same program is guided by the principles of experiential learning and the reflective-practitioner model. The second program, at East Coast State University (ECSU), lists leadership as one of its five core values. A faculty member from this program is considered an expert in the area of leadership in student affairs and higher education. Additionally, the ECSU campus is home to a leadership academy which encompasses several leadership research centers and academic programs. A national research project for leadership programs is also housed on this campus. Midwest University. Midwest University enrolls more than 20,000 students, including over 3,000 graduate students. The university is located in a Midwestern city with a population of 28,000. About 85% of the students are residents of MU’s home state and roughly 80% self-identify as white. MU is home to several nationally ranked academic programs. 63

The Master of Arts program in College Student Personnel (CSP) at the Midwest University prepares graduates for careers in the student affairs of higher education. This program has a heavy emphasis on experiential learning and requires a minimum of 45 credit hours along with a two-year internship. This program enrolls about 40 students each year. There are seven full-time faculty who teach in the MU program. These faculty members teach in the master’s program as well as the higher education doctoral program. Additionally, there are six university administrators who also teach in the MU program. The Vice President for Student Affairs teaches an elective course in leadership. East Coast State University. This flagship state university ranks in the top 15 among all public universities. Close to 37,000 students attend ECSU; of which approximately 10,500 are graduate and professional students. Of the ECSU student population, 57% selfreport as white and 75% come from the home state. ESCU is located in a suburban area with a population of about 25,000. The campus is located near several large metropolitan cities. East Coast State University offers both a Master of Arts and a Master of Education in College Student Personnel. Students wishing to earn the M.A. degree must complete a thesis and take an additional statistics course, while M.Ed. students submit a seminar paper and take two courses in their professional concentration. This 40 credit-unit program is “modeled and directed” by five core values, one of which is 64

leadership (ECSU website, 2009). The CSP program enrolls fifteen students per year. Four full-time faculty members teach in the ECSU program. There are several “affiliate faculty” who are full-time administrators on campus who also teach in the CSP program. There are two specific affiliate faculty who each teach a section of the course that is linked to the summer supervised practice opportunities. Data Collection Procedures In an effort to learn how future student affairs professionals are being developed as leaders, I collected data through a variety of methods. Each site was explored using document analysis and interviews. I also conducted classroom observations and focus groups of current students. Because the process and phenomenon of leadership is not easily seen or measured, I felt that the multiple courses of data would give me greater insight into how leadership development was being fostered in the two SAGPPs. I chose to interview faculty, supervisors, and students to provide multiple perspectives on how the process was occurring. Prior to my visits, I reviewed many documents related to the leadership development of SAGPP students enrolled in each program. These documents provided me with a context with which I could frame my visit. From these documents, I came up with a list of questions for the Program Directors to ensure that I had a firm understanding of what their students were offered while enrolled in the SAGPPs.

65

Both site visits were similar. I spent three days on each campus. During that time, I conducted 27 interviews and focus groups. These included four interviews with the Program Directors, nine faculty interviews, ten interviews with supervisors, two interviews with doctoral students, and three focus groups with SAGPP students. The Program Director was one of the first people I met with and also one of the last. The Program Directors were the only people I met with more than once. The data from the doctoral students did not prove to be relevant to the study, so it was not included. At each campus, I was provided with a host who escorted me around campus, introduced me to people, and made sure I got to right locations at the right time. At MU, I observed one class. AT ECSU, I observed two classes and a meeting of a group of faculty, staff, and students who were conducting a national study on undergraduate leadership. Ultimately, I wound up with over 500 pages of interview transcripts and documents that were used in the analysis process described later in this chapter.

66

Table 3: Data Collection Methods by Site Method

Midwest University

East Coast State University

Documents

Syllabi Program goals and mission Website Student Handbook Student capstone project and self-evaluation

Syllabi Program goals and mission Website Student Handbook Student assessment tools

Observations

Capstone course

Capstone course Leadership elective Leadership research team meeting

Program Director Interviews

Two interviews: first day and third day

Two interviews: first day and third day

Faculty Interviews

3 full-time, 1 VPSA

3 full-time, 2 adjunct

Supervisor Interviews

3 direct, 3 indirect

3 direct, 1 indirect

Student Group Interviews

1st group: 6 students. 3 males and 3 females. 3 first year and 3 second year.

1 group: 4 students. 3 females and 1 male. 1 first year, 2 second year, and 1 recent graduate.

2nd group: 3 students. 2 females and 1 male. 1 first year and 2 second year.

Document analysis. Documents can “prove valuable not only because of what can be learned directly from them but also as stimulus for paths of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and interviewing” (Patton, 2002, p. 294). I reviewed relevant syllabi, the SAGPP goals and mission, the website for each program, and the student handbooks. Specifically, I analyzed the syllabi of courses taught on

67

leadership, administration, and/or management as well as those related to any practical opportunities such as fieldwork, practicum, internships, and assistantships. Additionally, I inspected syllabi for any capstone-like courses specifically designed to enhance theory-to-practice comprehension. These syllabi provided me with an indepth view of the content and learning objectives of the leadership developmentrelated curriculum. I was also able to review and analyze the self-assessment tools provided to the students in both SAGPPs. These tools gave me a better sense of how each program defined leadership as well as how (and on what) the students were being assessed. Documents can “furnish descriptive information, verify emerging hypotheses, and advance new categories and hypotheses” (Merriam, 1998, p. 126). I was able to identify textbooks, proposed learning outcomes, and specific course content. Reviewing these documents prior to my site visits allowed me to ask questions specific to each site and the interviewee from having to verbally explain the course content. By showing me where students are exposed to leadership in their coursework, these documents also helped me identify which faculty members I needed to interview. Yin (1994) argues that the “most important use of documents is to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources” (p. 81); thus the data gleaned from the documents primarily supported what I heard in interviews, observations, and focus groups. I used the subsequent interviews and focus groups to verify that my interpretation of these documents was correct.

68

Observations. “Direct observation, when added onto other research yielding depth and/or breadth, enhances consistency and validity” (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 378). I used classroom observations to assist me with developing an understanding of the unique context of each site as well as each course. These observations allowed me to see, first-hand, how and where the theory-to-practice connections are discussed in the students’ courses. The students and instructors were told that I was studying leadership development. So as not to influence the class content or discussions, the students were not told the specific focus of my research. The observations served as a way to develop my tacit knowledge of how leadership development is addressed at my sites and also allowed me to ask more direct questions during my interviews. By observing multiple courses, I was able to discover if the coursework is intentionally connected in a way that encourages leadership development. Prior to the observation, I asked for a lesson plan so that I could identify, ahead of time, learning outcomes related to leadership. I arrived in the classroom early enough to map out the room and create a blank seating chart. This allowed me to code the students and look for patterns in what was said. I recorded my notes in a field journal and used the observation tool provided in appendix G to analyze what I witnessed. At Midwestern University, I was only able to observe one class, the final capstone. During this class period, the students were reviewing their self-assessment tool, based on the ACPA competencies, which was a significant part of their final 69

capstone project. Unfortunately, the instructor covered the leadership portion of the assessment tool during the first half of the class when I was not present. During the class meeting, there were 12 students present, nine female students and one male student. The students were discussing which competencies they had selected for their final project and what artifacts they were submitting as evidence of the competency in each area. During the hour that I observed the class, I was specifically listening for any mention of leadership. I was also observing how the faculty member made theory-to-practice connections related to leadership. At East Coast State University, I observed two classes and a leadership research team meeting. The first class I observed was the leadership elective which is designed for students who want to become leadership educators. Eight students, of which only one was enrolled in the SAGPP, were present for the two-hour and 45minute class. Two students were absent, but neither of them was enrolled in the SAGPP. The students talked about a leadership theory book (Lencioni, 2002) and a model of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998). The faculty member provided a lecture on understanding the evolution of leadership studies. In this class, I was paying attention to how knowledgeable students were about multiple leadership theories, as evidenced by their ability to compare one to another. I was also watching to see if they had a sense of how each of these theories fit within their own leadership identity. The second class I observed at ECSU was the capstone course. Fourteen students, all in their final semester of the program, were in attendance for the two70

hour and 45-minute class meeting. During the first part of the class, a guest speaker led the students through an activity on visioning. She spoke about a creating a vision, with a group of people, for an organization. She finished her presentation by speaking about a few particularly thorny leadership issues that had recently occurred on the ECSU campus. During the last portion of the class, the faculty member was preparing the group for a fieldtrip to a local community college. Throughout the class session, I was observing the questions the students asked and the comments they made to see how they were making theory-to-practice connections to what the guest speaker was talking about. I was also paying attention to any leadership theories or competencies that were mentioned. While on the ECSU campus, I was also able to observe a leadership research team meeting. This meeting was comprised of one faculty member, two doctoral students, and one SAGPP student. Two administrators from out of the area participated via telephone. During this meeting, I was observing the process of leadership as it was being practiced in the meeting, to see how it compared with the definition of leadership provided in the SAGPP core values. I did not record any of the observations. I used handwritten notes recorded in a field journal to document what I observed. After the class or meeting, I wrote down my initial impressions and answered the questions on my observation protocol (See appendix G). All documents related to the observations, including the field journals I used for note-taking, are kept in a file cabinet in my home. They will be destroyed in three years, per the USC IRB protocol. 71

Interviews. Qualitative data, collected through interviews, provided me with data that I could not obtain through other methods. According to Seidman (1991), interviews are a: Powerful way to gain insight into educational issues through understanding the experience of the individuals whose lives constitute education. As a method of inquiry, interviewing is most consistent with people’s ability to make meaning through language. It affirms the importance of the individual without denigrating the possibility of community and collaboration. (p. 7) Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Program Directors, faculty, and student affairs administrators at each site. This type of interview allowed me to collect specific information from each site, but also afforded me the flexibility to “respond to the situation at hand to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic” (Merriam, 1998, p. 74). An interview guide was used to ensure that each interview covered the same broad topics, but many questions were loosely worded to allow the respondent’s answers to partially guide the interview. At MU, I interviewed four full-time faculty members, one of whom was the Vice President for Student Affairs who teaches a leadership elective. I also interviewed six supervisors at MU. Of the six, three directly supervised SAGPP students and the other three were indirect supervisors. The indirect supervisors each supervised at least one person who directly supervised an SAGPP student. At ECSU, I interviewed five faculty members, two of whom were adjunct faculty who worked as full-time student affairs administrators and also taught the SPO-linked course. Four supervisors, only one of whom was an indirect supervisor, were interviewed at 72

ECSU. Each faculty and supervisor was interviewed once and the interviews lasted from 30 to 70 minutes. At each site, I also conducted an interview with the Program Director at the beginning of my campus visit and did a follow-up interview at the end of my visit after I had a chance to conduct a preliminary review of the data from my visit. On both campuses, the program director was also a full-time faculty member. At ECSU, the person I interviewed had recently stepped down from the Program Director role, but she had held the position for numerous years. As a result, I coded her interviews as belonging to the Program Director. The primary focus of the first interview was to learn about the process of how leadership is taught in the graduate preparatory programs and to explore the ways in which the program is designed to foster theoryto-practice connections of future student affairs administrators. Specifically, the first interview addressed why leadership is important, how leadership is learned, how and where their students are exposed to leadership theory, how and where their students are given the opportunity to apply their theoretical knowledge and how their program enhances theory-to-practice learning. The questions for the second interview were site specific and were developed after I reviewed the site visit data. During the second interview I was able to clarify the things I saw and heard. All interviews were recorded using audio-taping and were transcribed for future analysis. These recordings and the transcripts are kept on a password-protected flash drive and will be deleted, per IRB protocol, after three years. The hard copies of the transcripts, as

73

well as the notebooks used to take field notes, are stored in a file cabinet in my home. Group Interviews. Group interviews, also called focus groups, “have the advantages of being inexpensive, data rich, flexible, stimulating to respondents, recall aiding, and cumulative and elaborative, over and above individual responses” (Fontana & Frey, 1994, p. 365). I conducted focus groups with current students to explore their perspective on how and where they are learning about leadership. Because I was only on each campus for three days, scheduling individual interviews with students would have been very difficult. At MU, I was able to meet with 9 out of the 78 students (11%) over two different focus groups. They were representative of the student population in gender, class standing, and assistantship placements. At ECSU, I conducted one focus group with 3 of the 28 (10%) enrolled students as well as one ECSU employee who had recently graduated from the SAGPP program. Similar to the individual conversations I had with the faculty and supervisors, I used a semi-structured interview format. An interview guide was used to ensure that each interview covered the same broad topics, but many questions were loosely worded to allow the student’s answers to partially guide the interview. Because there were multiple people answering each question, these interviews ranged from 60 to 100 minutes. Patton (2002) explained that building rapport is critical so that participants feel safe and willing to share their experiences with the researcher. I established rapport with 74

the students by explaining that I was a graduate of a similar program and that I was currently working with students, at my home institution, who were also enrolled in a SAGPP. I explained that I was interested in understanding how students like themselves learn about leadership. During these interviews, students were asked to describe their experience as a student in the SAGPP as it related to leadership development. I asked them many of the same questions that I asked of the faculty and supervisors, but these questions were slightly altered so that it was clear I was asking about each individual student’s experience. I made it clear at the start of the interview that everyone should feel comfortable expressing their own opinion, even if it did not match the experience of the person sitting next to them. The students were already comfortable with one another, so this did not prove to be an issue. The students were very respectful of each other and seemed genuinely interested in hearing what everyone else had to say. The students were also told that they were not required to answer all, or any, of my questions. After one student would respond to a question, some students simply responded “I agree” while others remained silent. Occasionally, a different student would offer an opposing point of view. Because answering my questions was not mandatory, I cannot report data (for most questions) that represents 100% of the students interviewed. There were a few questions that every single student answered, but those were rare. Where possible, I made notes in my field journal about students who were nodding their head in agreement.

75

The focus groups were recorded using a digital voice recorder and were transcribed for analysis purposes. These recordings and the transcripts are kept on a password-protected flash drive and will be deleted, per IRB protocol, after three years. All hard copies, as well as my field journals, are kept in a file cabinet in my home. Data Analysis Procedures According to Patton, “qualitative analysis transforms data into findings” (2002, p. 432). Before I could analyze the data, I needed to prepare it for analysis. During this process, I sorted through the almost 500 pages of data and determined what should be included and what was not relevant to my research questions. I reviewed the documents and transcripts to ensure that I understood how each one was related to my research questions. All extraneous documents and quotes were set aside and only the relevant data was considered during the next phase of analysis. I read each document and transcript three times. The first time I read for understanding. I was trying to get a global sense of what was discussed. I made notations about my broad impressions and then proceeded on to the next transcript. After reading all the documents and transcripts, I went back through them a second time. During this stage, I highlighted all comments that were related to my research questions and entered codes into the margin. The third time I reviewed all the documents and transcripts, I verified that each unit of data was properly coded. Analysis can also be seen as the process of making meaning from the data through consolidation, reduction, and interpretation (Merriam, 1998). The qualitative 76

data collected from the case studies was analyzed using the three levels described by Merriam (1998): descriptive accounts, category construction, and theory building. First, the data was “compressed and linked together in a narrative that conveys the meaning the researcher has derived from studying the phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998, pp. 178-179). In this phase of the analysis, I predominately looked at what the data said, on face value, and did not do any comparisons within or between sites or participants. Next, I took the coded units of data and “constructed categories or themes that capture recurring patterns” (Merriam, 1998, p. 179) so that I could organize the data in preparation for further analysis. These categories were directly related to the stated research questions and several were connected to the theories and models discussed in chapter II. As Merriam described, there was a “period of intensive analysis when tentative findings were substantiated, revised, and reconfigured” (p. 181). To accomplish this task, I cut out each unit of data and coded it. The units of data were sorted into piles to create categories. This phase lasted almost nine months and was the most challenging task I faced during this study. I developed nine different sets of categories before finding the one that accurately used the data to answer my research questions. One of the largest obstacles was making sure that each category was “mutually exclusive” so that each unit of data fit into only one category (Merriam, 1998, p. 184). During this phase of the analysis, I also spent a great deal of time looking for similarities and differences between and within sites and participants. For example, one of the first faculty members I interviewed at MU did not have a strong 77

sense of identity as a leadership educator. I took this theme and reviewed the other MU faculty transcripts to determine how strongly each saw him or herself as a leadership educator. I then looked for similar findings in the ECSU faculty transcripts and compared the broad MU findings and the ECSU findings. I then repeated the process for supervisors. Finally, I delved into the student focus group transcripts to determine if and how the students perceived faculty and/or supervisors to be leadership educators. This process was repeated for each major category. Finally, I used the data to begin developing a theory that explains how leadership development is most effectively taught to future student affairs professionals. I began the theory development by using content analysis to make sense of the large volume of data by identifying “core consistencies and meanings” (Patton, 2002, p. 453). The analysis was both deductive and inductive. I used several frameworks to help me deductively analyze the data. The leadership development models (described in chapter II) were the primary frameworks for the deductive analysis. Additionally, the ACPA competencies described in chapter II were used to help me identify the breadth and depth of leadership theories and skills that are being taught. The CAS standards, also discussed in chapter II, allowed me to evaluate the programs on their curricular content and teaching methods. Inductive analysis was used to offer naturalistic generalizations (Creswell, 1998) so that the information could be used to guide SAGPPs in the leadership development of their students. Once I settled on the best way to organize and report the data, I was able to explore the findings and implications. This was an exciting stage of the analysis 78

during which I was able to identify promising practices and implications. Over the 11 month period of data collection and analysis I recorded my thoughts and ideas in a notebook. All electronic files were kept on a password-protected flash drive. During the data analysis phase, I also met regularly with a peer to discuss my initial impressions. All data collected has been privately and securely stored. This data will be destroyed, per IRB guidelines, after three years. Trustworthiness The data I collected is not valuable unless it can be trusted to be both valid and reliable. My study was intentionally designed in a way that maximized internal validity, reliability, and external validity, and thus enhanced the trustworthiness. Internal validity, which “deals with the question of how research findings match reality” (Merriam, 1998, p. 201), was enhanced by the use of triangulation and by clarifying my personal biases. The multiple sources and types of data I collected provided triangulation. This approach reduces the “vulnerability to errors” linked to the use of a single method and provides “cross-data validity checks” (Patton, 2002, p. 248). The triangulation of data sources, document review, observations, interviews, and focus groups allowed me to compare what the participants say they do with what they actually do. External validity is concerned with generalizability or “the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations” (Merriam, 1998, p. 207). In case study research, generalizability is best applied by “leaving the extent to which a study’s findings apply to other situations up to the people in those 79

situations” (Merriam, 1998, p. 211). One way external validity is enhanced is by strengthening internal validity. I also used rich, thick descriptions to provide enough detail “so that the readers will be able to determine how closely their situations match the research situation, and hence, whether findings can be transferred” (Merriam, 1998, p. 211). Choosing to study more than one site enhanced the external validity because it “allowed the results to be applied by readers to a greater range of other situations” (Merriam, 1998, p. 212). Limitations It is impossible to design a perfect study. I did my best to minimize any potential limitations, but some of them were outside my direct control and some were inherent in the study’s design. I attempted to minimize the limitations of this study by conducting a significant number of interviews and focus groups with a cross-section of people with different roles, at two separate campuses. I also spoke directly with students to verify that their experiences were similar to what the faculty and staff say they were trying to provide. However, this study was not without limitations. One potential limitation was the amount of time I was able to spend on each campus. Creswell (2003) talks about the ability of thick, rich descriptions to “transport the readers to the setting and give the discussion an element of shared experiences” (p. 196). It is tough to collect thick, rich descriptions during a three day visit, but I hope that the variety of sources and people I was able to speak with enabled me to collect data with the breadth and depth necessary to get an accurate 80

understanding of how leadership development is taught in these programs. Also, I would have preferred to speak with a larger percentage of students on each campus. I spoke with roughly 10-11% of enrolled students on each campus. It is impossible to determine if the experiences of those students is comparable to the experiences of the other 90%. I attempted to minimize this limitation by meeting with a diverse group of students in terms of gender, class rank, and internship placements. The class that I observed at MU was scheduled to talk about the leadership category of their capstone project. However, I was only scheduled to observe the second half of the class and the leadership category was discussed during the first portion of the class. As a result, I did not observe the students reflecting on their leadership development. Due to the timing of my visit, the other sections of the course did not meet the week I was on campus. I would have been beneficial to observe multiple sections of the capstone course to hear a larger number of students talking about what they had learned about leadership during their two-year program. Neither of the leadership elective courses had been offered the semester of my site visit, so I was unable to observe those courses. AT ECSU, I was able to observe the leadership elective and the capstone course that focused on leadership, but I was unable to observe the SPO-linked course. My visit occurred during the spring, and this course is only offered in the summer and fall semesters. Observing the SPO-linked course would have allowed me to see first-hand how the faculty for those sections are able to make theory-topractice connections related to leadership. However, visiting during the end of the 81

spring semester was beneficial because at this time of the year, students seemed as if they were engaged in the process of reflecting on what they had learned over the past one or two year. This atmosphere of reflection, that seems to come naturally at the end of the academic year, may not have been as pronounced had I done my site visits in the fall or even the middle of the spring semester. My own biases may also have been a potential limitation. All data was filtered through my personal lens which means it could have been distorted by my experiences and personal beliefs. I addressed some of this in the section on internal validity. Ultimately, I believe that my knowledge and experiences served to enhance the research by allowing me to draw more accurate conclusions from my data. I am a graduate of a program similar to those I studied and had the opportunity to be enrolled in two different master’s degree programs and participate in three assistantships on three different campuses. The first program did not addresses leadership in the coursework, but it was a focus in my assistantship. My second master’s program had a heavy emphasis on leadership in the courses, and did a good job of linking classroom learning with real-life experiences. In my most recent position, I worked with graduate students enrolled in a student affairs preparatory program and my job was specifically designed to serve as a liaison between the graduate program and the division of student affairs in an effort to enhance the theory-to-practice learning of our students. These experiences have led me to believe that a program should do what it can to enhance collaboration between faculty and assistantship supervisors to maximize theory-to-practice connections. I made sure to 82

remain open to new ideas and new ways that other programs are using to enhance leadership development. However, I believe that my passion for this topic made me eager to learn as much as possible from my cases. In addition to the triangulation methods mentioned above, I also used negative case analysis (Creswell, 1998) and peer review to minimize any unintentional researcher bias. As I analyzed the data, I specifically sought examples that demonstrated the opposite of what I initially believed the data was telling me. For example, when I saw the first faculty member who did not have a strong sense of identity as a leadership educator, I looked for evidence within the same transcript that countered what was originally said. I then looked through all the faculty transcripts to identify which faculty members did see themselves as leadership educators. I also used peer examination (Merriam, 1998) to increase validity. A colleague of mine reviewed my data, data analysis, and preliminary findings with me and asked critical questions to ensure that I was not oversimplifying the data to find the results I expected to find. These methods hopefully did a great deal to counteract my personal assumptions about this topic. Ethical Considerations While the purpose of my study was to learn about the process of how we teach leadership development in graduate preparatory programs, it is possible that the people I spoke with felt that I was evaluating their program. I reassured them that I was not trying to judge their program, but simply identify what they are doing well so that others may learn from their successes. Faculty, supervisors, and students 83

might have been hesitant to speak with me so I assured them that I would keep their identities confidential. I was granted IRB approval from USC and also from the two schools I used as my case sites. My study was granted exempt status and so participants were not required to sign any consent forms. However, each participant was given an information sheet that explained the purpose of the study and the procedures I was about to follow. I remained as unobtrusive as possible when observing classes and scheduled interviews at times and locations that were convenient to the participants.

84

Chapter IV Data Analysis

The data discussed in this chapter is intimately connected to the research question: “How do student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership?” I interviewed 36 faculty, supervisors, and students at two institutions. By investigating this question from three different perspectives, within two separate programs, the data reported in this chapter provides a better understanding of how and where leadership development is being fostered within SAGPPs. The two cases selected for this study were Midwest University (MU) and East Coast State University (ECSU). Midwest University is a large state university with over 20,000 students. The SAGPP at Midwest University was established in the mid-1960s and the program currently enrolls about 38 to 40 students per year. East Coast State University, a large land-grant institution with more than three times the graduate student enrollment of MU, established their SAGPP about 50 years ago and has an annual cohort size of 11 to 15 students. These sites were selected based on expert recommendations from the ACPA sponsored listserv, CSPTalk, for SAGPP faculty. At both sites, students enter the SAGPP with some prior leadership experience and skill. Several students commented on the leadership experiences they had as undergraduate students and noted that these types of graduate programs seem 85

to attract students who are already leaders. A student at ECSU said her interest in leadership is what drew her to that particular graduate program (23/51). One of the faculty members at MU remarked that: [their program gets] really good students to start with. In some cases, our best thing to do is just stay out of their way and not mess them up too bad. If we can buff them up a bit, that’s great, but most of them come in with strong [leadership] skills. (5/658-660) This may also indicate that students come into the SAGPP with a strong desire to further develop their leadership skills. Regardless of the knowledge and skills of the students at the start of the SAGPP, faculty, staff, and students all believe that a significant amount of leadership development occurs during the two-year program. While the original research question was designed to explore how SAGPPs teach leadership, the data collected provides answers far beyond the original scope of the study. These rich findings offer insight into not only how SAGPPs teach leadership but also how SAGPP students learn leadership. This study begins to identify where and how leadership development is occurring within the SAGPP context. Originally, the data was sorted into three main categories that I believed to be relevant to the teaching of leadership: the design of the SAGPPs, the role of the faculty, and the role of the SPO supervisor. However, it became clear that a fourth category was emerging which was more about the process of learning leadership. For the purposes of this study, teaching refers to systems, processes, or procedures that enhance leadership development. These systems, processes, and procedures are external to the student are typical things that are provided or offered by the SAGPP,

86

faculty member, and/or supervisor. On the other hand, learning refers to selfdirected, internal processes the student engages in throughout the leadership development process. For example, feedback is a “teaching” method, but reflection is a “learning” mechanism. The following chart provides a quick glimpse of the teaching and learning methods discussed in this chapter.

Figure 7: Teaching and Learning Methods Teaching Methods: I. Intentionality and leadership as an explicit goal A. Curricular elements and instruction B. Design and goals of supervised practice opportunities II. Role of faculty A. Identity as a leadership educator B. Role modeling C. Nature of learning opportunities D. Role of feedback E. Competing priorities III. Role of supervisors A. Identity as a leadership educator B. Role modeling C. Nature of learning opportunities D. Role of feedback E. Competing priorities Learning Mechanisms: I. Interpersonal relationships for leadership development A. Assigned relationships B. Seeking out mentors C. Extracurricular opportunities II. Intrapersonal intelligence for leadership development A. Processing knowledge and experiences B. Role of reflection

87

Research questions are essentially a hypothesis and what the data actually illuminates is often surprising. I began organizing my data around the original research question which focused on how leadership is taught. As a result, the categories may seem slightly out of sync with the findings presented in chapter five. However, given the intimate connections between how leadership is taught and how leadership is learned, I have chosen to keep the original organization for this chapter. This chapter will offer great detail into how leadership is taught in the two SAGPPs studied. It will also foreshadow the important findings discussed in the following chapter. The data I collected was organized and then analyzed using four categories. The first three: 1) intentionality in program design, 2) the role of the faculty, and 3) the role of the supervisor focus on how SAGPPs teach leadership. The fourth category, the interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of leadership explores how students learn leadership. Similarities and differences in each of these areas were explored in an effort to understand which mechanisms were influential in the students’ leadership development. Each program addressed leadership development differently, but both were still ultimately successful in creating and providing an environment that fosters leadership development. The first category, intentionality, includes program design, curricular elements, and the supervised practice opportunities (SPOs). Intentionality was initially difficult to measure because one program had leadership as an explicitly stated goal and the other held leadership as a more implicit learning outcome. ECSU 88

is both explicit and intentional in how they address leadership development in their program. In contrast, leadership is not stated as an explicit goal at MU, but it is heavily embedded into the program in a way that ensures that leadership development occurs. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the program which stated leadership as an explicit goal also had a more intentional programmatic structure designed to foster leadership development. The second and third categories, role of faculty and role of supervisors, shared similar factors. Whether or not the faculty and/or supervisor viewed themselves as leadership educators greatly impacted the amount of time they spent talking with students about leadership. Both faculty and supervisors were in a position to serve as role models and also to provide feedback on the students’ leadership knowledge and abilities. Students were provided opportunities to gain leadership knowledge and practice leadership skills in the classroom and the internship setting, however these opportunities were negatively impacted by competing priorities that made it challenging to find the time to focus on leadership. The final category explored the interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of leadership development. Interpersonal relationships included assigned relationships, relationships initiated by the student, and extracurricular involvements. Students used interpersonal relationships with faculty, supervisors, advisors, mentors, and peers to help fill the gaps in their leadership development education. The intrapersonal dimensions of leadership explained how students make meaning of their leadership development education. The two primary mechanisms explored were 89

1) the processing of knowledge and experience and 2) the role of reflection. Both of these practices were essential to the leadership development of SAGPP students. Intentionality and Leadership as an Explicit Goal In this section, I explore the design and structure of the SAGPPs, formal coursework, and supervised practice opportunities. One of my research questions is how SAGPPs have been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development. There proved to be many ways in which the design of the two SAGPPS promoted theory-to-practice learning of leadership development, but few of them seemed to have been intentionally designed to do so. However, intentionality was difficult to assess because, while leadership development was a goal of both programs, there was variance in the degree to which it was an explicitly stated learning outcome. The first major element I analyzed was the descriptions offered by each program. The website for MU (2009) states that their program: Is designed to prepare practitioners for positions in student affairs through an integration of theory-based course work emphasizing student development that is complemented by professional internships in college or university settings. Both aspects of this program enable students to become reflective practitioners who are able to combine knowledge and skill with their personal and professional values as they serve their profession. The explicit goal of the (SAGPP) program is to focus the concerns of its graduates on enhancing learning environments for students during their collegiate experiences. Leadership is not explicitly mentioned on the MU website or in the student handbook. In contrast, the ECSU description clearly states that the program is “modeled and directed by the core values of Student Development, Multiculturalism,

90

Leadership, Scholarship and Research, and Ethical Practices.” The ECSU description then goes into further detail by describing the leadership core value. The website states “Student Affairs professionals are responsible for providing leadership to their institutions in creating programs, policies, and experiences that will enhance students' learning experience. Leadership means working with others effectively to accomplish change.” The description then lists several ways in which the program supports and/or teaches leadership. From an environmental perspective, leadership was more explicitly visible on the ECSU campus than at the MU campus. At MU, there were very few theories mentioned, but the faculty, staff, and students were still easily able to discuss leadership skills and competencies that they felt they or the students were learning and using. There were fewer books on leadership present in the offices where I interviewed on the MU campus. A typical MU office might have one, two or three books on leadership in contrast to the six, seven, or even more at the ECSU campus. At ECSU, leadership is a heavy research focus of one of the senior SAGPP faculty. It is, in many ways, “in the water” on the ECSU campus. Almost every faculty, supervisor, and student I spoke with was able to tell me of a specific leadership theory they had learned about and/or were using in their work. There were several books on leadership in almost every office, the term leadership was visible on posters and quotes around the campus and the word leadership was used often and with a sense of ease. At first glance, it would be easy to assume that because ECSU

91

has made leadership development an explicit goal and MU has not, that the ECSU program is more intentional when it comes to leadership development. During the interviews, I asked each participant to describe how the SAGPP was intentionally designed to promote theory-to practice learning in the area of leadership development. Most participants at MU referenced the leadership electives and the conversations that occur in the SPO-linked course, but a lack of intentionality was clearly observed by two tenured faculty members at MU. The first spoke very candidly and remarked: To be quite honest we don’t spend a lot of time with them intentionally talking about the theory of leadership. Every so often, there’s an elective…on leadership and student affairs. But that’s not offered every year, every student doesn’t take it because it’s an elective, and so there really is no, in my opinion – I can’t identify any time when we specifically talk about the theory of leadership or leadership theory and so we are very much practicedriven, not theory-driven and not theory-to-practice-driven when it comes to leadership. Now, when we talk about other stuff, student development, we’ve got theory-to-practice down, hand over fist; it’s everywhere. But when it comes to leadership, I wouldn’t say that we do theory-to-practice at all, let alone maximize it. (1/338) The second faculty member commented on where leadership is addressed during the SAGPP, but noted that: There’s no kind of intentional weaving of leadership through the introduction course that everybody would have. The idea of leadership as a competency, they get in the context of the [SPO] course. Our second – our third semester of [the SPO course] focuses on leadership kind of, with broad, very broad brush strokes, because we only meet three times during the course of the semester. (5/175)

92

There was general agreement on the part of most MU faculty that leadership is offered in pockets and is not integrated through the program in a systematic way. Student comments, at MU, corroborated that perspective. A first-year student said: Just based on the classes, I’m probably gonna end up taking none of the courses that we’ll take, will have that information or will talk about the theories or anything like that. We learn it implicitly from some of the other information we get, but there’s not that explicit discussion of theory. (7/473) Leadership development is occurring, but to the faculty and students, it appears to be more a by-product of the combined experiences of the students rather than a process that is being intentionally fostered. However, they may not be aware of the decisions that went into designing the program. In contrast to the MU campus, the ECSU program does seem to have a structure in place that is intentionally designed to support leadership development. One of the senior faculty members at ESCU described how leadership development is woven into the program. She explained that in the students’ introductory course, the faculty member is: Very explicit about leadership skills and competencies related to effective student affairs practice. And she has all of the first year students assess themselves, in terms of where they are, in terms of skills and competencies, where the growth areas might be for them. She asks that they provide that document to their advisor. So that opens up the conversation with the advisor about a more intentional strategy for developing leadership skills and competencies. (21/241) Leadership is discussed during the students’ first semester and it is understood that leadership will be pursued, explicitly and intentionally, throughout the two-year program.

93

Students at ECSU expressed a similar belief that leadership was omnipresent in their SAGPP. A common theme was expressed by the student who said: And I think here, more than others, we see leadership in action every day. We work in a fabulous division, which supports our program as CSP that sort of- we see that practical end because we go to work every day and we see leadership in action. And…maybe this is because I didn’t take the leadership course. I sort of figured [out] my own leadership through my other course work and through doing a thesis, that it’s something that’s not taught. It’s something that you, sort of, have to develop. And I think that’s the difference between learning and development in my mind. (23/112) This student felt that even though she did not take the leadership elective, she still learned a great deal about leadership because leadership is so embedded into the program. However, not all of the students felt that leadership was explicitly covered in the SAGPP. One student said: I don’t think leadership is necessarily taught. I don’t think it’s something that can be taught. I think it’s something that is done and, our faculty created a beautiful framework for leadership to happen and for us to learn and grow through leadership. (23/103) This student, like the one above, seemed to feel that the faculty had intentionally created an environment that fostered leadership development. However, while the data demonstrates that ECSU’s program is intentionally designed to foster leadership development, I found that leadership is heavily embedded into the program at MU in a way that also fosters leadership development. When asked about where the students were learning about leadership, the two most common locations mentioned were the classroom and the SPOs. In the following sections, I will explore these locations of learning and compare and contrast the two case sites. 94

Curricular elements and instruction. After looking at the design of the SAGPP, I delved further into the curricular elements specific to leadership development, including what students are learning about leadership theory. Every faculty member, supervisor, and student I spoke with, on both campuses, believed that leadership is an important topic for students in SAGPPs. Both campuses address the topic of leadership development through at least one curricular component. While MU does not have a required leadership course, the SPO-linked course focuses on leadership during the third semester. Leadership at ECSU is addressed in the required capstone course, taken during the students’ final semester, which according to the syllabus, focuses on the “exploration of leadership and organizational change of student affairs programs in postsecondary education.” The courses examined for this study can be categorized as one of three types: SPO-linked, capstone courses, and leadership electives. Table 4 provides more detail about each of the courses which are related to leadership. One distinction between the two SAGPP sites was that leadership theory and knowledge seemed to be infused throughout the courses at ECSU, but were mostly contained to the SPO-linked and leadership courses at MU. Perhaps some of the faculty members’ different opinions, related to where and how leadership is taught, are due to the structural differences on the two campuses. At MU, the faculty did not talk about leadership development outside of the SPO-linked course (or the leadership electives). However, this course is taken every semester of the student’s

95

Table 4: Curricular Design of Courses Related to Leadership Type of Course

Midwestern University

East Coast State University

Required Course Linked to Supervised Practice Opportunity

• 3 semester sequence • 9 credits total • Connected to assistantship • 5-7 sections offered • 6-8 students per section • Class meets monthly • 3 hours each meeting • Taught by FT faculty • 3rd semester syllabus focuses specifically on leadership

• 1 semester, 3 credits • Connected to practicum • 1 section offered* • 11-15 students per section • Class meets weekly • 3 hours each meeting • Taught by practitioner faculty • Focus is on “understanding leadership and management” * Most students take during summer, a few take 2nd fall.

Required Capstone Course

• Taken during last semester • Meets weekly, 3 hours • Goal is to “promote the integration of the core curriculum and practitioner experiences of the master’s degree program…and prepare students for their transition to professional positions”

• Taken during last semester • Meets weekly, 3 hours • Leadership and organizational change are the main topics for this course that is “designed to integrate previous course work and experiences to complete the ‘knowing, being, doing loop”

Leadership Electives

• Two options offered • First option: Leadership course taught by VPSA. Offered once every two years. • Second option: Resource Management course, offered at least once a year, taught by FT tenured faculty.

• One option offered • Course designed for those who wish to become leadership educators for undergraduate students. • Offered annually. • Taught by FT tenured faculty.

96

two-year program. At ECSU, where the SPO-linked course occurs during the summer between the two years and is taught by affiliate practioner faculty, the fulltime faculty had a better sense of themselves as leadership educators. This may be because they understand that leadership conversations need to occur over the entire program and not just during one course. However, a prevailing theme of the faculty at ECSU was that the theory-to-practice link was ubiquitous. One faculty summed it up by saying: And so in the classroom, I think, I encourage them to bring their experiences in their assistantship into the classroom, as I mentioned before. In advising appointments, I think it’s to ask them how things are going, what are they learning? So again, sort of posing the questions that gets them to talk about what they’re doing in those learning contexts. (18/482) This distinction will be discussed in greater detail in the section that analyzes faculty member’s sense of identity as a leadership educator. At ECSU, leadership development was mentioned in connection to several classes that, on the surface, do not seem to be directly connected to leadership. Courses on the introduction to student affairs, multicultural practice, counseling, service learning, and assessment were all seen as related to leadership and the faculty and/or students were able to talk explicitly about where they were connected. However, beyond the specific courses, there was an overall belief at ECSU that leadership is fully integrated into the SAGPP. One faculty member expressed pride in the SAGPP and said: One thing that I like about the program is that… we do have a specific leadership course, but what I like is I think the theory and skills are integrated throughout multiple courses so that students aren’t just saying, “Here’s the 97

leadership course,” and that’s it, but they’re able to use those skills in different courses. Because it is an elective, even if they don’t take that course in particular, they might not get the theories that they’re learning about in that course, but they’ll get relevant issues that enable them to sort of translate what they’re learning through the different studies in which they learned.(16/99) The faculty were confident, and the students agreed, that leadership is infused throughout the ECSU curriculum. The faculty at ECSU were able to make connections to leadership development and almost all of the courses they taught. The MU faculty spoke about leadership development, in the classroom, primarily when referencing the SPOlinked course. However, since all faculty at MU teach a section of the SPO-linked course and the course is taught for three consecutive semesters, this apparent difference may not be as significant as it originally appears. What is significant is that conversations about leadership are occurring but they are not intentionally planned. Students bring leadership concerns into the classroom because of the frequency with which these types of issues occur in their SPOs. However, faculty are not necessarily maximizing the conversations because they do not always understand their role as leadership educators. The bottom line is that on both campuses, students are having faculty-led, classroom conversations about leadership throughout their entire program. However, the faculty were very clear that they believe leadership isn’t learned by simply reading a book, taking one course on the subject, or talking about it in a classroom; they all felt that the SPO was the “main classroom” (1/76) for leadership

98

development. In the next section, I will analyze the design and intentionality of the SPO options offered on each campus and discuss the impact on leadership development. Design and goals of supervised practice opportunities. Experiential learning is supported by both SAGPPs that participated in this study. Students are practicing leadership in multiple contexts including formal supervised practice opportunities. In addition to the SPOs, students are also serving as leaders in graduate student organizations, participating in SAGPP committees, teaching leadership courses to undergraduates, and conducting research on leadership. However, when speaking about opportunities to practice leadership, students, faculty and supervisors most often referenced the supervised practice opportunities. Students on both campuses are expected to participate in some form of supervised practice during the two years they are taking courses. A common experience among the students was echoed by a first-year MU student who said “Because I haven’t taken a course directly related to leadership, I feel like most of my experience in learning leadership has been through the assistantships here” (7/78). This sentiment was shared by faculty who referred to the SPOs as the “main classroom” for leadership development (1/76) and said that they generally felt that the supervisors were the ones most responsible for the students’ leadership development (3/118). Supervisors all agreed that leadership development is occurring within the SPO context.

99

For the purposes of this section, I will use specific terminology to differentiate between two different types of SPOs, such as an assistantship or practicum. Assistantships are similar to part-time jobs. The students generally hold the same assistantship for one or two years and work about 20 hours per week. A practicum is a shorter placement, typically for one semester, and is usually for fewer hours per week. Students may complete a practicum while concurrently working at their assistantship site. While students at both sites must complete SPOs, there are significant differences in the requirements. Table 5 summarizes the SPO requirements at each campus. A practicum in counseling is also required for the ECSU students. Prior to the practicum, students must complete two counseling classes which each have a lab section. As a result, the counseling practicum is taken during the second year of the program. Students typically see one to three clients per week, meet as a class for a weekly two-hour seminar, and have a weekly supervision meeting with the seminar instructor. While this may seem unconnected to leadership development, the faculty, supervisors, and students were able to clearly articulate the ways in which this experience develops leadership abilities. A second-year student at ECSU felt that the counseling class had taught her skills related to empathy, listening without judgment, and other skills that put her “in a better position when faced with controversy or anything, as a leader and as a teammate” (23/475, 23/486).

100

Table 5: Supervised Practice Opportunity Requirements Type

Midwestern University

Assistantship • •

•

•

Practicum

• • • •

East Coast State University

Required for both years of the program. 52 of 78 students held assistantships on the MU campus. Remaining 26 worked at one of 13 cooperating colleges in the area. 9 units earned through SPOlinked courses taken concurrently with assistantship.

• •

Not required. Up to six credits can be earned. 30 hours of work per credit unit. Almost all students do at least one practicum. Many do more than one.

•

• •

• • •

Not required. All 14 students had assistantships on the ECSU campus. No credits awarded for assistantship. No course connected to assistantship.

Required during summer after first year. Three credits earned for linked course. Very few students do practicum on ECSU campus. Students are expected to work the equivalent of one full day per week which equals roughly 165 hours over the 15-week semester.

It is hard to imagine a SAGPP that doesn’t require significant hands-on experience. A student at MU stated, “Experiential learning is really big (here), and that’s one of the reasons I was so attracted to this program, because of the experiential piece, the assistantship piece, which is such a large part of it” (7/91). Supervisors on both campuses (and the cooperating colleges at MU) said they sat down with students to discuss learning outcomes and try to identify what exactly the student wanted to get out of the experience. A supervisor at ECSU also said she

101

attempts to give the students “complementary experiences to the knowledge that they’re gaining in the classroom” (26/127). A faculty member at ECSU summed up her goals for the supervised practice opportunities by saying “We really have to ask ourselves, ‘what are they learning [in the SPO sites], and what are the educational values?’ It’s not employment; it’s supposed to be part of your education” (17/571). However, she was not convinced that these goals were being realized in the SPO settings. While it was clear that experiential learning was an important component of both participating SAGPPs, it was less clear what the specific goals and objectives were for those experiences. Additionally, it was difficult to parse out whether or not leadership development was an explicit learning outcome of the SPO. One faculty member from ECSU summed it up when he said that the students were expected to find a summer practicum that included a “significant experience with their supervisor” which provides time to discuss what the student is seeing and doing (20/411). He clarified that the expectation [from the faculty is] that there should be “a significant component of integrating not only what’s in the classroom, but what you’re doing in the field, as an element of the graduate assistantship. To what degree is the question?” (20/411). This faculty member, like the one in the preceding paragraph, was implying that the SPOs were treated (by the supervisors) more as employment than as educational opportunities.

102

There was one supervisor at MU, who graduated from the MU SAGPP seven years ago, who was very clear about his objectives for the students completing an SPO in his area. He said that: Each graduate assistant will be able to specifically point to how they have achieved all 13 of those competencies [that are part of the SAGPP learning outcomes] through this assistantship – which makes it easy when they do their portfolio in the [final] spring semester. And, I think, through each of those competencies, they have an opportunity to tie what they are learning in the classroom with that experience there – including, from a leadership development theory perspective. (14/234) It is possible that his experience as a student has given him greater insight into the needs of a SAGPP at MU. He had an unusually strong understanding of how to connect leadership theory and practice in the SPO setting. One of the aspects of the SPOs on both campuses that proved to be particularly useful in terms of fostering leadership development was that students completed SPOs on a variety of campuses. At MU, about one-third of the students held assistantships at one of thirteen colleges or universities within driving distance of the MU campus. While all the students at ECSU did their academic-year assistantships on the ECSU campus, almost all of them spent their summer practicum at a different institution. One of the faculty members felt this was beneficial because: I think their ability to work at a different institution helps them translate what they’re learning [at ECSU] to that other context. Beyond those courses, I think they actually get an experience where they’re expected to lead this campus and learn about another institution, and put into practice what they’re learning about. (16/73)

103

A student confirmed that: Being at a different campus was very helpful to see – at ECSU, people are like, ‘well, maybe’ [when you ask about something]. They don’t – I haven’t heard the word flat out no. And it was just good to see that sort of dichotomy, that difference of [how things are handled]. (23/946) The SPOs are a perfect opportunity for making theory-to-practice connections about leadership. However, on both campuses, the SPOs are not being utilized to their fullest potential. Many opportunities are missed to help students bridge the theory-topractice gap. Leadership is a goal, whether explicit or implicit, of both SAGPPs. The students on both campuses felt that leadership development requires a combination of learning methods. They believed it was not enough to simply learn about leadership in a classroom or be expected to practice it during their assistantships. Leadership development in SAGPPs is more complex and cannot be accomplished within a single location of learning. The degree to which the programs have been intentionally designed to enhance leadership development could be greatly improved by a few changes that will be addressed in chapter V. The data on SAGPP program design, curricular elements, and the structure of the SPOs serve as a contextual background for the remaining sections. Role of Faculty The classroom environment is one of the main arenas for leadership development within an SAGPP. Likewise, faculty play a critical role in the leadership development of their students. In this section, the role of faculty will be

104

explored by looking at 1) faculty identity as leadership educators, 2) faculty as role models, 3) the nature of leadership learning opportunities in the classroom, 4) the role of faculty feedback, and 5) competing priorities that potentially impede leadership development. Identity as a leadership educator. One of the most interesting themes that emerged from the data demonstrated that the faculty at the two sites have different views of their roles as leadership educators. I interviewed a total of eleven faculty members who included eight fulltime tenured or tenure-track faculty, as well as three affiliate or adjunct faculty who are also full-time student affairs practitioners. Compared to the faculty at ECSU, the faculty at MU don't necessarily see themselves as "teachers of leadership." Even though not all the faculty self-identified as leadership educators, all 11 of the faculty I spoke with gave concrete examples of how they incorporate aspects of leadership knowledge, skill-building, feedback and/or reflection into their classes. In this section, I will compare and contrast the self-perceived role of the faculty at MU and ECSU. Faculty at MU were much less likely to see themselves as leadership educators than their peers at ECSU. In fact, one of the faculty members at MU, with whom I had an informal conversation in the lobby area of the SAGPP office, told me that she had declined the request to meet with me because she “doesn’t teach leadership” (field notes). Of the five faculty members I did interview at MU, one teaches the elective on leadership, one teaches a course that has a very heavy 105

leadership focus, and one was serving in the role of program director. The other two faculty members teach a course connected to the students’ SPO, but they did not initially talk about themselves as “teachers of leadership.” One faculty member from M.U. said: When you first approached our program and got your email and so on, I thought, “Why do you wanna come here because we don’t do leadership?” Your almost insistence that we do leadership sounds – it’s not language that we use around here. We hardly ever have a section on leadership. (4/522) Another faculty member at the same institution said “My first reaction [when I heard you were coming to campus] was, ‘We teach leadership?’ Because it’s not there – it’s not one of the first things I think about when I think about our program” (1/368). However, during the interview, these faculty, as well as the other faculty at MU, provided numerous examples of how they do teach leadership in their courses. Despite what seems like a belief that leadership is not taught at MU, the faculty do believe that leadership development occurs in the SAGPP. One of the faculty who initially questioned my interest in the MU SAGPP summed up the students’ leadership education by saying: [When] you look around our curriculum, we don’t have a course called ‘Leadership.’ So you could errantly walk away and say ‘They don’t do leadership there’ and I would say ‘Well, we don’t do critical thinking either because we don’t have a course in critical thinking.’ But, I think an absolutely essential part of our curriculum is critical thinking. So I think the same way of leadership. What we do is prepare people with the capacities and tools to go out and function in leadership roles. (4/129) Broadly, the faculty at MU were confident that leadership development was occurring during the two-year program and were able to talk about how they

106

facilitated conversations about leadership during the course connected to the SPO. What was missing from my conversations with the faculty at MU, that was present at ECSU, was their ability to connect leadership development to the other courses they taught. Unlike their colleagues at MU, the faculty at ECSU were able to clearly articulate how they teach leadership in the classroom even in courses on assessment, student development, and diversity. One faculty member, who does not teach a leadership course, said “I don’t teach leadership theory, but I think whether it’s feminist theory or critical race theory, they are learning how to use these particular theories to address relevant leadership challenges that exist in society” (16/93). He felt the topics were connected because “the better you know people, the better that relational process [of leadership] can be facilitated” and also because “if you don’t know something is a problem, you can’t fix it or work towards change” (16/114). The faculty at ECSU definitely saw themselves as leadership educators and were able to see how the opportunity for leadership development was present in many different courses. Even though the faculty at the two campuses displayed a difference in their self-perceptions of their role as leadership educators, there was a great deal of implicit teaching and learning, around leadership, which was occurring in the classroom at both sites. As one faculty member at MU said “As I work with students, I don’t realize that connection [to leadership], and so I’m not making it for them either and so they’re not making it. They’re doing it [leadership development], 107

they’re learning it, but they don’t know they are learning it” (1/613). While this faculty member may think the students don’t know they are learning about leadership in her classes, they do. The students I spoke with greatly value the faculty-led discussions that occur in the classroom and they clearly articulated how those conversations helped them develop a better understanding of leadership. Role modeling. Another theme that emerged was the idea of faculty as role models. Students and faculty at ECSU also talked about how faculty serve as leadership role models. One faculty member at ECSU said that one of the implicit ways that students learn about leadership is by watching faculty. She commented “students are very observant of faculty behavior, I’ve noticed. And so I also think that I can convey messages in the way that I sort of move through the world as a faculty member” (18/490). Another faculty member said that she, herself, learns about leadership by watching others attempt to lead organizations. She believes that: A piece of this [learning about leadership] is very observational, and observational not in this distant kind of way, but being a – understanding the stories of the people around you; watching. Like, the students in my class just had to do this cultural analysis of classroom climate. And so here they are, looking at a faculty member who’s a leader in an environment, and trying to analyze how that person enhances or detracts from a culture of equity and inclusion. (17/143) A first year student at ECSU confirmed that she does look at how faculty members lead and commented that one particular faculty member had “modeled good leadership in our first course, but wasn’t always referencing leadership or really

108

throwing that into everyday of class” (23/130). Faculty at ECSU see themselves, and are seen by students, as leadership role models. This idea of faculty as role models was not discussed by anyone I interviewed at MU. This omission does not necessarily mean faculty do not serve as leadership role models. However, it could imply that the faculty and students are not conscious of the role modeling that occurs. This lack of data supports a broad finding that leadership development was less of an explicit goal or learning outcome at MU than at ECSU. The faculty are responsible for crafting their course and classroom environments. How they choose to structure their courses directly impact the students’ ability to work on their leadership development. Even those faculty who see themselves as leadership educators, shared a perspective that views the SPO is the “main classroom” for leadership development. In the next sections, I will explore the nature of learning opportunities available and how they are related to leadership development. I will also look at leadership-related feedback that students receive from faculty. Nature of learning opportunities. Theory to practice learning is an overarching goal of both SAGPPs. Theory to practice learning related to leadership development was significantly less explicit and often not intentionally fostered. However, the classroom environment at both sites provided students with opportunities to learn leadership theory and practice leadership skills. 109

Both the MU and ECSU program report that theory-to-practice connections are an intentional goal for their program. Several faculty commented that in almost every class session, regardless of the course topic, the question of “Now how does this apply to what is going on in your internship?” is raised (5/369). Faculty on both campuses believe that their students understand that both knowledge of leadership as well as the ability to lead are needed to be effective in the field of student affairs. An intentional effort is made to connect class projects with what is going on in the assistantships by utilizing case studies and projects. One faculty member says that “he does his part” by making sure there are both theoretical as well as practical questions on his exams. He alternates giving students an exam problem that needs to be solved using a theory, with a particular theory that the students needs to explain how they would implemented in practice (4/385). Faculty on both campuses understood that theoretical knowledge and practical skills are both important for the students. Theoretical knowledge. In the classroom, students are exposed to theoretical information as well as given the opportunity to practice their leadership skills. There were differences, between the two sites, in how much leadership theory the students were learning in the classroom. The students at ECSU seemed more knowledgeable about specific leadership theories and more comfortable discussing them than the students at MU. A first-year student at MU, who was not planning to take the leadership elective said “If you’re not intentional about doing it, it’s very easy to get through the entire 110

program without ever taking a course that will specifically talk about leadership theory or leadership development” (7/473). This student had not yet taken the section of the SPO-linked course that focuses specifically on leadership, but his statement reflects his impression, after the first full year of the program, that there is not a course on leadership. Only three of the nine students at MU said that they had been taught a specific leadership theory or model. One of the first year students was planning on taking the leadership elective during the next semester and was excited about the opportunity to learn about leadership theories. Another student mentioned that she had taken several leadership inventories as part of the third section of the assistantship course. Even though most of the students had not been taught any particular leadership theories or models, the students reported feeling confident in their abilities to serve as leaders when they find themselves in their first post-masters professional position. In contrast, all of the participating ECSU students were able to name leadership theories or models they had learned in the program. Specifically, they named Bolman and Deal, (2008); Kouzes and Posner, (2002); the Social Change model (Komives & Wagner, 2009); the Leadership Identity Development model (Komives, Longerbeam, Owen, Mainella, and Osteen, 2006); and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002). Throughout my discussion with the ECSU students, they were comfortable using the term leadership and were able to discuss their own leadership beliefs or style. These students reported that they were exposed to leadership 111

knowledge in multiple areas, beginning with their first introductory course, continuing through their practicum class, and culminating with their capstone course. Students on both campuses did seem to find value in taking leadership inventories and learning theoretical knowledge, particularly in terms of helping them label or define their personal leadership identity. One student commented, “Something I’ve learned from the leadership [theories] that I’ve gotten out of it is understanding my own [leadership] and seeing how I’ve changed…and understanding about myself and the way I saw my own leadership style” (23/460). While all of the students at ECSU reported learning about leadership theories and models in their coursework, only one third of the students at MU had been exposed to this type of knowledge in the classroom. However, students at both campuses expressed a desire for additional exposure to leadership theory and more time in their SAGPP devoted to leadership development. The students at MU who had been unable to take the leadership elective, almost all said they would have taken the course if it had been offered. One student who was planning on taking the course said: There’s a course that I’m taking next semester, but it’s specifically about leadership theory and things like that…so I’m excited to take that class because I don’t have any leadership theory. I’ve gone to leadership conferences, as an under-grad, and I’ve been exposed to opportunities to be in a leadership position, and to work with students, but for me, it’ll be interesting to put – I like theory, so putting that theory in, and actually connecting, and seeing where students are, and that sort of thing. (7/99-104) As one faculty member at MU stated “Good theories help you organize what you already know” (4/197). The students have leadership experience and are serving as 112

leaders on their campus. It seems that they are all interested in learning leadership theories to help them make sense of their own experiences. Even at ECSU where students talked about leadership “being in the water” on their campus, one student reported that she would like to be exposed to more variety of leadership theories. She said, of the theories she had been exposed to: I mean, I personally align with those theories and understand them well and – or the models, sorry – and understand them and use them in my daily work I would say. But I sometimes, if I’m playing devil’s advocate, I wonder if those aren’t more prominent just because of the ties that we have to them at this institution, and if there was something else out there that somehow I’m missing that is really where the field is headed for some reason, or I don’t know, if there’s something I’m missing.” (23/258) The student who made this comment is also the one student who chose to enroll in the course on student leadership development. She is clearly invested in learning about leadership. Skill-building. Another way that students learn about leadership in the classroom is through skill-building. Skill-building refers to opportunities to practice leadership skills that offer a challenge or problem to be solved. When I inquired about where students had the opportunity to practice leadership skills and competencies, every person I spoke with mentioned the supervised practice opportunities. However, students and faculty on both campuses also spoke about skill-building that occurred in the classroom or during class assignments. Examples most frequently mentioned included: case studies, use of group work, and assignments requiring students to practice a particular leadership skill. Specific skills that students were able to practice in the 113

classroom included: developing expectations, communication with supervisors and colleagues, performance appraisals, and working with a team. A student at MU said she was able to practice applying leadership theory in one of her courses by “kind of role-playing type things to be able to take the theories that we were learning at that time, and try to apply them to different scenarios that we were given, so also applying it from that respect” (8/174). An example of a typical case study was offered by an ECSU faculty member: So if you were in the Director of Multicultural Involvement, if you were that director, how would you respond to this [situation]? How would you think about this? How would you answer to the Vice-President, who has to answer to the President?” And [I] try to complicate their perception of what the issue is, and how to respond to the issue, which, again, I think is an example of leadership. (18/161) These activities clearly allow students to solve problems or challenges while practicing their leadership skills. At ECSU, two students mentioned the leadership skill-building that took place in the required counseling class (which does have a practicum connected to it). One student felt there was a connection between counseling skills and leadership skills because: The counseling and the skills that you learn and just interacting with other people ultimately put you in a better position when you are faced with controversy or anything; as a leader, as a teammate or anything. As a team member, a community member. And so you sort of have those skills that you’ve developed over time that weren’t necessarily leadership, they were counseling but it’s so blurry. (23/486)

114

This is an interesting idea given the “relational” nature of my definition of leadership. Learning about people and how to handle “controversy” is certainly relevant to leadership. At both campuses, group projects were seen as leadership skill-building because “communicating with peers and effectively communicating to get a task accomplished; that happens through those other learning activities throughout the curriculum” (1/163). Another faculty member said she tells her students: So you will be working with a group [on this project]. And you will have to struggle with different personalities, different working styles, different skill sets, and all that. This is just a practice run for the – and in fact, you are more homogenous in terms of where you are skill wise and knowledge wise than what you’re committee will be like where you’re working. (19/397) These are important skills for a leader who desire to operate under a relational leadership model. It did not appear that these types of assignments were intentionally designed to provide students with the chance to practice their leadership skills. Rather, these techniques were viewed as good teaching practices that serendipitously provided opportunities for leadership development. One faculty member did comment that having students work together on group projects modeled the reality of the student affairs workplace where many accomplishments are achieved by a group of people working together. For the most part, all three categories of participants felt that the majority of skill-building took place in the SPO sites. Assignments do provide students the opportunities to practice leadership skills, but some important learning lessons are missed because feedback is given on 115

the assignments but not on the process of how the assignment was completed. The following section will explore the role of feedback, from faculty, on leadership development. Role of feedback. Feedback, the assessment of leadership skills, is an important part of the courses described earlier in this chapter. However, students report different levels of satisfaction with the amount of feedback they receive from their faculty members. There were five sections of the SPO-linked course during the semester I visited MU and it appears that students’ experiences varied depending upon who taught their section/course. Some students reported that their faculty member gave them feedback on all of their written reflections; others reported that they did not always get written feedback but that they were encouraged to make appointments with their faculty member if they wanted feedback on a particular reflection or situation. Faculty corroborated these statements by acknowledging that they did not give feedback on every written reflection submitted by students. However, students found the feedback, whether it was written or verbal, to be beneficial to their development as a leader. A second year student at MU said: I think definitely in our [SPO-linked] course, which you take for three semesters, and you do monthly reflections, and your advisor reads that, maybe comments or really, for me, it’s been going and talking with my advisor about something. And getting that feedback on okay, this happened, this is how I handled it, and then okay, now, tell me how I did. And getting that feedback and trying it again, because I definitely saw myself grow just through that first – just from the fall to spring semester as a hall director, and how I approached different things. (8/254)

116

It is important to note that this student referred to his faculty member as his “advisor.” At MU, the faculty member assigned as a student’s advisor is also the person who teaches that student’s section of the SPO-linked course. The studentadvisor relationship will be discussed in greater detail during the section on significant relationships. On both campuses, most feedback from a faculty member on a students’ LS knowledge or skills is based on the students’ self-assessment or the assessment of their supervisor. None of the faculty spoke about giving feedback to a student about the role s/he played in the cohort or in a group project. A typical scenario where a faculty member would provide feedback is through written reflections submitted about a problem in the SPO. A faculty member at MU explained: I respond to their monthly reflections that they turn in and so oftentimes, students will complain about something in the context of that reflection, “We don’t do this right. This doesn’t make any sense. I don’t understand that.” When I respond back to them, I ask them, “What can you do about this? What are some ways that you can solve this problem? Have you considered XYZ as a tactic?” And some students take those suggestions and move forward them and others say, “I don’t know how to do that/” (1/173) Interestingly, feedback is not provided on behavior demonstrated in the classroom, but is provided on experiences (occurring in the SPOs) not witnessed by the faculty. It is rare that a faculty member would offer feedback on a situation that s/he directly observed. A sample of the type of feedback a student might get from a faculty member was described by an MU student as: “This is what I think about what you’ve reflected on. These are some suggestions on ways you can improve and grow. These are some questions to make you think some more about what’s been going on that maybe you 117

haven’t gone that direction in your thoughts or in your development yet, so I’m gonna encourage you to go that way.” So a lot of encouragement from the faculty to develop those – just all those thoughts in the classroom talking about our assistantships, and practicums that we’re taking…and to reflect on how we’ve developed, and what we can continue to do to develop those competencies. (7/279) Feedback from the faculty most often encourages reflection as opposed to commenting about specific leadership skills or competencies. The importance of reflection will be addressed later in this chapter. Feedback in the classroom also comes through open discussion. The SPOlinked classes at both campuses seemed to be heavily discussion based. A faculty member at MU said that they spent a lot of time: Talking about, “What’s going on in your assistantship? How are things going? What are you struggling with? Are there things that other people can help you with who are resources here today?” And while we might not say, “Gee, that’s leadership,” there’s certainly those types of skills that they’re [learning]. (5/323) The students, overwhelmingly, found these discussions to be very valuable. These opportunities for feedback gave them helpful information that led to personal reflection on their leadership knowledge and skills. Some faculty were reported to be better at giving feedback than others. This result was true on both campuses. This can be partially attributed to a personal preference for verbal rather than written feedback. Some students preferred written feedback but were working with a faculty member who favored oral feedback; or vice versa. Given that almost all of the faculty-given feedback is based on situations that the faculty member did not directly witness, it was unclear if the feedback would

118

match what the SPO supervisors would give. However, students overwhelmingly agreed that faculty feedback is a critical part of their leadership development because it provided them with the fodder for another highly valued mechanism for leadership development, reflection. The role of reflection will be discussed in the final section of this chapter. Competing priorities. While every faculty member expressed the belief that leadership development is an important learning outcome for their SAGPP students, many spoke of the ways in which competing priorities proved to be an obstacle that prevented leadership from being addressed in the classroom and/or by the faculty. These competing priorities were mentioned in regards to the formal curriculum of the SAGPP and in terms of what happens in the day-to-day faculty-student interactions. Several faculty at MU commented that it would be nice to have leadership development as a required course, but the challenge is that a current required course would need to be removed in order to make room for a leadership course. The courses a SAGPP selects as requirements and those it offers as electives are, hopefully, connected to the program’s stated values. ECSU clearly lists leadership as one of the core values and also requires students to enroll in a capstone course, taken during their final semester, which focuses on leadership development. Leadership is not mentioned in the MU mission, values, or student learning outcomes and the leadership course is an elective. However, at MU leadership is the main focus of the third, and final, section of the assistantship-linked course. What is actually discussed 119

during those four class meetings is greatly influenced by the second obstacle, the impact of the day-to-day. At MU, several of the faculty mentioned that “what walks in the door” is what gets discussed in the assistantship-linked course. Sometimes the presenting topics are about leadership and sometimes they are not. An issue or problem that a student is experiencing can easily derail the day’s agenda/topic. A faculty member at MU pointed out that “these conversations that happen [in the SPO-linked course] are very organic…but, I try to stick to the topics [on the syllabus]” (1/404). Since this course only meets four times during the semester, there is not much time to go back and revisit the missed content from the lesson plan. However, while the core values of the program drive the curriculum, whether or not the faculty members view themselves as leadership educators also drives the degree to which leadership is discussed in the classroom. As one faculty member at MU observed, she regularly has conversations with students about leadership-related issues but because “she doesn’t make the connection” herself, the students probably aren’t making the connection either (1/613). There seemed to be many missed opportunities for talking about leadership. At ECSU, the faculty were able to weave leadership into many courses that appear, on the surface, to be unrelated to leadership such as assessment, multicultural practice and a course on race, ethnicity, class and gender. Faculty members who are intentionally committed to teaching leadership seem to be able to avoid allowing the day-to-day to get in the way of leadership development. In fact, they regularly use current events to frame leadership 120

discussions and they are skilled at turning even seemingly unrelated content into a lesson on leadership. The classroom is a very important venue for learning about leadership. Faculty hold dual responsibilities as both leadership educators and leadership role models. At ECSU, these roles were more explicitly stated than at MU. However, the importance and students’ perceived value of those roles were similar on both campuses. While not all students were exposed to leadership theories or models in the classroom, almost all students I spoke with expressed feeling confident that their SAGPP had prepared them to be effective leaders. Role of Supervisors Both MU and ECSU require students to participate in supervised practice opportunities. I interviewed ten supervisors, six at MU and four at ECSU. Of the ten, six directly supervised graduate students and four served as the supervisors of the staff members who directly supervised the graduate students. Additionally, two of the ECSU faculty served as indirect supervisors. These two staff members were upper-level administrators who were also adjunct faculty. The data on the role of supervisors fell into similar categories as the role of faculty. In this section I will discuss supervisors’ identity as leadership educators, the nature of the work assignments in SPOs, supervisors as role models, feedback, and the ways competing priorities can get in the way of leadership development. While there are many similarities, there are also several significant differences

121

between the role of faculty and supervisors. The data clearly demonstrates that supervisors play a significant role in the leadership development of their students. Identity as a leadership educator. Every supervisor I interviewed started our conversation by stressing the importance of leadership skills for professionals in student affairs. They believed that leadership was a priority learning outcome for their students. One supervisor at ECSU shared her opinion that: I am being really intentional about [focusing on leadership development] because I really feel like that’s my responsibility. I don’t feel like they’re here just to work for us to get the job done and be gone. Part of my philosophy is educating good leaders for our future. Somebody who would be able to take over for anyone of us. And I enjoy that. (24/156) While the faculty at ECSU had a stronger identity as a leadership educator than did the faculty at MU, supervisors on both campuses saw themselves as leadership educators. Much the way that the faculty made a point of asking students in their classes to talk about what was occurring in their assistantships, the supervisors believed it was important to ask their students what they were talking about in the classroom. At MU, a woman who supervises multiple graduate students said that she asks them about their coursework and tries to help them find ways they can apply that knowledge in the workplace (10/393). A supervisor at ECSU felt that she had a responsibility to help students connect their classroom learning with their assistantship work. She said that she strives to find ways for students to connect their job responsibilities to their class assignments and vice versa (24/345).

122

It was clear that the supervisors understood that they were not only job supervisors, but educators. They knew that they were a critical component of the CSP program. One of the supervisors at ECSU summed up a belief shared by many of the supervisors on both campuses when she talked about: Using every opportunity as a learning opportunity… tying it into the classroom. I don't think one could work without the other. So really, it’s that kind of symbiotic relationship that we have; that we have a strong sense of what’s happening in the classroom. And never forgetting that we’re practitioners, but we’re also theorists who learn that we have to work together. So there’s meaningful purpose behind what we do. It has to be intentional, and we really need both. So I think we learn it really on the job, but it’s only because of what we’ve learned in the classroom, so both places. (24/413) It is interesting that the faculty made comments questioning whether or not the leadership goals were being addressed in the SPOs. Faculty were unsure if leadership is a goal, but supervisors unanimously agreed that leadership is an important learning outcome in the SPO setting. This difference could be related to a lack of connection between the faculty and supervisors. In general, the supervisors on the ECSU campus felt more connected to the CSP faculty. That could be due to the smaller cohort size, to the fact that all of the CSP students held assistantships on the ECSU campus, and/or because of the larger number of adjunct faculty who were student affairs administrators. Additionally, I only spoke with three direct supervisors on the ECSU campus which makes it very difficult to know if the supervisors of all thirty students would share the same opinion.

123

From the students’ perspective, many, but not all, supervisors at both campuses are connected to the faculty, the CSP program, or the coursework. Several students felt that their supervisors did a good job of asking about what they were learning in their classes and how they could apply that knowledge in the SPO. However, a few students on both campuses expressed frustration with supervisors who were not in sync with the CSP program. One student said “[I] just wish some graduate assistant supervisors could take these courses with us… It would probably help. I really do wish there was more collaboration because it does feel sometimes like there’s two different worlds that we live in” (23/1215). This disconnect was reported by one student as “a division. And I think that’s the other thing that’s killed me. That it’s been a divide between what I’m learning in class and what I’m seeing in the office (23/1101). Supervisors and students reported higher satisfaction with student learning when the supervisors had strong connections with the faculty and the SAGPP. Role modeling. In addition to straightforward knowledge acquisition or skill development, role modeling was an important aspect of the students’ leadership education. Students reported learning a lot simply by watching their supervisors. A supervisor at ECSU said: There are a lot of people around here for them to see as mentors and role models. And so I think they see a lot of different ways of leading through the people that they get to interact with in our department. So they leave here, I think, better able to know who they want to be as a leader because they’ve

124

been able to see how all these different styles can work and work very successfully together. (26/298) One student even spoke about the benefit of working for a supervisor that was not perceived to be a good leader. “Because of those negative experiences, I’ve grown a lot. I know I’m going to be a good supervisor because I not only know what to do, but what not to do. And that has helped me” (23/765). Supervisors understood that students were observing them as leaders-in-action and were comfortable in this role. A faculty member at ECSU, who is also an administrator, felt that one of the ways leadership is learned is through observation. She said “I know, when I feel inspired, I see it. I watch people as they attempt to lead organizations and I learn. So I never forget that idea that theory, practice, stories, and observation are real critical pieces [of learning leadership]” (17/152). It was interesting that faculty members saw themselves and the supervisors as leadership role models, but very few of the supervisors made any mention of faculty serving as role models. This may be related to the general lack of connection between the faculty and supervisors. Nature of learning opportunities. Students learn a great deal about leadership through the SPOs and from their supervisors. Some of what is learned is theoretical or described as “professional development,” but most of the learning comes through skill-building opportunities. However, most of the leadership development that occurred was not because leadership was a stated goal, but rather came about as a result of doing the work required for their positions.

125

Theoretical knowledge. Not much is offered, in terms of leadership theories or models, by the SPO supervisors. In the first student focus group at MU, only one of the six students said that a supervisor shared a favorite leadership model, theory, or book with him. The student who had been exposed to theories and models of leadership during his SPO was doing part of his assistantship in leadership development. Part of his job responsibilities included co-teaching a leadership course for undergraduate students. The one model he specifically mentioned was from the book The Starbucks Experience (Michelli, 2006; 7/116). Of the students in the second focus group at MU, one was doing a practicum with the President’s Leadership Academy. She said that the “entire curriculum for the sophomore cohort is based off” the model by Kouzes and Posner (2002) and thus, she had been exposed to this model at her SPO site. (8/66) Another student mentioned two books that he had read as part of professional development activities organized by the department where he held his SPO (8/72). Only one student at ECSU mentioned a specific theory that s/he had been exposed to through his or her SPO site (23/226). Not surprisingly, based on the students’ reports, most supervisors do not have a particular LS theory or model that they try to practice or teach to their SAGPP students. Two supervisors each mentioned a specific theory or leadership book that they had discussed with a student, several mentioned that leadership is a topic they cover during fall training or organization, and others reported that they do not teach or discuss any leadership theories or models. However, faculty, students, and 126

supervisors mostly agreed with the statement made by one of the supervisors at ECSU who said “You know if they learn a leadership model or a model, usually you can come back here and go, “Oh, right. I see that” (25/593). While leadership models were not being introduced in the SPO settings, they were a great place for students to observe leadership through the lens of theories and models learned in the classroom. Some supervisors offer professional development for their staff and these topics are frequently related to leadership. All MU graduate students employed in the student affairs division were required to participate in a monthly professional development workshop. Topics addressed included communication, 360-degree leadership, and how to manage your supervisor (15/407). Several students and supervisors spoke about professional development offered by a specific office or department. These included discussing books, articles, or current events, bringing in guest speakers, or specific training sessions on topics like supervision (8/72, 11/215, 24/140). Professional development was not seen as a major method of leadership development, but was viewed as a helpful supplement to what was being learned in the classroom and through the SPO. Skill-building. The data clearly demonstrates that a great deal of skill-building occurs in the SPOs. It is frequently mentioned as one of the primary goals for SPOs. However, leadership is not often mentioned as a specific goal. The SPOs are generally viewed as a place to learn job specific knowledge and skills. The leadership development occurs during the process of completing the job requirements. This growth occurs 127

because the students are often treated as professionals and given work that is both challenging and meaningful. Something I heard often was echoed by a supervisor at MU who said “We essentially treat them as part-time professionals. Not the first semester, but particularly by the second year because we want them to gain the experiences so they can be successful when they leave here” (11/324). Another supervisor said “We try to be very intentional in making sure that the experiences that they have will ultimately benefit them two years from now when they leave here, and that it’s not just about them being here to assist us, but this is really about helping them develop into being practitioners at some point in their career” (12/348). There was a clear understanding that the SPOs are an important location of learning for leadership development in SAGPPs. Most students felt that their supervisors provided them with valuable leadership development opportunities. One MU student said: I’ve been given a lot of freedom to do exactly what I want with [my] position, and make the changes I wanna make, and develop the program the way I want to. I think just that experience has been very hands-on [leadership] learning. (7/434) Another student spoke about a major change that had been suggested for the structure of his position and other graduate student positions. He described a process where he and his colleagues drafted a proposal and successfully presented it to his supervisors. “It was overwhelming to me [that the proposal was accepted] and because it was so good in their eyes that it was implemented. It just spoke volumes

128

about the respect that they have for us” (8/485). These students were engaged in leadership that was relational, involved influence, and produced meaningful change. Leadership development was not the goal, but their work (and support of their supervisors) created the space for leadership development to occur. Role of feedback. Feedback is a critical piece to the students’ leadership development. Similar to the students’ comments about the feedback they received from faculty members, students reported varying levels of satisfaction with the feedback they received from their supervisors. For the most part, students found the feedback to be very useful. They reported that it helped them identify areas for growth and also how they were growing as leaders (7/185, 7/201). The students who were dissatisfied with the feedback they received from their supervisors were also dissatisfied with the overall quality of supervision they were receiving (2/253). Feedback was generally given during one-on-one supervisory meetings and during formal evaluations. All supervisors conducted an annual evaluation that took place at the end of the year and most of them conducted an evaluation at the end of each semester. Additionally, some supervisors also did an evaluation of their students during the middle of the fall semester. The supervisors at MU used a form provided for them by the SAGPP but the supervisors at ECSU typically used a form created by the university’s human resources department. At MU, the evaluations created by the SAGPP cover all of the competencies that the students are expected to achieve during their two years, one of 129

which is management/administration and leadership. The evaluations done at ECSU do not specifically address leadership as a competency, but they do cover areas such as communication and team work. The most useful feedback seemed to come through regular, on-going conversations. Students and supervisors spoke of developing strong relationships that allowed for honest feedback on all areas of performance. The feedback provided by the supervisor could be viewed as highly valuable because it is the most direct feedback received by a student. The supervisor directly witnesses the student acting in a leadership role and can provide timely feedback on that performance. Competing priorities. While all the supervisors interviewed stated that leadership was an important and intentional outcome of the students’ SPO experiences, by the end of the interview it seemed that the day-to-day job responsibilities typically get in the way and don’t leave much time for the supervisors to talk with the students about leadership. They expressed a need to focus on whether things got done rather than how they got done (or were not completed). The faculty seem to understand the challenges faced by the supervisors. A faculty member at MU said: I think it’s naïve for us to suggest that we have these lists of competencies, and every supervisor will look over these lists of competencies continuously. No. The supervisors-it’s kind of like when you’re up to your ass in alligators, you forget about cleaning the swamp. I mean, the supervisors are trying to get a job done, and they’re using those interns as pragmatically as possible to get that job done. (2/253)

130

While some supervisors described a commitment to making sure the day-to-day realities of the job did not interfere with their ability to mentor students in the biggerpicture aspects of leadership development, most expressed at least some level of frustration at not being able to find the time to have these types of conversations on a regular basis. Many made comments about being torn in so many different directions and not being able to give the students as much supervision as they desired (13/194, 10/329, 20/176). Students at MU felt that their conversations with their supervisors were focused on the position responsibilities 90 percent of the time and on the big picture for the remaining10 percent of the time (8/382). However, the students at MU seemed fairly satisfied with this ratio because they felt the faculty in their SPOlinked course successfully filled the gaps. Because they work with this same faculty member for most of their program, it is easy to see how that faculty member could “serve as that person that’s helping you look at the bigger picture, when your supervisor really just needs to focus on you getting your job done” (8/373). This sentiment was not shared by the students at ECSU. I was only able to interview four students, but all four of them expressed frustration with the lack of supervision they were receiving (23/697, 23/712, 23/724, 23/765). These students spoke of a desire for “deep conversations” but felt that their supervisors simply didn’t see those conversations as important (23/724). These feelings may be exacerbated by the fact that the students at ECSU do not have the same type of connection between their

131

coursework and their SPOs and as a result, do not have the ongoing opportunities to talk about their experiences. Supervisors are in a great position to serve as leadership educators and seem to understand the importance of that role. Unfortunately, the day-to-day responsibilities seem to prevent the supervisors from being able to spend much time processing leadership-related experiences with their students. However, students are still learning a great deal about leadership in their SPOs and from their supervisors. Some of the learning comes from feedback and from watching leaders in action, but most of it seems to come from performing as leaders themselves in the workplace. Supervisors give the students real, meaningful work and let them learn by doing. The final section of this chapter explores how students make meaning of their knowledge and experiences by using the interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of leadership. Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Dimensions of Leadership While enrolled in a SAGPP, students are exposed to theoretical knowledge and provided experiences where they can practice their leadership skills, but as they seek to link theory to practice, a few additional themes emerged that help explain how students begin to make meaning of their knowledge and experiences. The students enrolled in these two SAGPPs are motivated and determined to become great leaders. They are able to identify what they need, and when those needs are not met, they are able to find other people and/or experiences that provide them with the

132

learning they seek. In the next section, I will explore the use of interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of leadership. Interpersonal relationships for leadership development. All of the students I interviewed spoke of the importance of interpersonal relationships as a mechanism for fostering leadership development. These relationships can be broken down into three categories: assigned relationships, relationships initiated by the student, and extracurricular involvements. Assigned relationships. The relationships most often referenced by the SAGPP students were the ones with their direct supervisors and the faculty who taught their classes. At MU, students typically only spoke about the faculty member who served as both their advisor and the instructor for their SPO-linked course. At ECSU, students spoke more broadly about “the faculty” rather than about a particular person. These students were speaking about the faculty who taught their course. The experience students have is highly dependent upon their supervisor and/or faculty members. At MU, I conducted two focus groups. The first group of students, who held off-campus assistantships, felt like leadership development was most influenced by their supervisors. They felt like their faculty members did a good job helping them connect their assistantship experiences directly to leadership development. However, there was one student who reported being very dissatisfied with his faculty advisor (who teaches the SPO-linked course). This student felt that his supervisor was very intentional about helping him make theory-to-practice 133

connection, but that his experience with his faculty member had been very different. He was unhappy with the feedback he had received and said that “there comes a time where if you address a concern and it’s not dealt with or handled at all, almost ignored, then you just stop trying” (7/371). He also emphasized the point that students’ experiences can vary greatly based on whom they have as a faculty advisor, and that not all faculty follow the syllabus for the SPO-linked course (7/321). Students at both campuses reported different opinions about who helped foster their leadership development. Some felt that they learned the most about leadership from their faculty and some felt like their supervisors really filled that role. Others reported that their faculty member did not take much of an interest in their leadership development or that their supervisor was “just too busy” to engage in that type of conversation (23/697-703). What seemed important was that students had at least one faculty member or supervisor with whom they had a positive relationship. Students at MU also reported that they placed a high value on the support and influence of their peer group. They spoke about learning by watching their peers in action and from listening to their peers talk about their individual leadership challenges. Many of these conversations occurred in the SPO-linked course, but some happened at the assistantship site. The students also felt that peer feedback was very valuable because it was “real” and was offered in a timely manner. One student even joked about valuing the feedback of the student sitting next to him even when

134

he didn’t want to hear it or when he didn’t ask for it (7/598-604). Peer feedback was also mentioned as a stimulus for personal reflection. While peer influence was not mentioned at ECSU, this does not mean it was not an important component of the ECSU students’ experience. However, the larger cohort size at MU may have made peer influence more likely to be mentioned in the interview. A great deal of the peer interactions occurred in the SPO-linked courses. This course occurs over three semesters at MU but only during one summer session at ECSU. This extended exposure to an environment that fostered peer conversations about leadership-related issues may have increased peer influence at MU. Seeking out mentors. In addition to their relationships with faculty, supervisors, and peers, several students spoke about other significant relationships, including those with faculty advisors and mentors. Students who felt like they were not getting what they needed from their faculty and/or supervisors frequently sought out their own advisors and mentors. These sought-out mentors included other faculty, student affairs professionals at the SAGPP site, and student affairs professionals at other institutions. One student at ECSU referred to not wanting to “waste her [advisor’s] time [by] crying about something” (23/921). The students were very aware of the relational aspect of leadership. The student above seemed to want to preserve the relationship with her advisor, whom she deemed her “true mentor” (23/908), by not burdening her with what the student deemed to be trivial matters.

135

At MU, students were assigned to a faculty advisor who also served as the instructor for their SPO-linked course. If students did not feel a connection with this faculty member, or developed a strong relationship with another faculty member, they were encouraged to switch advisors. One student commented about her experience by saying “I don’t always go to the person who’s assigned as my faculty advisor, and that’s something that they definitely encourage. If you feel a connection with a faculty member, who you can have that sort of relationship with, it’s ok” (7/379). These students did not switch sections of the SPO-linked course, but used their new advisor as their resource for academic advising and general advice about making the most of their experiences in the SAGPP. They used these relationships to help them learn about the process of leadership development, including “instilling beliefs about leadership and how I see myself as a leader” (7/142). At ECSU, faculty (full-time and adjunct) only took on one or two new students each year. Faculty reported meeting with their advisees anywhere from monthly to once-a-semester. Students who did not feel a connection with their advisors simply sought out additional mentors. One student’s advisor was also her indirect supervisor. This proved to be difficult because she felt she was “on the job when I’m in those [advising] sessions” (23/883). She felt that she could not express frustrations or concerns with her advisor for fear that it would reflect poorly on her as an employee of that department. As a result, this student sought out “informal advisors” (23/919). The students on both campuses agreed with the opinion that “there are a lot of people who want to mentor [SAGPP students]” (23/924). The 136

mentors were occasionally other faculty members, but most often they were student affairs administrators. Students on both campuses sought out additional mentors to supplement the supervision they were (or were not) receiving. Extracurricular experiences. Students learned a great deal about leadership from their courses, SPOs, and through significant relationships. Extracurricular experiences served as an additional location of leadership development for students at both sites. These experiences allowed students to practice leadership in a group setting. They were able to be a part of the relational leadership process by serving on a formal SAGPP committee, holding a leadership position in a graduate student organization, teaching leadership courses to undergraduate students, and conducting leadership research. Students found great value, in terms of their own leadership development, in participating in these self-initiated opportunities. Theoretical knowledge was required for teaching the leadership courses and/or conducting research. A student at ECSU who taught leadership classes to undergraduate students said that one of the benefits of teaching leadership is that “At first it’s like ‘I already do this stuff’…but then as you get deeper into it, you put language to it…that just strengthens [our] leadership styles” (23/165). Students at both SAGPP programs had the opportunity to serve on an internal committee or be a part of the SAGPP student-run organization. These opportunities allowed students to serve as leaders within the program. A student at MU described serving as the president of the SAGPP student association which allowed him to 137

“utilize some of my leadership abilities and skills, working with other people, motivating, problem solving” (8/207). Supervisors spoke of offering additional professional development opportunities that would allow students to practice and/or observe leadership skills. However, feedback was not readily available for students engaged in these experiences. One supervisor at MU clearly articulated how she helped a student process the experience of serving on a division-level committee. She said “I think we talk probably more about the process of being a good committee member, how to navigate with other staff, with other faculty, than necessarily the work (10/288). Her attention to this aspect of the student’s experience was rare. Even though faculty regularly observed the students engaged in leadership as a member of the committee, the focus was on the goals of the committee and very little attention (if any) was paid to the process of achieving those goals. These missed opportunities will be discussed in chapter V. Intrapersonal intelligence for leadership development. As I sought to understand how SAGPPs teach leadership, an important factor emerged: how do students make meaning of their knowledge and experiences? Faculty and supervisors provide structures to expose students to the theoretical constructs of leadership and opportunities that allow them to attempt to put them into action. But, how students put all of that together to develop their own sense of leadership comes primarily from two mechanisms: processing and reflection. The

138

following sections will explore why these two mechanisms are so critical to the leadership development of SAGPP students. Processing knowledge and experiences. One of the leadership development mechanisms that emerged was the importance of talking about leadership. Students were exposed to theoretical knowledge (primarily in the classroom) and afforded opportunities to practice their leadership skills (primarily in the SPOs), but those experiences were not enough, on their own, to foster leadership development. Perhaps because of the relational nature of leadership, students learned significantly more when they had the chance to talk about leadership with their faculty, supervisors, advisors/mentors, and peers. Faculty at MU understood the value of processing experiences. This was evident not only in the program design, which gave students a formal opportunity to talk about their assistantship experiences during a three-semester sequence of courses, but also in the expectations of their students. One of the senior faculty explained that: You can’t come here and just do classes. We expect two years of internship, no matter what your previous experience…that places you in a position where the world of theory collides with the messy work of practice. And so it’s that tension, I think, between what we think is a good idea and what happens…and they bring those experiences to classes, and they say “Well that doesn’t sound like what happens out here.” (4/273) During this interview he spoke of the methods he uses to engage students in dialogue that moves them away from simply asking for his advice, and rather encourages them to think through a problem from their own perspective.

139

Faculty at ECSU shared a similar vision of their role in helping students’ process experiences, but more often spoke about helping students process the leadership decisions of other. An example was offered by a faculty member who explained: Sometimes I find that Masters Students are quick to criticize administration, what they perceive as the administration. And again, one of my responsibilities, I think, is in terms of helping them to develop a sense of themselves as leaders, is to put that back to them and say, “Well, you are the administration. You have an assistantship in the Multicultural Program office. Students see you as the administration.” Or, “If you don’t feel like you’re the administration, right now, you’re going to be the administration.” “So if you were in the Director of Multicultural Involvement, if you were that director, how would you respond to this? How would you think about this? How would you answer to the Vice-President, who has to answer to the President?” And to try to complicate their perception of what the issue is, and how to respond to the issue, which, again, I think is an example of leadership. (18/161) Given the structure of the MU program, which includes the SPO-linked course over three semesters, those faculty probably had more opportunities to discuss the students’ individual leadership actions. Without this curricular aspect at ECSU, the faculty may be more comfortable using, and building into their courses, the leadership of others. Supervisors on both campuses spoke about processing both types of experiences: students’ individual performances and those of others. They seemed comfortable using these conversations both as private feedback on a student’s performance and also as opportunities for professional development conversations during staff meetings. As mentioned above, the biggest barrier in this area was for supervisors to find the time to build these conversations into an already full agenda. 140

Students seemed to equally value the conversations they had with faculty and with supervisors. One student attempted to explain the difference by saying: I would say maybe one major difference would be intentionality where I think our supervisor, we’re with him every day, and we’re doing the day-today stuff. We definitely have those moments where it’s very this is a teachable moment, let’s talk about that or let’s focus on this. I think, at least my experience with my faculty advisor, has been that every time we meet, we’re focusing very specifically on a certain topic, on a certain issue, how can we learn from that, how can we grow from that? That’s really hard work. You couldn’t be like that every day with your supervisor because there are some little things that maybe you’re not gonna grow from as much, so let’s not talk for an hour about it. So I think just being – our faculty are very – we’re in a preparation program or we’re becoming skilled in something where we wanna work in some days, so I think that that would be the major difference for me thinking about my supervisor and faculty member. (7/354) Regardless of where the processing occurred or who was leading the conversation, this was a critical component of students’ leadership development. One of the reasons it was so important was that it almost always led to reflection. In the next section I will discuss the role of reflection in the leadership development process of the students at my two sites. Role of reflection. In terms of leadership development, reflection appeared to be an essential component. This study defines reflection as making meaning of prior experiences and feedback received. Almost every course used reflection as a teaching method. Each faculty member I spoke with discussed the importance of reflection in LS development. Additionally, almost all the supervisors and students spoke about the reflection component as an integral part of the SAGPP coursework. One student actually commented about his “reflection about the reflections” and how they “would 141

talk about maybe how we grew, and learned from doing that” (7/210). Both programs seemed to have a strong appreciation for and emphasis on reflection. At MU, the students in the SPO-linked course receive an Experiential Learning Handbook (E.L.H.) that offers suggestions for how students can “combine the experiential curriculum in the internship with the practitioner competency model and reflective practice” (MU Experiential Learning Handbook, fall 2008, p. 3). The E.L.H. for the first semester introduces students to the theory of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) as well as Donald Schon’s (1983) theories of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Students are also given some guidance regarding how to become a self-directed learner who uses reflection to learn from the process of learning as well as the content (ELH, spring 2009, p. 4). Reflections during the first class meeting ask students to think about leadership qualities, approaches to motivating staff, and ways to get included in top-management decisions. Other questions ask the students to reflect on their own personal experiences related to risktaking, leadership challenges, and obstacles to success. Reflections due at the third class meeting focus on visioning and leadership style. None of the students I interviewed spoke about these specific topics, however all of them agreed that reflection was an integral part of their program and that reflection was instrumental in their personal leadership development. When asked how the students make meaning of their own leadership development, from all of the knowledge, skills-building, and feedback they experience, the current program director at ECSU said: 142

I guess I would hope that what they [students] would say is that there is an emphasis – that the program is highly reflective, or asks them to be highly reflective, in a number of different places. And so there’s an ongoing process of taking it [all in], and internalizing it. And whether that’s through the leadership class, through their assistantship or through the multicultural practice class, there are lots of places where students are asked to reflect on, “What does this mean for me?” “How am I different as a result of this experience? How will I be different as a student affairs educator, as a result of my learning in the multicultural practice class?” So I think that’s one way, it’s a highly reflective program that’s consistent throughout our courses. I think that there’s an emphasis, also in our program, on encouraging students to develop their own philosophy of education, or of student affairs, of – and by that, I mean a personal philosophy, not a philosophy about the field, but again sort of, “Who do I want to be as a leader?” (18/386) The students at ECSU corroborated that the program encouraged reflection and spoke about the value they placed on reflection. It was clear that reflection is an incredibly valuable mechanism for leadership development. Reflection is not just valued by the faculty; students value reflection and clearly articulated the benefits of the course-required reflection. A student at MU said: One of my favorite experiences was [the SPO-linked course] – it was six women, and then our faculty advisor, and it was a really great reflection piece where we could just share ideas, and for me that was really valuable. And I definitely think that I’ve grown, as a leader from that just being able to reflect in that way. (7/304) A student at ECSU echoed that sentiment when she said “I think a lot of it is also the reflection piece, reflecting on – we do a lot of reflection in this program. …That reflection piece has been so helpful in, sort of, seeing, oh, wow, I did that” (23/294). Reflection also helped students develop a sense of confidence about their leadership abilities. At MU, a second-year student said:

143

I’ve become more comfortable through our Capstone course. I think just writing things down, I realize wow, and I have really developed a passion, in a certain area. And I actually have a decent idea of who I am, and where I wanna go, so I think just that, again, that reflective piece of just sitting back, and looking at where – how you’ve changed, how you’ve developed, and realizing that I am competent. I am competent to go out into the field, and do good work. (8/408) Reflection allows the students to see themselves as they participate in the leadership process. It also allows them to see how they have grown, as leaders, over time. While students clearly articulated the value of reflection, faculty report that not all students put a high level of effort into their reflective assignments. Some of the reflection activities at MU are optional and faculty report that they suspect many students do not complete those assignments. It was noted that: The way that curriculum is structured, they are supposed to be doing stuff throughout the month – reflective activities on their own, activities that are designed for them to talk with their supervisors about certain issues. We don’t require them to turn that in…There’s a lot of really good reflective and conversational activities in the curriculum that if I wagered, most of them don’t do; they don’t bother to do because they don’t have to turn it in and get a grade on it. (1/268) This faculty member seemed slightly frustrated about this problem and commented: The curriculum is modeled on the reflective practitioner. That’s what it’s supposed to be about. Many of them probably don’t even bother to do it and even the monthly reflections that they do have to turn in to me; I can tell the difference between those who really take it seriously and take the time to construct a reflection instead of those who just do a stream of consciousness, “Oh, it’s due, here.” That’s it. I can see the difference very, very clearly between the two. (1/289) Regardless of whether students are completing all of the assigned reflections, they do all seem to understand the value of reflection. It was an important theme connected to all of the locations of learning, not just the formal coursework. It is possible that 144

the students do not feel the need to complete the reflective work in the classroom because they are engaging in enough reflection in their SPOs, and as a result of interactions and experiences with mentors/advisors, peers and extracurricular activities. It is possible that some students prefer one type of reflection over another. What is clear is that 100% of the faculty, staff, and students interviewed spoke of reflection as an integral component of leadership development within a SAGPP. Conclusion Leadership development is occurring in SAGPPs. Even where the teaching is more implicit than explicit, the learning and development is happening. Faculty and staff, while acknowledging that their students are given the opportunity to practice leadership, feel that their program could be more intentional in the way they link their students’ LS experiences with their academic coursework. The data above demonstrates where programs are successfully providing opportunities for leadership development as well as areas that need improvement. The final chapter of this dissertation will provide suggestions for how SAGPPs can be structured in ways that maximize the leadership development of the students.

145

Chapter V Results

Strong leadership skills are required for effective student affairs professionals (Burkard et al., 2004; Herdlein, 2004; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk et al., 2007; Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Pope & Reynolds, 1997; Roberts, 2005; Waple, 2006). Colleges and universities are becoming increasingly complex and as a result, even entry-level administrators are expected to demonstrate leadership competency (Kuk et al., 2007; Phelps, 1998). Most student affairs positions require a master’s degree in college student affairs (or a related degree) and these graduate programs typically require an internship (Kretovics, 2002; Komives, 1998). It seems evident that leadership should be an important topic to teach aspiring student affairs professionals. This study was designed to explore how student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. Leadership can be addressed in the classroom and at the internship site, but there are also several ways to link these two locations of learning in a way that enhances the leadership development of SAGPP students. This case study was conducted at two SAGPPs. These two sites were selected using expert recommendations. Data was collected during 23 interviews with faculty and internship supervisors, and 4 student focus groups. During these meetings, I focused on where and how students were exposed to leadership theory and provided

146

with opportunities to apply that knowledge in a real-life setting. Observations and documents were also used to corroborate what I learned from the interviews. The data was organized using four categories: intentionality and leadership as an explicit goal, role of faculty and classroom environment, role of supervisor and internship environment, and the interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of leadership. These categories were constructed around the original research question which sought to explore how leadership is taught in SAGPPs. Each of these themes was explored in detail in chapter IV. In this final chapter, I will answer each of my research questions, present the significant findings that emerged from the data, and show how these findings are connected to the literature reviewed in chapter II. The findings go beyond the original research question and begin to elucidate how leadership is learned in the SAGPP setting. Implications for practice, connected to the major findings, as well as suggestions for future research, will be provided. These implications for practice are heavily based on the knowledge gained related to the original research questions, but also on the emergent themes related to how students are learning leadership in the SAGPP context. Research Questions Addressed The main research question for this study is: How do student affairs graduate preparatory programs (SAGPPs) teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership? The two case sites show different approaches to leadership development. One site, ECSU, explicitly states leadership development as a learning outcome while the other program, MU, feels that it is more of an unstated, 147

but important, goal achieved as a result of completing the SAGPP requirements. Additionally, the roles of faculty and supervisors emerged as equally central factors. Of particular importance, is their identity as leadership educators. Another interesting finding is how students use significant relationships and extracurricular activities to supplement what they are learning in the classroom and at the internship site. Finally, the verbal processing of knowledge and experiences and the use of reflection were shown to be critical to the leadership development process of SAGPP students. In this final chapter, I will expound upon these findings, but first I will answer each of the four sub-questions. Research question #1: Where and how in the curriculum are students taught leadership theory and skills/competencies? The literature in chapter II supports the idea that knowledge acquisition is an important component of leadership development (Raelin, 1997; Thorpe, 1998). For the most part, theoretical knowledge is being learned in the classroom. However, theoretical knowledge is occasionally discussed during professional development opportunities in the SPOs. The students enter the SAGPPs with varying levels of leadership knowledge and skills, but on both campuses they express a desire to learn more leadership theory. These theories give them a framework to use as they evaluate the leadership of others and try to develop their own leadership identity. Theoretical knowledge helps students make sense of what they are learning and observing.

148

Skills and competencies are being talked about in the classroom (to a lesser degree than theories), but are primarily discussed in the SPOs. These conversations generally occur during one-on-one meetings with supervisors, particularly in the context of performance evaluations. The content of the performance evaluations will be discussed in greater detail in the section on assessment, but these conversations do prove to be useful in helping students identify what leadership skills and competencies are required for their positions. They are then able to use that knowledge as they practice leadership. Research question #2: Where and how do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge in ways that enhance theory-to-practice learning? In addition to knowledge acquisition, skill-building is an important component of the models provided in chapter II (Conger, 1992; Kolb, 1984; Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). Some skill-building is occurring in the classroom in the form of group projects and case studies, but most skill-building is occurring in the SPOs. According to faculty, supervisors, and students, the SPOs are the main location of learning when it comes to skill-building. This supports the findings by Kuk et al., (2007) that faculty “see the practicum and assistantship experiences as the primary venue for the development of competencies that are not knowledge-based” (p. 680). At MU, leadership is an elective course and at ECSU the required leadership course is taken in the final semester. Midwestern University also spends the third section of the SPO-linked course focusing on leadership, but very few (if any) leadership theories are covered in this course. So, even if leadership is seen as a 149

knowledge-based competency, the students at MU may not be provided the knowledge and the students at ECSU are not formally offered the knowledge until the last semester of their program. This offers challenges for students who want to apply the theoretical knowledge while still enrolled in the SAGPP. Research question #3: Where and how is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed? Assessment of students’ leadership development is a weakness of both programs. MU uses the ACPA competencies, but students do not necessarily have to assess themselves on “leadership.” The ACPA competencies combine leadership with administration and management. The students could assess themselves on the “Administrative/Management” part of the section and never assess themselves on leadership. ECSU has a competency tool and leadership is one of the areas. This tool is only used as a self-assessment and asks students to rate themselves on several “leadership capacities.” The same tool is used four times over the course of the twoyear program so that it allows students to see areas of growth. Self-assessment is a useful tool, but Argyris and Schon (1974) argued that feedback is an obligatory component of the educational process. If self-assessment is not supplemented with feedback from faculty and/or supervisors, SAGPPs are not meeting this obligation to the students. Students do receive feedback from supervisors, but this feedback generally focuses on what was done rather than on how it was done. The feedback received from faculty is not based on leadership behaviors directly observed by the faculty 150

member; rather it is commentary on the students’ self-reported leadership experiences. Feedback is not offered on leadership behaviors observed during group projects and class work. These situations contain missed opportunities to provide students with feedback on their leadership skills that would foster further leadership development. There was also no mention of the use of any type of 360-degree feedback, including peer feedback. Peer feedback is highly predictive of leadership effectiveness (Goleman et al., 2002) and is supported by several leadership development models (Allen & Hartman, 2008; Conger, 1992; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). Students reported that they value the opinions of their peers and appreciate the opportunities to discuss leadership issues with their cohort members, but there are not any formal processes in place, on either campus, for peer feedback. Research question #4: How have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development? Leadership is viewed as an important learning outcome of both SAGPPs. Leadership is an explicitly stated learning outcome at ECSU. At MU, it is seen as an implicit outcome, comparable to critical thinking, which is achieved as a result of participating in the entire two-year experience. The ECSU SAGPP appears to have been intentionally designed to teach leadership knowledge and provide opportunities for students to practice leadership. The program at MU offers different types of opportunities to learn about leadership theory, but provides similar hands-on 151

leadership experiences. The program at MU also provides a very effective venue for students to discuss leadership-related issues. Each program has a one-semester course that focuses on leadership, offers at least one leadership elective program, and has at least one course connected to a supervised practice opportunity. As discussed in chapter IV, there are significant differences in the required courses and in the SPO-linked courses. Both programs require supervised practice opportunities where students can practice leadership, but the time spent discussing leadership in the SPO settings (on both campuses) is actually very minimal. Intentionality looks different on the two campuses. Midwestern University creates an environment where students have regular opportunities, spanning all four semesters, to discuss issues connected to leadership development, but leadership is only the primary topic for the third semester. Leadership development did not present itself as an explicit goal of the program, but it is a significant topic in the SPO-linked and capstone courses which span the students’ two-year experience. East Coast State University requires a formal course on leadership that offers the chance to talk about theory-to-practice learning. This is the final capstone course taken during the students’ last semester. However, leadership is embedded into numerous course offerings at ECSU. This appears to be directly connected to the faculty’s vision of themselves as leadership educators. So, while the programs may not appear to have been intentionally designed to foster leadership development, it is deftly woven throughout the students’ experiences on both campuses. 152

Major Findings This section discusses the seven major findings of this study. These global findings will be connected to the literature and framework from chapter II. These findings provide insight into how and where leadership development is occurring within the SAGPP context. These findings provide the foundation for the implications for practice discussed later in this chapter. These findings are organized into two different categories: leadership development maximizers and obstacles to leadership development. Regardless of intentionality or program design, leadership development is occurring in students enrolled in the two SAGPPs. Even where the teaching is more implicit than explicit, the learning and development is happening. This can be explained by at least two factors. First, all faculty, supervisors, and students feel that leadership development is an important learning objective. This may create an environment where leadership is embedded in the SAGPPs even where it is not overtly discussed. Additionally, leadership is a skill that is used at all levels of student affairs administration. This is true even for many of the internships held by graduate students. So, the students are practicing leadership for two years. Kolb’s (1984) model supports that leaders learn by leading. Even if no one offers formal feedback on their leadership skills, they still receive informal (and often immediate) feedback on their performance simply through their participation in the leadership process. However, students on both campuses expressed a desire to spend more time talking about leadership in their SPOs, in the classroom, and with faculty. 153

Ways to Maximize Leadership Development. Faculty and Supervisors as “leadership educators.” A study done by Judy Rogers (1992) showed that faculty felt that leadership was an objective of SAGPPs but not a primary one. In my study, 100% of the faculty feel that leadership development is a critical learning outcome for their students in order for them to be successful in the workplace. However, as discussed in chapter IV, not all faculty members see themselves as leadership educators. In contrast, all supervisors understand they are leadership educators. The data demonstrates that students are best served when their faculty and supervisors embrace the role of leadership educator. When faculty and supervisors adopt leadership educator as part of their identity, they are more likely to find ways to connect leadership development to conversations already occurring in the classroom and SPO. As seen in chapter IV, the faculty at ECSU who see themselves as leadership educators are discussing leadership in classes on assessment, diversity, and service learning. This identity is important because it increases the likelihood that students are provided with a regularly occurring space to talk about leadership. It also makes it more likely for the faculty member to provide feedback on students’ leadership skills and for faculty to view their students’ experiences through a lens that is acutely aware of leadership as an important learning outcome for SAGPP students.

154

Importance of significant relationships. The theory of self-directed learning by Boyatzis says that leadership development can only occur in the presence of “trusting relationships” (Goleman, et al., 2002). The data from this study shows that leadership development requires that a student has at least one positive and committed relationship with a supervisor or faculty member. However, some students are dissatisfied with their supervisor, faculty members, and/or advisor. Generally, this unhappiness is related to the quality of the relationship. Some students criticize the time a supervisor or advisor is able to spend with them. Other students are frustrated with a lack of feedback they receive on class assignments. The students who are most satisfied with their experiences report a strong relationship with their supervisor or with their advisor. It is important to point out that at MU, the student’s advisor is also the person who teaches their section of the SPO-linked course. At ECSU, advisors can be full-time faculty or adjunct faculty. Some of the ECSU students are advised by a faculty member with whom they never interact within the classroom setting. This greatly impacts the frequency of interactions and strength of the relationship. As noted by Day (2001), feedback can be ineffective if there is not a consistent and trusting relationship between the giver and receiver of the feedback. The student-advisor relationship at MU has an understandably stronger connection to leadership development. However, since leadership is such a pervasive focus on the ECSU campus, most of the faculty and supervisors are well versed in leadership development and thus are highly likely to 155

talk about leadership with their students. The quality of these relationships greatly impacts students’ learning. Students who have successful relationships with their supervisor or advisor report significantly more conversations related to the process of leadership. Role of verbal processing. One of the reasons why significant relationships are so critical is that students have a great need to verbally process the knowledge and experiences they gain in their SAGPP. This processing can occur in class or during one-on-one meetings and is critical to the leadership development process. All students who were interviewed talked about the importance of having time to talk about their leadership successes and challenges. Where the processing occurred was not necessarily important, what mattered was that the students had someone with whom they could discuss these issues. The students reported considerable growth stemming from opportunities to talk about leadership experiences or problems. This is an interesting finding because Kolb’s (1984) model is an internal process. The model by Boyatzis is “self-directed” but it does acknowledge that trusting relationships with others is necessary for leadership development to occur (Goleman et al., 2002). Boyatzis says that leaders must identify a gap between their “ideal self” and their current performance (Goleman et al., 2002). As part of the process of becoming that “ideal self,” leaders must create a “learning agenda” (Goleman et al., 2002). When students talk about their leadership struggles, they are identifying the gap between their current and ideal selves. 156

The model by the Center for Creative Leadership is also connected to this idea of verbal processing (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). Developmental relationships play an important role when it comes to the opportunity for verbal processing. The classroom environment offers elements of assessment, challenge, and support discussed in the Center for Creative Leadership’s leader development model (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). When the classroom setting is used to discuss a leadership problem, students have the opportunity to receive feedback on their leadership performance in an environment that provides a good mixture of challenge and support. It is a safe and supportive environment because of the strong relationships that develop in the group and peers are able to challenge each other to see things from different perspectives. Chapter IV demonstrated that peers can provide challenging feedback which is generally accepted as not-threatening. Working through the problems in class helps the students create a learning agenda (Goleman et al., 2002) for how they can grow as leaders. Finally, another reason that verbally talking about leadership is so important to the developmental process may have to do with the relational nature of leadership. Talking about leadership could provide a student with new knowledge and/or relevant feedback. Additionally, it paves the way for reflection. Reflection, as discussed below, is vital to the leadership development process. Reflection as a tool for meaning making. Another critical component of the leadership development process is reflection. This finding is supported by the models presented in chapter II (Conger, 157

1992; Goleman et al., 2002; Kolb, 1984). The model by Boyatzis (Goleman et al., 2002) requires a leader to identify gaps between his or her current performance as a leader and his or her “ideal” self. Reflection can be an important tool for making that discovery. Reflection was mentioned in every interview I conducted. It is built into class assignments and encouraged as a general, professional practice. Students overwhelmingly report the importance of reflection on their ability to develop as leaders and often comment on using reflection as a way to view not only who they are as a leader, but also who they would like to become as a leader. Faculty and supervisors also recognize the value in reflection. However, while reflection is built into class assignments and into the self-evaluation process, feedback on these assignments and evaluations is inconsistent. The most growth results from reflective assignments and evaluations that are supplemented with comprehensive feedback from the faculty or supervisor. Students also value the reflection that is required for classes or self-evaluations because they may not otherwise make the time for this practice. While the students place a high value on reflection, they report that it is easy to skip reflection when faced with a long list of things to do for their classes or internships. Student abilities to fill in the gaps of their own learning Students are resourceful and find ways to ensure their leadership development needs are met. Most students have a successful relationship with their assigned faculty or supervisor, but those who do not, or feel they need additional support and guidance, seek out role models or mentors to fill the void. Students 158

spoke of connecting with an administrator from their undergraduate institution, often the person who encouraged them to consider student affairs as a career. Students also seek out mentor-like relationships with faculty (other than their assigned advisor), another administrator in their SPO site, and/or administrators from their practicum sites. This finding connects well with the CCL’s idea of “developmental relationships” (McCauley & Douglas, 2004). A single mentor or supervisor is not enough and students seek out the network they need to foster their own leadership development. Similarly, students who feel their SPO does not offer enough opportunities to practice their leadership skills find extracurricular activities to provide them with these types of opportunities. Some of these experiences, such as participating in leadership research or teaching leadership classes to undergraduate students, help fill a knowledge acquisition gap. Other experiences, including participating in SAGPP committees or taking on a leadership role in a student organization, allow students to practice leadership in a meaningful setting. These experiences are particularly beneficial because they assist students with the development of their own leadership identity. Students enrolled in SAGPPs are intensely interested in learning to be effective leaders, so much so that they are willing to find ways to ensure they are getting their leadership development needs met. This does not mean that SAGPPs should not strive to provide a cohesive leadership development plan for students;

159

rather, it serves as reinforcement for the importance of this topic because it shows just how committed these students really are to leadership development. Obstacles to Leadership Development. Competing priorities. While most faculty members and supervisors recognize leadership development as a high priority for their students, the day-to-day realities of life in the classroom and/or in the SPO are a hindrance. Faculty members may have a lesson planned around leadership but a more pressing topic of discussion is often raised by a student, which alters then the content of that day’s class. Supervisors feel a need to focus on whether or not the work is being done and as a result, how the work is done is a secondary focus. As reported by Komives in 1998, students have a “need for more developmental supervision and more integration of their formal classroom learning with their job expectations” (p. 185). The students at MU and ECSU express similar sentiments. Even with the best of intentions, it is possible that a student misses countless opportunities each semester for a faculty member or supervisor to discuss leadership. Students are learning a great deal of practical work skills, as well as practicing leadership, in their internships. The majority of SPOs have not been specifically designed to promote leadership development. That does not mean that leadership development is not being fostered in the SPOs; it is. What the data shows is that there is a high level of variability in the degree to which leadership development is an intentional outcome of a student’s participation in the SPO. This 160

is impacted by the type of experiences the student is offered, how strongly the supervisor identifies as a leadership educator, and the opportunities the student has to verbally process his or her experiences. The students are also spending a significant amount of time in the classroom. However, all too often, the time is not available, or made available, to discuss how this knowledge and experience are connected to each other in relation to leadership development. This finding is consistent with the idea that students frequently “manage their own fieldwork experiences with little or no involvement from busy faculty” (Komives, 1998, p. 183). Despite these obstacles, students find ways to take charge of their own leadership development. Lack of faculty-staff connections. A second obstacle to leadership development is a lack of connection between SAGPP faculty and SPO supervisors. Supervisors who feel more connected to the faculty and the SAGPP have a stronger identity as leadership educators. Faculty who have strong relationships with the supervisors have a deeper understanding of each students personal leadership skill level. The students are very aware of which of their faculty are connected to their supervisors and vice versa. They report feeling a distinct disconnect in theory-to-practice learning when their SPO supervisors are not connected to the SAGPP or the SAGPP faculty. Faculty who did not have relationships with the SPO supervisors were less clear about the goals and learning outcomes of the SPOs. They spoke of “benign neglect” and “faith” that the students were learning about leadership in the SPOs. 161

However, students benefit when faculty reach out to supervisors or have existing relationships with SPO supervisors. When faculty and staff have a strong connection, students report greater levels of satisfaction with the leadership development opportunities provided in the SAGPP. Supervisors with a strong connection to the SAGPP and/or SAGPP faculty have a strong understanding that the SPO is an opportunity for global learning, not just functional area skill building. Viewing the SPO through an employment lens. Related to the finding above, supervisors who do not feel a strong connection to the SAGPP and/or the SAGPP faculty tend to have a much narrower view of the purpose of the SPO. It is interesting that leadership is not often mentioned as a specific learning outcome of the SPOs. Numerous supervisors commented that they treated the graduate students as “professionals” and this was corroborated by the students. However, while treating the student as a professional often meant he or she had challenging and meaningful work, it also meant that he or she was expected to perform at the “professional” level rather than as someone who is learning a new craft. An employment focus in the SPO setting can make the student feel less comfortable discussing work-related challenges. The majority of SPO supervisors used a type of evaluation that seemed to focus more on the degree to which the job was done well rather than the amount of learning that took place during the time spent in the SPO setting. Some students seemed hesitant to completely open up to

162

supervisors who held an employment view. This impacted their ability to develop strong relationships with their supervisors. Additionally, when the SPO is viewed through an employment lens, the hours students work can easily balloon from the 20-hour-per-week expectation. This negatively impacts the students’ ability to seek out alternate experiences as they attempt to fill in the gaps of their leadership development education. These expanding work hours can also overshadow the fact that the “employees” are students first and foremost. The academic aspects of the SAGPP can get lost in the long hours of the SPO. Supervisors with a stronger connection to the faculty, and thus a stronger identity as leadership educators, are also more likely to view the internship as experiential learning rather than simply an employment opportunity. These supervisors see the internship as a venue for learning broad skills rather than just acquiring functional area knowledge. Without a doubt, leadership development occurs even when supervisors view the SPO using only an employment lens. However, the data is very clear that students’ leadership development is greatly enhanced when supervisors view the SPO as an experiential learning opportunity. The findings discussed above provide important contributions to the body of literature on leadership as well as supply needed information that is specific to SAGPP programs and students. More importantly, the findings point to several ways that SAGPPs can be structured so as to strengthen the leadership development of

163

enrolled students. These implications for practice are discussed in the following section. Implications for SAGPPS The eight maximizers and obstacles above led to the creation of the following five implications for practice. A study by Kuk et al., (2007) recommended that more discussion needs to occur around “how theory to practice experiences can be more effectively integrated and assessed” and “how administrators and faculty can work together to enhance the curriculum and supervised practice experiences in order to enhance student learning” (p. 685). The data from this study provides suggestions on how to implement some basic techniques that will connect classroom-based learning with internship experiences in ways that enhance theory-to-practice learning and leadership development. Many of these recommendations can be implemented by taking advantage of the numerous missed opportunities that currently occur within SAGPPs. Leadership educator identity. Students who have faculty and supervisors with a strong identity as leadership educators are the most satisfied with how their SAGPP supports their own leadership development. Since all of the faculty and supervisors I interviewed believe that leadership is an important learning outcome and a necessary skill for effectiveness as a professional, they would hopefully be open to discussing ways in which they can enhance the leadership development of their students.

164

Faculty and supervisors should be reminded of their role as leadership educators and that leadership can be, and needs to be, discussed in numerous contexts. Several of the faculty I spoke with, on both campuses, commented on how the interview with me allowed them to reflect upon their role in the leadership development of their students. More than one said that they enjoyed taking the time to think about the topic and that it would be beneficial for them to do so more often. SAGPPs could create a regularly occurring opportunity for faculty and supervisors to come together and discuss leadership. ECSU used to host this type of event each year and the supervisors who had attended in the past express how much they now miss it. This would have been a prime venue for discussing leadership educator identities. Most faculty at MU have one-on-one meetings with the SPO supervisors, but there would be great benefits from bringing everyone together at the same time. When faculty and supervisors are explicitly aware of their roles as leadership educators, it impacts several of the other implications below. For example, faculty and supervisors with a strong leadership educator identity spend more time in class and in the SPO sites addressing topics related to leadership development, the supervisors feel more connected to the SAGPP and the students’ educational experiences, and the amount of feedback and time for reflection on leadership development is increased. This identity as a leadership educator is critical if SAGPPs want to maximize the students’ opportunities for leadership development.

165

Time spent talking about leadership. Everyone I spoke to believes leadership is essential to be successful in student affairs. The literature supports this belief, and also shows that new professionals are entering the field without sufficient leadership knowledge and skills. Students at both sites reported that they would like more exposure to leadership theory and more time in their SAGPP devoted to leadership development. Students need to have a regular time and place to talk about their leadership experiences. One of the greatest ways to do this is to strengthen the sense of identity as a leadership educator in the faculty and supervisors. This will automatically increase the frequency and quality of conversations with students related to leadership development. Leadership can also be omnipresent in the classroom. Both programs studied require a leadership course and also offer at least one leadership elective. However, programs can find ways to incorporate leadership development across the curriculum. Leadership is an overarching goal for students in SAGPPs and because leadership is about how things are done, as opposed to what gets done, it can provide a framework for discussing a wide variety of topics such as assessment, legal issues, college environments, crisis response, identity development, and college impact. Embedding leadership into already existing topics means that it is not necessary to taking something away from the existing curriculum to make room for leadership; rather, it is a classic conflict resolution example of simply “expanding the pie.”

166

Talking about leadership experiences can help a student with all components of the leadership development model. After presenting a problem in class, faculty or peers might share new theoretical knowledge with the student. Alternately, the faculty member could assign the dilemma as an in-class case study which would provide an opportunity for skill building. Feedback, from faculty or peers, is a very real possibility resulting from a shared problem. Of course, all of these activities also lead to reflection which is vital to the leadership development process. If supervisors or faculty are looking for suggestions as to how to design the SPO class or create a more structured supervision experience, the model by Boyatzis (figure 3) seems like a great place to start. As students move from identifying the ideal self and then the real self, creating a learning agenda, and experimenting with new behaviors, thoughts, and feelings, awareness of this model will create a more intentional environment for leadership development. It will also ensure that supervisors regularly revisit the idea that the SPO should be more than a part-time job; it is a significant part of the students’ learning experience. Supervisors must understand that leadership development is an explicit and expected learning outcome for SPO students. Most supervisors feel it is an implied expectation (by the SAGPP) or personally place a high value on leadership development. These supervisors were better at fostering the leadership development of their students than were the supervisors who seemed solely focused on the practical responsibilities of the work to be done. Supervisors should be selected because they are committed to and able to contribute to the leadership development 167

of their students and because they have a clear identity as a leadership educator. Supervisors must have regular ongoing conversations about the students’ leadership development. The CCL model of developmental experiences (figure 4) can be used to structure the students’ experiences as well as the one-on-one conversations between the student and supervisor. This will ensure that the students are receiving the appropriate level of assessment, challenge, and support needed to foster leadership development. It will take more of the supervisors’ time to talk about how students are performing as leaders, but time spent working on these skills early in the students’ tenure will pay off later in enhanced leadership abilities. Keeping the educational component of the students’ experiences in the forefront of the supervisors’ minds will also help foster a stronger connection between the supervisors and the SAGPP. Supervisors’ connection to the faculty and the SAGPP. Very few supervisors report feeling a strong connection to the SAGPP. The exceptions are former students of the SAGPP and supervisors who are also adjunct faculty. However, most supervisors report a desire to be more connected to the program. They feel that a stronger relationship would help them work with students on theory-to-practice connections related to leadership development. Students feel a rift (in their theory-to-practice learning) when this relationship is not present. Almost all of the faculty advisors at MU set up formal meetings with each student’s supervisor. Faculty, supervisors, and students alike report the positive benefits of these meetings. This is an excellent model for SAGPPs and is a low-cost 168

way to significantly enhance the students’ experiences. Supervisors will gain both a better understanding of the academic expectations of the program and better relationships with the SAGPP faculty. Faculty and supervisors will feel more comfortable collaborating to address problems with the student. Faculty will have a better sense of the students’ work expectations and of the context in which that work is being done. Students at MU and ECSU enjoy the merging of their in-class and outof-class worlds and it is promising that this would be a likely outcome on other campuses willing to implement these types of meetings. East Coast State University used to have a formal annual meeting for the SPO supervisors but has recently stopped hosting these events. Supervisors who had participated in those events spoke positively of the benefits of getting to know the faculty and learning about the program’s expectations for supervisors. Several expressed a desire to revive this tradition. Ending these meetings did not seem to be an intentional decision; rather it appeared to be something that got lost under the burden of competing priorities. An annual meeting could be used in lieu of or in addition to the personal meetings between faculty and supervisors. An ideal model would include both. Students benefit when the supervisors are connected to the faculty and the program. SAGPPs should be designed so that they provide opportunities to develop and sustain these relationships. Developing these relationships can also be useful in terms of evaluating supervisors’ abilities to serve as leadership educators. Meetings like those at MU would allow faculty to determine if the student is satisfied with the 169

level of mentorship he or she is receiving from the supervisor and then to make recommendations concerning the supervisor’s ability to serve in that role for the following year. The importance of at least one trusting relationship is discussed in the following section. Significant relationships. Having a strong relationship with at least one faculty, supervisor, or mentor is vital to the leadership development process. Conger (1992) calls this person a “coach.” This relationship is important because it provides the student with much needed feedback as well as a “safe” place to talk about mistakes or lessons learned the hard way. However, McCauley and Douglas’ (2004) work on developmental relationships reminds us that even if a student has a mentor or coach, it is unlikely that all of the student’s developmental needs can be met by one person. A developmental network is also critical to assisting students with navigating the leadership development process. My research demonstrates that students must have at least one significant relationship. However, the students who were most satisfied with their leadership development education were those who had multiple significant relationships. The two sites I visited both use a cohort model so that students have an easily identifiable peer group. MU admits a larger number of students each year, but breaks the larger cohort up into small groups for the SPOlinked cohort. Ultimately, students in both programs spend a significant amount of time in groups of about 12-15. This seems to be an effective group size for SAGPPs.

170

There should be a formal mechanism in place to 1) identify if the student has found a coach and if not, 2) assist the student with finding someone. This type of assessment should occur more than once during the student’s program because relationships are dynamic and the student’s needs change. Students should understand the importance of connecting with someone as a coach or mentor. They should also understand that this type of relationship takes some time to build. The policy at MU states that if a student does not feel a strong connection with their assigned advisor, or if they develop a bond with another faculty member, they are free to change advisors. This seems like a good policy and more than one student I spoke with had taken advantage of that provision. However, neither program has a method in place to assist students with finding a mentor or other person to serve as a guide during the student’s tenure in the SAGPP. If the students choose to seek out a new mentor, they must find that person on their own. If at the end of each semester (or at any time during the program), students report that they do not feel as if they have a coach or mentor, their advisor should develop a plan to help them find someone to fill this role. Faculty within a SAGPP are generally well-connected to each other, but faculty who are also well-connected with student affairs administrators will be most successful in helping students find a mentor. To assist with this process, a mentoring network could be created with a list of faculty and student affairs professionals who are willing to serve as leadership coaches.

171

Feedback and reflection. Faculty members are already designing class assignments in ways that provide students opportunities to practice leadership. However, students are not receiving feedback on their participation in the leadership process, which translates into lost opportunities for additional reflection. Both of these components are essential to the leadership development process. Students should be assessed on how group projects are completed (in addition to what was produced). This is a perfect place to supplement the faculty member’s feedback with feedback from peers. Goleman et al. found that peer feedback has the “most predictive validity of a leader’s actual effectiveness” (2002, p. 136). This feedback will greatly increase the learning gained from each project. The programs on both campuses have a formal committee system that includes students in roles such as planning events, orientation of new students, and recruitment of potential students. Similar to the group projects in class, students do not receive feedback on their contributions to the leadership process as members of these committees. However, these committees are a valuable opportunity for faculty to witness leadership in action and provide concrete feedback to the students. In addition, peer feedback could also be collected about students’ performance on these committees. Supervisors should be expected to serve as leadership role models and make leadership a part of the formal evaluation process. Leadership should also be an ongoing topic of discussion in the workplace. Once the supervisors have discussed 172

how to be effective leadership educators and been given clear expectations from the SAGPP, a method should be implemented to ensure that this training is occurring. Creation of an evaluation tool by the SAGPP, for use in the internship settings, that specifically covers leadership knowledge, skills, and competencies would be very useful. These evaluations should be reviewed with the student by the supervisor and then again with a faculty member. These evaluation meetings should occur at least once a semester. Including leadership on these tools ensures that conversations will occur regarding the student’s development as a leader. Reflection is a common technique used in both programs. It is used in the form of evaluations, self-assessments, journaling, and through conversations. Students, for the most part, find written reflections useful. However, students did express different preferences for how they like to receive feedback on their reflections. Some preferred written comments and others preferred to discuss the reflections verbally. Students were unanimously disappointed when they did not receive any feedback on their reflections. Reflection on leadership should be built into the self-evaluations the students complete each semester. In addition to simply asking students to reflect on their experiences, the use of “mental rehearsal,” as a method to improve skill-based teaching (Goleman et al., 2002), could be incorporated into reflective assignments. These assignments would ask a student to reflect on a past experience and “mentally rehearse” a different way to address a similar problem in the future. In order to learn from experience and observations, reflection must occur (Kolb, 1984). These self173

assessments should be reviewed with the student by a faculty member and a supervisor at least once a semester. These conversations should be cumulative and should discuss where and how the student has grown, as a leader, over time. The major findings from the data in chapter IV led directly to the implications proposed above. These implications would greatly enhance the leadership development of students enrolled in SAGPPs. By putting some or all of these ideas into practice, a significant impact could be made in the degree to which new professionals enter the field of student affairs ready to face the leadership challenges which await them. Contributions to the Literature This study was conducted to help fill a void in the literature. Very little is known about how students enrolled in SAGPPs learn to be leaders. Judy Rogers conducted a study in the late-1980s that explored a similar topic. She found that leadership was an objective of SAGPPs, but not always a primary one. My study demonstrates that leadership is seen as a very important learning outcome for SAGPP students. While today’s faculty still believe that the majority of leadership development comes from participating in the SPO, they understand that faculty play an important role in fostering leadership development. The study by Rogers (1991, 1992) explored the perceptions of faculty and students, but did not include SPO supervisors. However, in her study students cited supervisors as the person most influential in their leadership development (Rogers, 1992). My study did include supervisors and it is clear that supervisors do play a vital role in the leadership 174

development of SAGPP students. What remains true today, as compared to Roger’s data from twenty years ago, is that the link between SPOs and coursework is still, for the most part, “indirect, informal, and implicit” (Rogers, 1992, p. 178). This study did produce findings that are new and have not yet been written about in the literature. Two of the most significant and original findings are the value of verbal processing and the importance of faculty and staff identifying as leadership educators. Verbal processing appears to be a new concept in leadership development. What was clear from my research is that students have a strong need to talk about their leadership experiences. The students attribute a great deal of their leadership growth to the conversations they have with faculty, supervisors, and peers. Programs invested in leadership development should make sure students are provided with plenty of opportunities for verbal processing. Verbal processing is also intimately connected to the idea of faculty and supervisors having a strong leadership educator identity. A strong identity as a leadership educator leads to more conversations about leadership. We now know that the model of knowledge acquisition, skill-building, feedback, and reflection does foster leadership development in the SAGPP context. We also know that this process is greatly enhanced when faculty and supervisors have a strong sense of their role as leadership educators. Additionally, we know that the model works best when students spend a significant amount of time verbally processing their learning experiences. Written feedback and reflection are useful, but they must be supplemented with ample opportunities for students to talk with faculty, 175

supervisors, peers, mentors, and advisors. The developmental network (McCauley & Douglas, 2004) is an effective mechanism for fostering these conversations. Of course, these finding also uncover many, as of yet, unanswered questions and lead to new avenues for research. Suggestions for Future Research This study took place on two campuses. They were selected based on expert recommendations, but it would be impossible for two campuses to reflect the diversity of SAGPPs that exist within the United States of America. A larger sample that covers a greater diversity of SAGPPs would be beneficial in future research. Additionally, I was only able to meet with roughly 10% of the student population at each campus. While these students’ comments were generally consistent with those of their peers within and between sites, a broader sample would allow for more generalizable results. Students enrolling in SAGPPs enter with existing leadership knowledge and skills. The data indicated that students in the SAGPPs believe they are developing as leaders as a result of being in the SAGPP, but the degree to which this is occurring was unclear. A longer study that assessed students at the beginning and end of the two-year program would provide richer data. It would also be beneficial to observe more classes connected to leadership and potentially observe one-on-one meetings between students and their supervisors, advisors, and mentors. Due to the timing of my site visit, I was unable to observe several of the courses connected to leadership. Because I was only on each campus for three days, I did not have time to observe 176

any one-on-one meetings between students and faculty or supervisors, If these observations could occur over a longer period of time, the researchers would gain a much better understanding of how theory-to-practice connections are being made in the classroom, in the SPOs and with advisors/mentors. How faculty and supervisors view themselves as leadership educators has a significant impact on students’ leadership development. It was unclear from my research how the faculty and supervisors developed this identity. Qualitative research could be done to explore how and where this identity is developed. Interviews with SAGPP faculty and supervisors would provide thick, rich data that could be used to identify methods or techniques to strengthen this type of identity. This would be useful information for those who lead SAGPPs because it would provide them with techniques to foster a leadership educator identity among those who teach and supervise SAGPP students. It was clear that the SPOS and the SPO-linked courses provided a necessary place for students to learn and talk about leadership experiences. What is not yet known is how SPOs can be structured in ways that intentionally promote leadership development. The students’ need to learn is often in conflict with the supervisors’ need for work to be done (and to be done well). Using expert recommendations, a multi-site case study could be conducted to explore SAGPPs that have found a way to balance these competing priorities. The study should seek to discover if the way the SPO positions are funded have any impact on how much time can be devoted to a student’s leadership education. Researchers should also explore what makes SPO177

linked courses most impactful and attempt to determine the most effective ways to link these classes to the SPO experiences. A study of this type would be useful to SAGPP faculty and supervisors who could utilize the information to design their SPOs and SPO-linked courses in ways that intentionally foster leadership development. The value of significant relationships was an important finding. It is evident that students need a safe and yet also challenging mentor or coach to guide them through the leadership development process. The idea of leadership being enhanced by significant relationships is not new (Boyatzis, 1999; McCauley & Douglas, 2004), but we do not yet know what qualities make a good leadership development mentor for SAGPP students. The two programs I studied had very different methods for assigning and advising students. Because mentoring and advising was not one of my main research questions, I did not fully explore these differences. However, preliminary findings indicate that the best advising relationships are those that involve not only regular on-going meetings, but also frequent, informal interactions. Research could be conducted to examine which roles from the CCL model (McCauley & Douglas, 2004) are necessary or most impactful to SAGPP students. It would be helpful to explore differences between faculty mentors and administrator mentors, as well as differences between assigned mentors and those who are sought out by students. Additional research could investigate if there is any significant advantage to having a mentor who is able to offer feedback on leadership that was

178

directly observed. This information would be useful to SAGPPs and potentially offer suggestions for how to maximize the student-advisor relationship. Another really interesting finding is the importance of verbal processing. The leadership development models from chapter II pointed to a model that used knowledge acquisition, skill-building, feedback, and reflection. This study supports those four mechanisms, but implies that verbal processing may be a fifth component. This verbal processing is not something that is explicitly addressed anywhere in the leadership development literature. It may be a unique need of SAGPP students. Further study should be done into why this mechanism is so important and what methods make it most effective. Because this type of processing may not be occurring in all SAGPPs, or may be occurring to vastly different degrees, it could be useful to compare programs that do not provide this type of dialogue with those that offer a significant amount of opportunities for verbal processing. Of great use to those who work in SAGPPs would be the knowledge of how best to structure these conversations and how to successfully build them into an existing program. Research could also be conducted outside of SAGPPs to discover if verbal processing is relevant in other educational environments or leadership development settings. Finally, neither program had a well-developed method for faculty and supervisors to collaborate in a way that enhanced theory-to-practice learning. Qualitative, comparative case studies could be conducted to explore how students benefit from enhanced collaboration between SAGPP faculty and supervisors and ways in which these two groups of leadership educators could work together to 179

maximize the leadership development of their students. The impact of using student affairs administrators as affiliate faculty and/or co-instructors should also be explored. This knowledge could be used to enrich existing relationships between SAGPP faculty and SPO supervisors in ways that would further cultivate students’ leadership development. Conclusion Leadership is more than a “hot topic” in student affairs administration; it is an essential skill for professionals at all levels. Student Affairs Graduate Preparatory Programs have a unique opportunity, as well as an obligation, to provide an education that enhances the leadership development of enrolled students. This study was designed to determine how and where students in SAGPPs learn the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. This learning is occurring in the classroom, the SPO sites, through participation in extracurricular activities, and through significant relationships. The mechanisms for how the learning occurs, for the most part, follow the models discussed in chapter II: knowledge acquisition, skill-building, feedback, and reflection. One additional mechanism, verbal processing, seemed to be highly impactful for SAGPP students as well. If a SAGPP wants to design a program that seeks to foster students’ leadership development, leadership should be an explicit learning outcome and an intentional plan for how leadership development can best be fostered should be created. Faculty and supervisors must understand the role they play as leadership educators and as leadership role models. And, perhaps most importantly, the 180

interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of leadership must be recognized and supported. This includes ensuring that students develop at least one significant mentor-like relationship and students are provided with the time and space to verbally process the leadership knowledge and experiences they gain during their time in the SAGPP. Through the intentional structuring of the program design and the curriculum, as well as making an explicit commitment to leadership development, students will have the opportunity to gain the knowledge and skills they will need to become effective leaders in higher education.

181

References

Adler, P. A. and Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Allen and Hartman (2008). Leadership development: An exploration of sources of learning. SAM Advance Management Journal, Winter, 10-19, 62. American Association for Higher Education (A.A.H.E.), American College Personnel Administration (A.C.P.A.), and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (N.A.S.P.A.) (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Washington, DC: Author. Amey, M. J. and Reesor, L. M. (2002). Beginning your journey: A guide for new professionals in student affairs. Washington DC: National Association for Student Personnel Administrators. Andresen, L., Boud, D., and Cohen, R. (1995). Experience-based learning: Contemporary issues. In G. Foley (Ed.) Understanding adult education and training, 2nd Ed. (pp. 225-239). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barr, M. J. and Desler, M. K and Associates (eds.) (2000) The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bass, B. M. and Stogdill, R. M. (1990) Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (3rd. Ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Blimling, G. S., and Whitt, E. J. (1999). Good practices in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bloland, P. (1979) Student personnel training for the chief student affairs officer: Essential or unnecessary? NASPA Journal, 17, 2, 57-62.

182

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2003). Leading with soul. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boyatzis, R. E. (1994). Stimulating self-directed learning through the management assessment and development course. Journal of Management Education, 18, 304-323. Boyatzis, R. E. (1999). Self-directed change and learning as a necessary metacompetency for success and effectiveness in the 21st century. In R. Sims and J. G. Veres (Eds.) Keys to employee success in the coming decades. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 3, 81-95. Burkard, A., Cole, D. C., Ott, M., and Stoflet, T. (2005). Entry-level competencies of new student affairs professionals: A delphi study. NASPA Journal, 42, 283309. Caple, R. B. and Voss, C. H. (1983). Communication between consumers and producers of student affairs research. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 38-42. Cilente, K., Henning, G., Skinner Jackson, J., Kennedy, D., and Sloan, T. (2006). Report on the new professional needs study. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from: http://www.myacpa.org/research/newprofessionals.php Clement, L. M. and Rickard, S. T. (1992). Effective leadership in student services. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collins, D. B. and Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982-2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 2, 217-248. Conger, J. A. (1992) Learning to Lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 183

Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS). (2006). CAS professional th standards for higher education (6 Ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. CSPTalk Listserv (2008) Electronic mailing list for faculty in student affairs preparation programs. Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 4, 581-613. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Toronto, Canada: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. Evans, N. J. and Phelps Tobin, C. T. (Eds.) (1998). The state of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs. Lanham, MD: University Press of America Inc. Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241-250. Fontana, A. and Frey, J. H. (1994) Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (p. 361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., and McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press. Herdlein, R. J. (2004). Survey of chief student affairs officers regarding relevance of graduate preparation of new professionals. NASPA Journal, 42, 51-71.

184

Hernez-Broome, G., Hughes, R. L., and Center for Creative Leadership (2004). Leadership development: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning, 27, 1, 24-32. Hollenbeck, G. and McCall, M. (1999) Leadership development: Contemporary practices. In A. Kraut and A. Korman (Eds.) Evolving practices in human resources management: Responses to changing world of work. (pp. 172-200). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jablonsky, R. (1998) The state of the art: A new professional’s perspective. In N. J. Evans and C. E. Phelps Tobin (Eds.) State of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs: Another look (pp. 203-212). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Jacoby, B. and Jones, S. R. (2001) Visioning the future of student affairs. In Winston, Creamer, Miller and Associates, (Eds.). The professional student affairs administrator: Educator, leader, and manager. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R. and Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the ‘L’ Word in Higher Education: The Revolution in Research and Leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 31, No. 6. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Klenke, K. (1993). Leadership education at the great divide: Crossing in to the 21st Century. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 1, 112-127. Kluger, A. N. and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 199, 254-284. Kolb, A. Y. and Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 2, 193-. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Komives, S. R. (1998). Linking student affairs preparation with practice. In N.J. Evans and C.E. Phelps Tobin (Eds.) State of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs: Another look (pp. 177-200). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

185

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., and McMahon, T. R. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J. E., Mainella, F. C., and Osteen, L., (2006). A leadership identity development model: Applications from a grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 4, 401-418. Komives, S. R. and Wagner, W. (2009). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Komives, S. R., Woodard, D. B., and Associates (Eds.), (1996). Student Services: A handbook for the profession. 3rd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (1990). The leadership challenge, 2nd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge, 3rd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kretovics, M. (2002). Entry-level competencies: What student affairs administrators consider when screening candidates. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 6, 912-920. Kuk, L., Cobb, B., and Forrest, C. (2007). Perceptions of Competencies of Entrylevel Practitioners in Student Affairs. NASPA Journal, 44, 664-691. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lewin, K. (1942). Field theory of learning. In H. B. Nelson(Ed.) Forty-first yearbook of the Nat. Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing CO. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

186

Love, P., Carpenter, S., Haggerty, B., Janosik, S., Klein, S., Lowery, J., Mamarchev, H., Mitchell, A., Ortiz, A., Pierson, T., Pope, R., Roper, L., Salvador, S., Sanlo, R., Schoper, S., Tyrell, S., and Wilson, M. (2007) Professional competencies: A report of the steering committee on professional competencies. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from: http://www.myacpa.org/au/governance/docs/ACPA_Competencies.pdf Love, P. G. and Estanek, S. M. (2004). Rethinking student affairs practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lovell, C. D. and Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary for success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of research. NASPA Journal, 37, 4, 553-572. Lukenbill, W. (1976). Content or process: A personal look at experiential learning. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 16, 195-196. McCall, M. (2004). Leadership development. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 127-130. McCauley, C. D. and Douglas, C. A. (2004). Developmental relationships. In C.D. McCauley and E. Van Velsors (Eds.) The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 2nd Ed, (pp.204-233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McCauley, C. D. and Van Velsor, E. (Eds.) (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 2nd Ed, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McDaniel, R. R. (1972). Organization theory and the preparation of student personnel workers. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 10, 101-115. McEwen, M. K. and Talbot, D. M. (1998) Designing the student affairs curriculum. In N.J. Evans and C.E. Phelps Tobin (Eds.) State of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs: Another look (pp. 125-156). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

187

Michelli, J. A., (2006). The Starbucks experience: 5 principles for turning ordinary into extraordinary. New York, NY, NY: McGraw Hill. Miller, T. K. and Winston, R. B. (1991). Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education. 2nd Ed. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development, Inc. Minetti, R. H. (1977). An analytical description of the relationship between the academic training and assistantship experiences of master's degree programs in student personnel administration. Thesis (Ph. D.) Michigan State University. Dept. of Administration and Higher Education. Morton, Foster, and Ward (1998). A slice of reality: Internships in higher education programs. Paper presented at Association for the Study of Higher Education. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED427584) National Association for Student Personnel Administrators and American College Personnel Administration (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: Author. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ohlott, P. J. (2004) Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley and E. Van Velsor (Eds.) The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 2nd Ed, (pp.151-182). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Parker, C. A. (1977). On modeling reality. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18, 419-425. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Phelps Tobin, C. E. (1998) Recruiting and retaining qualified graduate students. In N. J. Evans and C. E. Phelps Tobin (Eds.) State of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs: Another look (pp. 83-104). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Plato, K. (1983). The shift to student development: An analysis of the patterns of change. NASPA Journal, 15, 4, 32-36. 188

Pope, R. L. and Reynolds, A. L. (1997). Student affairs core competencies: Integrating multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 3, 266-277. Raelin, J. A. (1997) A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8(6), 563-578. Renn, K. A. and Hodges, J. P. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new professionals in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 42, 2, 367-391. Renn, K. A. and Jessup-Anger, E. R. (2008). Preparing new professionals: Lessons for graduate preparatory programs from the national study of new professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 4, 319-335. Rentz, A. L. (1994). Student affairs: A profession’s heritage. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. Roberts, D. C. (1981). Student leadership programs in higher education. Carbondale, IL: ACPA Southern Illinois Press. Roberts, D. M. (2005) Skill development among student affairs professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 24, 2, 170-179. Rogers, J. L. (1991). Leadership education in college student personnel preparation programs: An analysis of faculty perspectives. NASPA Journal, 29, 1, 37-48. Rogers, J. L. (1992). Graduate student views of leadership education in college student personnel preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 29, 3, 169-179. Sanford, N. (1968). Where colleges fail: A study of student as person. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1972). Professional Education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. United States of America: Basic Books, Inc. Scott, J. E. (2000) “Creating effective staff development programs.” In M. J. Barr, M. K. Desler and Associates (eds.) The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration (pp. 477-491) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

189

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY, NY: Teachers College Press. Specht, L. and Sandlin, P. (1991). The differential effects of experiential learning activities and traditional lecture classes in accounting. Simulations and Gaming, 22, 2, 196-210. Stage, F. K. (1994). Fine tuning the instrument: using process models for work with student development theory. College Student Affairs Journal, 13, 2, 21-28. Stage, F. K. and Dannells, M. (Eds.) (2000). Linking Theory to Practice: Case Studies for Working with College Students, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Accelerated Development. Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kimzie, J., and Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms: What does learning theory have to say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26, 4. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stake, R. E. (1981) The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stamatakos, L. C. (1981). Student affair progress toward professionalism: Recommendations for action. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 105113. Thorpe, R. (1988). An MSc by action learning: A management development initiative by higher degree. Management Education and Development, 19, 68-78. Upcraft, M. L. (1994). The dilemmas of translating theory to practice. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 438-443. Upcraft, M. L. (1998) Do graduate preparation programs really prepare practitioners? In N. J. Evans and C. E. Phelps Tobin (Eds.) State of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs: Another look, (pp. 225-237). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Van Velsor, E. and McCauley, C. D. (2004) Introduction: Our view of leadership. In C.D. McCauley and E. Van Velsors (Eds.) The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 2nd Ed, (pp.1-22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

190

Van Velsor, E., Moxley, R. S., and Bunker, K. A. (2004). The leader development process. In C.D. McCauley and E. Van Velsors (Eds.) The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 2nd Ed, (pp.204233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Waple, J. N. (2006). An Assessment of Skills and Competencies Necessary for Entry-Level Student Affairs Work. NASPA Journal, 43, 1-18. Winston, R. B., Creamer, D. G., Miller, T. K., and Associates (Eds.). (2001). The professional student affairs administrator: Educator, leaders, manager. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Wren, J. T. (1994). Teaching leadership: The art of the possible. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 1, 2, 73-93. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Young, D. G. and Janosik, S. M. (2007) Using CAS standards to measure learning outcomes of student affairs preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 44, 2, 341-366.

191

Appendix A ACPA Leadership and Management/Administration Professional Competencies

Table A1: Resource Management Competencies From

Through

To

Facilities management

Basic ability to effectively and appropriately utilize facilities management procedures as related to operating a facility or program in a facility.

Effective development and management of facilities, policies, procedures, processes, human resources and materials.

Ability to assess facilities resources (people, space, materials) in regard to institutional or divisional long range planning and budget processes.

Fiscal management

Basic accounting techniques for budgeting, monitoring and processing expenditures. Appropriate use of fiscal resources assigned to area.

Advanced accounting techniques that include forecasting, efficient use of fiscal resources, and interpretation of financial reports.

Ability to develop long range budgets that creatively and ethically apply fiscal resources to the needs and priorities of the unit/ division or organizational level.

Technology management

Ability to utilize technological resources in respect to maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of one’s work.

Demonstrated ability to identify and allocate technological needs of unit. Maintain a level of technical knowledge that allows one to use skills acquired and to identify new technological advances appropriate to the nature of work in the unit.

Demonstrated ability to discern the pace in which technological advances should appropriately be incorporated into organizational life (with students, staff and other constituents).

“Green” management

Gain a basic understanding of best practices regarding environmentally sensitive issues and how one’s work occurs around efforts of sustainability.

Demonstrated ability to construct unit’s operation to function in an environmentally aware fashion.

Champion sustainability efforts within unit and across the organization; facilitate institutional support for broadening sustainability efforts.

192

Table A2: Human Resources Competencies From

Through

To

Conflict management

Develop an understanding of the basic premises that underlies conflict in organizational and student life and the constructs utilized for facilitating conflict resolution in these settings.

Demonstrated ability to resolve conflict in the unit or with those constituents that members of the unit interact with (including students).

Demonstrated ability to manage conflict at a level of complexity where often multiple entities are at odds by leading groups to an effective and fair resolution.

Teambuilding

Become familiar with the basic fundamentals of teamwork and teambuilding in one’s work setting.

Apply techniques of team-building to foster team identity in the completion of work at various levels of the unit and division.

Promote teamwork and facilitate team-building across units and foster a positive work climate.

Motivation

Basic understanding and application of introductory motivational techniques with students, staff and others.

Demonstrated understanding and successful application of a range of avenues available for motivating others.

Demonstrated ability to implement strategies for motivating individuals and groups that are challenged with elements of campus life disengagement, apathy and/or aspects of decline of morale.

Supervision

Demonstrated familiarity in basic tenets of supervision and possible application of these supervision techniques.

Demonstrated applications of appropriate advanced techniques for supervising poor performance, marginal performance and exceptional staff.

Demonstrated ability to effectively intervene with employees (whether individual or groups) in regard to performance issues, morale, behavior expectations, and conflict.

Hiring

Develop a basic understanding of appropriate hiring techniques and familiarity with institutional hiring policy, procedures and processes.

Demonstrated ability to implement appropriate and effective recruitment strategies, interview protocols and decisions regarding selection of staff.

Demonstrated ability to develop hiring strategies that encourage individuals from under-represented groups to apply for positions.

193

Table A3: Organizational Development Competencies From

Through

To

Planning & organizing

Develop fundamental skills and knowledge base in planning and organizing one’s work in the context of institutional priorities and individual performance objectives.

Demonstrated ability to effectively plan and organize unit’s resources in the support of unit’s, division and/or institutional goals and objectives.

Development and promotion of a shared vision that drives unit and institutional short term and long term planning and the ongoing organizing of work.

Cultural landscape

Develop an understanding of institutional traditions, mores, and organizational structures (hierarchy, networks, governance groups).

Demonstrated ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the cultural landscape and understand how the landscape influences campus decision-making, change and institutional planning, goal setting and organizational improvement.

Ability to carefully assess on-going shifts in the cultural landscape as it affects the work of student affairs and how these shifts lead to developing and implementing organizational strategies that reflect one’s understanding of the impact of these strategies on the landscape.

Political landscape

Develop an understanding of the factors that influence others to act in the organization; factors include policies, hierarchy, networks, governance, goals, agendas and resource allocation processes.

Demonstrated ability to fully participate in the process of influencing others to act in a manner that facilitates the goals of the unit and/or the organization. The process of influence includes the ability to actively participate in informal and formal networks that influence the work of organizational life.

Demonstrated understanding of the ambiguities inherent in the political processes that facilitates both work and organizational improvement; and thus apply this knowledge in the on-going competition of acquiring resources for the unit/division/campus.

Types of leadership

Acquire a basic understanding of various constructs of leadership and leadership styles that include but not limited to symbolic, expert, relational, and inspirational.

Demonstrated ability to compare and contrast various leadership theories and research and able to determine how to best apply appropriate models to various situations in organizational life

Demonstrated ability to lead, motivate, influence, inspire, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization.

194

Table A3, Continued Change

Acquire basic understanding and application of implementing change in organization (e.g., policy approval processes, role of campus decisionmakers in the change process).

Demonstrated understanding of affecting change which thus leads to actions that advances the department and/or institutional goals and objectives.

Demonstrated understanding of how to identify key stakeholders, how to facilitate collaborative processes, and how to garner decision-maker support (internal/external) that effects significant and/or complex change on campus.

Goal Setting

Know and articulate the process necessary for identifying individual and organizational goals.

Demonstrated ability to successfully identify and implement unit goals and objectives (action plans) that supports aspects of the overall mission and vision of the institution.

Demonstrated ability to facilitate on-going development, implementation and assessment of goal attainment at the unit and/or institutional level that is congruent with institutional mission and strategic plans.

Organizational Improvement

Develop a basic understanding of the values and processes that leads to organizational improvement.

Demonstrated ability to facilitate continuous improvement strategies and techniques that leads to improvement at the unit level.

Demonstrated ability to lead organizational improvement across units and divisions of the organization.

195

Social Responsibility/Civic Engagement Description Basic One must be aware and have knowledge of: • • •

Major public policy issues, debates and decisions at the national, state and local levels (e.g., national security, immigration, environmental protection, health care). Philosophical, political, demographic, economic, and social justice issues relating to higher education at the national, state, and local levels. Major campus policy and strategy issues, debates and decisions (to the extent that information about them is available).

One must be able to: • •

Make and model active, effective contributions to the well-being of communities (campus, local, professional, state and/or national), including contributions beyond the requirements of one's job description. Exhibit informed confidence in the capacity of ordinary people to pull together and take practical action to transform their communities and world.

Intermediate One must be aware or have knowledge of: •

The various ways of encouraging students' civic engagement, including the strengths and limitations of these methods.

One must be able to: • • • •

Recognize systemic barriers to student development on a particular campus. Create environments that encourage students to view themselves as having the potential to make meaningful contributions to their communities (residence hall, campus, local, state and/or national). Design and implement programs that promote students' civic engagement, both as citizens of the campus community and as members of communities beyond the campus. Envision, plan, organize, and help to drive and learn from social/institutional change initiatives aimed at improving culture, policies and/or practices on campus. 196

Advanced One must be able to: •

Envision, plan, organize, drive, and learn from social/institutional change initiatives aimed at improving culture, policies and/or practices in communities beyond the campus.

197

Appendix B Emails sent to CSP-Talk List and to Case Study Sites

EMAIL to CSP-Talk listserv Hello, My name is Kelly Nelson and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, working under the guidance of Dr. Adrianna Kezar. I am conducting research for my dissertation which explores how student affairs graduate preparatory programs teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. I am focused on the experiential learning components of these programs and their connection to the formal curriculum. For the purposes of this study, leadership is defined as a relational process, involving influence and based upon mutual goals, where people work together to create or respond to change. I am seeking your help in identifying cases of exemplary masters programs that have been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development. I would greatly appreciate your recommendations concerning programs that you believe are excelling in this area. Thank you, Kelly Nelson Doctoral Student University of Southern California [email protected]

198

Appendix C Interview Protocol for Program Directors

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group. This research study seeks to explore how student affairs graduate preparatory programs teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. For the purposes of this study, leadership is defined as a relational process, involving influence and based upon mutual goals, where people work together to create or respond to change. I will be tape-recording this interview/focus group. You are not obligated to answer any questions and you may choose to end this interview at any time. I will use a coding system to mask your identity in the data analysis and written report. Your answers will not be shared with other participants of this study. When this study is completed, you will have access to general findings and recommendations. By agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group, you are consenting to participate in this research project, including having your answers recorded for data collection and analysis purposes. Are there any procedural questions before we begin?

How long have you been in your current position?

B

What classes do you personally teach in the _________ program?

B

Do you think leadership development is an important topic for your students?

O

If so, why and how do you think it should be taught?

O

How and where are your students exposed to leadership theory and/or skills and competencies?

1

Are the specific courses taught?

1

If so, are there courses required?

1

If so, what can you tell me about the specific content of those courses?

1

Do you know of any particular leadership theories that are taught?

1

Are there any specific leadership competencies that you think your students will need to develop before they graduate?

1

If so, how does your program help them develop those skills?

1

How do you assess if they have learned them?

1

199

How and where do your students have the opportunity to apply their theoretical knowledge or practice their leadership skills/competencies?

2

Do you have required internships/assistantships/practicums?

2

Is there a course connected to the assistantship?

2

If so, how often does it meet?

2

What are the learning objectives of the course?

2

Do they receive any leadership training in their assistantships?

1

How and where is the leadership development of your students assessed?

3

In what ways do you or does your program try to maximize the theory-to-practice connections for your students?

4

In what ways do your program faculty collaborate with the assistantship supervisors to enhance the theory-to-practice connections for your students?

4

Are you planning on making any future changes, in your program, to how you teach leadership development to your students?

O

KEY: B=background information/rapport building questions, O=Overarching Research Question: “How do we teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership to students in student affairs preparatory programs?, 1=How and where are students taught leadership theory?, 2=How and where do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge?, 3= How and where is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed? 4=How have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

200

Appendix D Group Interview Protocol for Faculty

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group. This research study seeks to explore how student affairs graduate preparatory programs teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. For the purposes of this study, leadership is defined as a relational process, involving influence and based upon mutual goals, where people work together to create or respond to change. I will be tape-recording this interview/focus group. You are not obligated to answer any questions and you may choose to end this interview at any time. I will use a coding system to mask your identity in the data analysis and written report. Your answers will not be shared with other participants of this study. When this study is completed, you will have access to general findings and recommendations. By agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group, you are consenting to participate in this research project, including having your answers recorded for data collection and analysis purposes. Are there any procedural questions before we begin?

How long have you been teaching in a Student Affairs/Higher Ed prep program?

B

What classes do you personally teach in the _________ program?

B

Do you think leadership development is an important topic for your students?

O

If so, why and how do you think it should be taught?

O

How and where do you expose your students to leadership theory and/or skills and competencies?

1

Do you teach any particular leadership theories?

1

Are there any specific leadership competencies that you think your students will need to develop before they graduate?

1

If so, how do you help them develop those skills?

1

How do you assess if they have learned them?

1

How and where do you provide your students the opportunity to apply their theoretical knowledge or practice their leadership skills/competencies?

2

201

Do you utilize any experiential learning techniques in the classes you teach?

2

If so, please describe these techniques/activities

2

How do you assess the leadership development of your students?

3

In what ways do you or does your program try to maximize the theory-to-practice connections for your students?

4

What is your role in the students’ assistantships?

4

In what ways do you collaborate with the assistantship supervisors to enhance the theory-to-practice connections for your students?

4

Are you planning on making any future changes in terms of how you teach leadership development to your students?

O

KEY: B=background information/rapport building questions, O=Overarching Research Question: “How do we teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership to students in student affairs preparatory programs?, 1=How and where are students taught leadership theory?, 2=How and where do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge?, 3= How and where is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed? 4=How have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

202

Appendix E Group Interview Protocol for Supervisors

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group. This research study seeks to explore how student affairs graduate preparatory programs teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. For the purposes of this study, leadership is defined as a relational process, involving influence and based upon mutual goals, where people work together to create or respond to change. I will be tape-recording this interview/focus group. You are not obligated to answer any questions and you may choose to end this interview at any time. I will use a coding system to mask your identity in the data analysis and written report. Your answers will not be shared with other participants of this study. When this study is completed, you will have access to general findings and recommendations. By agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group, you are consenting to participate in this research project, including having your answers recorded for data collection and analysis purposes. Are there any procedural questions before we begin?

How long have you worked in Student Affairs/Higher Education?

B

How long have you been supervising graduate students?

B

How many students do you supervise? Do you think leadership development is an important topic for your students? If so, why and how do you think it should be taught?

O O

How and where do you expose your students to leadership theory and/or skills and competencies?

1

Do you teach any particular leadership theories?

1

Are there any specific leadership competencies that you think your students will need to develop before they graduate?

1

If so, how do you help them develop those skills?

1

How do you assess if they have learned them?

1

How and where do you provide your students the opportunity to apply their theoretical knowledge or practice their leadership skills/competencies?

2

203

Do you observe your students in settings where they are practicing leadership skills?

3

Do you provide your students feedback on their leadership skills?

3

If so, please describe when and how this occurs.

3

In what ways do you try to maximize the theory-to-practice connections for your students?

4

What is your role in the students’ assistantship coursework?

4

In what ways do you collaborate with the program faculty to enhance the theory-topractice connections for your students?

4

Are you planning on making any future changes in terms of how you teach leadership development to your students?

O

KEY: B=background information/rapport building questions, O=Overarching Research Question: “How do we teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership to students in student affairs preparatory programs?, 1=How and where are students taught leadership theory?, 2=How and where do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge?, 3= How and where is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed? 4=How have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

204

Appendix F Group Interview Protocol for Students

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group. This research study seeks to explore how student affairs graduate preparatory programs teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership. For the purposes of this study, leadership is defined as a relational process, involving influence and based upon mutual goals, where people work together to create or respond to change. I will be tape-recording this interview/focus group. You are not obligated to answer any questions and you may choose to end this interview at any time. I will use a coding system to mask your identity in the data analysis and written report. Your answers will not be shared with other participants of this study. When this study is completed, you will have access to general findings and recommendations. By agreeing to participate in this interview/focus group, you are consenting to participate in this research project, including having your answers recorded for data collection and analysis purposes. Are there any procedural questions before we begin?

How far along are you in your graduate program?

B

Are you currently in an assistantship/internship/practicum?

2

If so, where are you working?

B

What do you hope to do when you graduate?

B

Do you think leadership development is an important topic for your academic program?

O

If so, why and how do you think it should be taught?

O

How and where are you exposed to leadership theory and/or skills and competencies?

1

Have you been taught any particular leadership theories?

1

Are there any specific leadership competencies that you think you will need to develop before you graduate?

1

If so, how will you develop those skills?

1

How will you assess if you have learned them?

1

205

How and where have you been provided the opportunity to apply your theoretical knowledge or practice your leadership skills/competencies?

2

How and where does this occur in your coursework?

2

How and where does this occur in your internship/job/etc…

2

Are there other places where this occurs? (student organizations, etc…)

2

How and where have you been given feedback on your leadership development?

3

In what ways does your program try to maximize your theory-to-practice connections?

4

In your assistantship course, what is the role of your faculty and what is the role of your supervisor?

4

In what ways do your faculty and supervisors collaborate to enhance your theory-topractice connections?

4

Do you think your program should make any changes in terms of how they teach leadership development in your program?

O

KEY: B=background information/rapport building questions, O=Overarching Research Question: “How do we teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership to students in student affairs preparatory programs?, 1=How and where are students taught leadership theory?, 2=How and where do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge?, 3= How and where is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed? 4=How have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

206

Appendix G Observation Protocol

Are students being exposed to leadership theory?

1

If so, how and where?

1

If so, are specific theories of leadership mentioned?

1

Are students being taught leadership skills and competencies?

1

If so, how and where?

1

If so, are specific skills or competencies mentioned?

1

Are students being given the opportunity to apply leadership knowledge in ways that enhance theory-to practice learning? If so, how and where? Is the leadership development of the students being assessed? If so, how? Are students using or being exposed to any of the five components of leadership development?

2 2 3 3 4

Knowledge acquisition?

4

Skill-building?

4

Feedback?

4

Reflection?

4

Application of learning?

4

KEY: B=background information/rapport building questions, O=Overarching Research Question: “How do we teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership to students in student affairs preparatory programs?, 1=How and where are students taught leadership theory?, 2=How and where do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge?, 3= How and where is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed? 4=How have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

207

Appendix H Document Review Protocol

Does the document provide evidence that students are being exposed to leadership theory ?

1

If so, how and where?

1

If so, are specific theories of leadership mentioned?

1

Does the document provide evidence that students are being taught leadership skills and competencies?

1

If so, how and where?

1

If so, are specific skills or competencies mentioned?

1

Does the document provide evidence that students are given the opportunity to apply leadership knowledge in ways that enhance theory-to practice learning? If so, how and where? Does the document provide evidence that the SAGPP has a method in place to assess the students’ leadership development? If so, in what ways? Does the document provide evidence that the SAGPP has been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning? If so, in what ways? Is there evidence of any of the five components of leadership development?

2 2 3 3 4 4 4

Knowledge acquisition?

4

Skill-building?

4

Feedback?

4

Reflection?

4

Application of learning?

4

KEY: B=background information/rapport building questions, O=Overarching Research Question: “How do we teach the theoretical constructs and practical applications of leadership to students in student affairs preparatory programs?, 1=How and where are students taught leadership theory?, 2=How and where do students have the opportunity to apply that knowledge?, 3= How and where is the leadership development of SAGPP students assessed? 4=How have preparatory programs been intentionally designed to promote theory-to-practice learning in the area of leadership development?

208