This article was downloaded by: [173.79.158.162] On: 07 April 2015, At: 14:41 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarp20

First-Year College Students’ Strengths Awareness and Perceived Leadership Development a

a

Krista M. Soria , Julia E. Roberts & Alex P. Reinhard

a

a

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Published online: 19 Mar 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Krista M. Soria, Julia E. Roberts & Alex P. Reinhard (2015) First-Year College Students’ Strengths Awareness and Perceived Leadership Development, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52:1, 89-103, DOI: 10.1080/19496591.2015.996057 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Soria, K.M., Roberts, J.E., & Reinhard, A.P. (2015). First-Year College Students’ Strengths Awareness and Perceived Leadership Development. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(1), 89–103. ISSN: 1949-6591 (print)/1949-6605 (online)

Innovations in Research and Scholarship Feature

First-Year College Students’ Strengths Awareness and Perceived Leadership Development

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Krista M. Soria, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Julia E. Roberts, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Alex P. Reinhard, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The purpose of this study was to examine whether first-year college students’ strengths awareness is associated with their perceived leadership development. The institution in this study offered all first-year students the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment and strengths-related programming. The results of hierarchical regression analysis of two concurrent surveys (n = 779) suggested strengths awareness explained a significant amount of variance in students’ perceived leadership development above and beyond the variance explained by other variables.

Higher education administrators, faculty, and student affairs professionals are charged with the important task of developing capable, efficacious leaders prepared to respond to society’s greatest challenges (Astin & Astin, 2000; Dugan & Komives, 2007). In response, curricular and co-curricular leadership opportunities have become integral to the undergraduate experience at many higher education institutions (Dugan & Komives, 2007) and nearly every college and university has expressed a commitment to college students’ leadership development (Boatman, 1999). Researchers have provided some evidence for the effectiveness of institutional efforts to foster students’ leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2010); for example, Thompson (2006) discovered that undergraduates’ interactions and experiences with peers, faculty, and administrative support staff were positively associated with higher systemic leadership beliefs (defined as greater levels of adaptability, cooperation, and openness to new ideas) among students. Several scholars have also identified experiential factors positively associated with college students’ leadership development, including participation in community service (Dugan, 2006; Soria, Nobbe, & Fink, 2013); campus leadership experiences, involvement in student organizations, and leadership training (Dugan, 2006; Soria, Fink, Lepkowski, & Snyder, 2013); and, like Thompson (2006), interactions with peers and faculty (Salisbury, Pascarella, Padgett, & Blaich, 2012). Amid this knowledge, scholars have called for continued research to examine ways in which higher education professionals can positively enhance college students’ leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Soria, Fink et al., 2013; Thompson, 2006). Krista M. Soria, Analyst, Office of Institutional Research, University of Minnesota. Julia E. Roberts, undergraduate student, University of Minnesota. Alex P. Reinhard, undergraduate student, University of Minnesota. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Krista Soria at [email protected].

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

89

Strengths and Leadership

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

In this study, the authors focused on whether there is a potential relationship between strengths-based approaches and first-year college students’ leadership development. This research project was framed around the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment, the Gallup Organization’s concept of strengths, and an assessment measuring students’ strengths awareness because of the prevalent use of these particular strengths tools and frameworks in postsecondary settings (Lopez & Louis, 2009; Louis, 2011). Although many instruments help individuals discover their strengths, the Clifton StrengthsFinder is an online assessment of talents that identifies individuals’ greatest potential for building their personal strengths (Asplund, Lopez, Hodges, & Harter, 2009). The Clifton StrengthsFinder helps individuals to identify their personal five most salient talent themes out of 34 natural talent themes. Talent themes are defined as naturally recurring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors which, when refined with knowledge and skill, can be developed into strengths (Hodges & Harter, 2005). These top five talent themes are often colloquially referred to as “strengths,” language which the authors will broadly incorporate throughout this article. At their core, strengths-based approaches focus on enhancing self-awareness by providing individuals with insights into their unique combination of talents. Several scholars have described the critical significance of self-awareness in college students’ leadership development (Astin & Astin, 2000; Fincher, 2009; Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005). One of the primary components of the social change model of leadership development includes developing a consciousness of self—being aware of the values, beliefs, and emotions that motivate one to engage in social change (Astin & Astin, 2000; Fincher, 2009). Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) paradigmatic leadership challenge model also conveyed the significance of self-awareness in students’ development of relational, collaborative, and values-based leadership. Although awareness of one’s interests, personality, and aspirations are important in leadership (Astin & Astin, 2000), Fincher (2009) expanded self-awareness to include an awareness of one’s talents and strengths. Having the ability to discern natural strengths is critical for the development of leadership: Self-awareness of natural strengths and abilities allows one to display higher levels of self-efficacy, find a deeper meaning in life, and to engage in effective leadership (Fincher, 2009; Komives et al., 2005; Rath & Conchie, 2009). While self-awareness is a critical component of leadership development, contemporary models of leadership development also focus on the importance of personal social responsibility to effect social change (Astin & Astin, 2000, Dugan & Komives, 2007, 2010; Komives et al., 2005; Komives, Wagner, & Associates, 2009). Leadership and social change are not isolated, individualistic enterprises; instead, leadership is increasingly viewed within relational paradigms that encourage individuals to concentrate on increasing their self-awareness and awareness of others so they can understand how to more effectively build relationships with others (Komives et al., 2009). Leaders who are aware of their own talents and strengths are in a better position to help others identify, develop, and apply their strengths, thereby strengthening the overall effectiveness of teams and groups (Rath & Conchie, 2009), which can create conditions to effect social change. Strengths awareness also holds the potential for individuals to develop successful relationships through a common foundation of appreciating others in light of their own strengths (Clifton, Anderson, & Schreiner, 2006). Combined together, one’s self-awareness, ability to effectively work with others, and recognition of personal social responsibility can deepen one’s commitment to social change (Astin & Astin, 2000). Over 600 college campuses and over one million college students have taken the Clifton StrengthsFinder and engaged in StrengthsQuest, a formal educational model designed to provide students with knowledge and awareness of their individual talents (Louis, 2011; The Gallup Corporation, 2013). Strengths-based approaches continue to flourish within colleges and

90

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

© NASPA 2015

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

Strengths and Leadership

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

universities across the nation (Shushok & Hulme, 2006; Soria & Stubblefield, in press-a, in pressb). Given the critical need for leaders who can tackle persistent social challenges, examining the potential connections between strengths awareness and students’ leadership development is increasingly imperative (Astin & Astin, 2000; Soria, Snyder, & Reinhard, in press; Soria & Stubblefield, in press-a; Wisner, 2011). The authors designed this study to examine whether any relationship exists between first-year college students’ strengths awareness and their perceived leadership development. In this article, leadership development is defined as students’ perceptions of their leadership skills, self-awareness, and understanding of the importance of personal social responsibility. The authors’ definition links elements within the literature review emphasizing selfawareness (Astin & Astin, 2000; Fincher, 2009; Komives et al., 2005; Kouzes & Posner, 2002, 2006; Rath & Conchie, 2009) and personal social responsibility (Astin & Astin, 2000; Komives et al., 2005) with leadership skills. In this study, the researchers focused on first-year students because the institution in which they have gathered data offers all first-year students the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment. The first-year students in our sample may not have been as likely to have served as a positional leader of a student organization or encountered the array of leadership development opportunities typically afforded to more advanced students such as juniors or seniors (e.g., leadership courses, leadership positions); consequently, by using first-year students, isolating the potential impact of strengths awareness may be possible. Finally, studies of first-year college students are important in the field of higher education due to the critical role of the first year of college in promoting students’ retention and development (Soriar, Lingren Clark, & Coffin Koch, 2013; Soria, 2012; Soria & Stubblefield, in press-b; Tinto, 1993, 2012).

Strengths Awareness in Higher Education Founded on the principles of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), which studies the conditions and processes contributing to individuals’ flourishing or optimal functioning (Gable & Haidt, 2005), strengths-based approaches involve the identification, development, and utilization of individuals’ top talents in order to encourage growth and personal achievement (Hodges & Clifton, 2004). Prior scholarship has identified some associations between college students’ strengths awareness and leadership development; for example, Lane and Chapman (2011) discovered a positive association between students’ strengths self-efficacy, defined as students’ beliefs in their capability to apply strengths in their daily lives, and the individual values of the social change model (consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment). Lane and Chapman’s (2011) study was limited only to students who participated in co-curricular leadership seminars, a population the authors acknowledged is historically over-studied with regards to leadership development (Soria, Fink et al., 2013). A similar study exploring the relationship between students’ strengths ownership—adopting a philosophy of strengths and investing in development of strengths (Wisner, 2011)—and leadership development was also limited by a sample in which students held positional leadership roles in student development programs (Wisner, 2011). Given the limitations of prior research, in the present study, the researchers investigated potential associations between first-year students’ strengths awareness and their perceived leadership development.

Building a Framework for Strengths In fall 2011, a large, public research-intensive university located in the Midwest of the United States offered the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment to all first-year students. Before they arrived

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

91

Strengths and Leadership

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

on campus, 5,122 students, 95.4% of the first-year class, took the online assessment and received their top five talent themes. Throughout their first semester, students engaged in a variety of activities related to their top five talent themes, with an initial concentration of programming during an extended new student orientation. The university is large and decentralized; while many strengths activities were coordinated through a central office, departments and colleges also independently initiated activities. Faculty and staff received numerous resources and training opportunities, including seminars led by Gallup trainers, on-campus workshops facilitated by university staff, a website featuring over 100 resources (e.g., group activities, classroom assignments, or videos) practitioners could utilize in their work with students, and other resources. First-year students encountered strengths-related discussions in first-year experience classes, in discussions and programming within housing and residential life, in conversations with academic advisors and career counselors, in trainings and workshops they self-selected to attend, and in many other areas. Students also interacted with strengths in study groups, in student organizations, and with their friends and family members. The foundation for these efforts strategically corresponds to Lopez and Louis’s (2009) framework of the principles of strengthsbased education, which begins with measuring students’ strengths and providing individualized educational experiences for students based on their personal strengths. Lopez and Louis suggested practitioners following strengths-based approaches should develop networking opportunities for students to share, explore, and develop their strengths with others. Finally, the authors encouraged practitioners to draw out students’ strengths through deliberate application of strengths (inside and outside of classrooms) and provide opportunities for students to undertake their own development of strengths by actively seeking out novel experiences for focused strengths development and application. The university adopted a strengths initiative framework establishing learning objectives for students at developmental milestones. For example, learning objectives for first-year students include strengths awareness while objectives for upperclassmen include integration of strengths into career planning. Due to the prioritization of students’ strengths awareness as an outcome, the researchers investigated whether first-year students’ strengths awareness had a significant relationship with their perceived leadership development after considering the contributions of demographic variables, pre-college perceptions of leadership, and other college experiences on students’ perception of leadership.

Methodology Instruments All first-year students (n = 5,368) were invited to participate in an online survey, which assessed their strengths awareness and engagement with strengths initiatives. The incentive for the survey included the opportunity to win one of four $25 bookstore gift certificates. A research and assessment committee on campus developed the survey, which also incorporated several scales, including the Strengths Awareness scale (described below in the measures section and listed in Table 2). At the end of their first year, students were separately asked to complete the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) survey, which was administered to all undergraduate students at the institution. Incentives for all students included the opportunity to win one of 30 $100 bookstore gift certificates. The SERU survey is a multi-institutional survey administered to a consortium of large public research universities each year, although in this analysis, the researchers only utilized the results from the single campus described above. The SERU survey 92

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

© NASPA 2015

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

Strengths and Leadership

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

sampling plan is a census scan of the undergraduate experience: All 28,738 undergraduates enrolled spring 2012 were sent this web-based questionnaire. The SERU survey contains over 600 items, and the survey is comprehensive. For example, data from the SERU have been used in a variety of research studies examining the experiences of marginalized students on college campuses (Soria, Lepkowski, & Weiner, 2013) and students’ development (Soria & Troisi, 2014), community and civic engagement (Soria & Thomas-Card, 2014), and leadership (Soria, Hussein, & Vue, 2013). The present study is the first examining the specific outcome of perceived leadership development. Researchers have provided evidence for the internal consistency of students’ responses over several administrations of the survey (Chatman, 2011a), in addition to evidence suggesting there is limited non-response bias and validity with regards to students’ selfreported academic learning gains (Chatman, 2011b; Douglass, Thomson, & Zhao, 2012). Participants The response rate of students who completed all items in both of the surveys was 14.5% of the first-year class (n = 779). White and female students were slightly overrepresented in this sample compared with the first-year student population (which was 52.2% female and 75.4% White). The average age of participants was 18.11. Table 1 provides additional demographic information on the respondents. Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Coding for Variables

Variables Used in Analysis

n

%

Female

499

64.1

First-Generation

186

23.9

Pre-college Demographics and Personal Characteristics

Black

22

2.8

Asian

103

13.2

8

1.0

18

2.3

Native American or American Indian Hispanic International

34

4.4

White

594

76.3

In state resident for tuition

497

63.8

Pell grant recipient

173

22.2

Lived in residence halls

678

87.0

Enrolled in a freshman seminar

229

29.4

Arts, humanities, and design

327

42.0

Education or agriculture

102

13.1

STEM or health

289

37.1

61

7.8

College Experiences

Academic Major Area

Business

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

93

Strengths and Leadership

Measures Dependent variable. In the survey, students were asked to rate their leadership ability, selfawareness, and understanding of the importance of personal social responsibility both when they started at the university and their current (end of first year) proficiency. The authors utilized students’ current proficiency in those three areas for this analysis. These items were scaled 1 = very poor to 6 = excellent. Based on the literature cited above, the authors utilized these three measures in a factor analysis (described below) to construct their dependent variable.

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Block 1. Institutional research provided data regarding students’ gender, race/ethnicity, residency (in-state versus out-of-state), receipt of Pell grant, and first-generation status. All of these variables were dummy-coded (Table 1). Block 2. Students’ pre-college leadership is important in predicting their collegiate leadership experiences (Astin & Sax, 1998; Komives & Johnson, 2009); consequently, the authors included students’ perceived leadership when they started at the university as control measures in Block 2, although these items are limited because they were asked during students’ first-year of college. These three items were scaled 1 = very poor to 6 = excellent. When a statistical control for the pretest measure (i.e. students’ perception of leadership when they started college) is included, the impact of the independent variables on the posttest scores (i.e. current perceived leadership) is functionally the same as the impact of the same independent variables on the growth or gains made from the pretest to the posttest (Pascarella, Wolniak, & Pierson, 2003); consequently, by including students’ assessment of their leadership skills when they first started at the university as control measures, the authors essentially measured students’ perceived leadership development in the regression model. Block 3. Institutional research also provided data regarding students’ enrollment in first-year seminars and residence in on-campus residence halls—institutional areas that can provide opportunities for students’ engagement and leadership development (Hallenbeck, Dickman, & Fuqua, 2004). The institutional research office also provided data regarding survey respondents’ cumulative grade point average (M = 3.39, SD = 0.51) and academic majors. The majority of students in the sample were enrolled in liberal arts-college within the university, typically as undeclared majors. For ease of interpretation, three focal academic major categories were developed—STEM/health fields, education/agriculture, and business—while the liberal arts majors served as the referent category (Table 1). The authors included several additional variables associated with college students’ experiences, including their academic engagement, sense of belonging, classmate interactions, and involvement in campus activities, as these outcomes may encourage students’ overall engagement and involvement in their institutions (which, in turn, could set the stage for their development in leadership) (Dugan, 2006). To measure academic engagement, students were asked to indicate the frequency with which they were engaged in academic activities (Table 2) on items scaled 1 = never to 6 = very often. To measure students’ sense of belonging, students were also asked to indicate their satisfaction with their overall social and academic experiences (scaled 1 = very dissatisfied to 6 = very satisfied) and their agreement with whether they felt like they belonged on campus or felt as though they would re-enroll at that campus (scaled 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Additionally, students’ academic interactions with classmates were measured on a scale of 1 = never to 6 = very often (Table 2). Finally, students’ involvement on campus was measured in three items scaled 1 = 0 hours and increased by five hour increments (e.g., 2 = 1–5 hours, 3 = 6–10 hours) up to 8 = over 30 hours (Table 2). 94

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

© NASPA 2015

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

95

0.808 0.764

Overall social experience

Overall academic experience

Understanding the importance of personal social responsibility

0.894

I feel that I belong at this campus

Had a class in which the professor knew or learned your name

0.903

0.613

Brought up ideas or concepts from different courses during class discussions

Sense of Belonging

Knowing what I know now, I would still choose to enroll at this campus

0.792 0.789

Interacted with faculty during lecture class sessions

0.851

0.550

I like to learn about myself. 0.834

0.615

I can name my top five strengths.

Asked an insightful question in class

0.724

Academic Engagement

Contributed to a class discussion

0.739

0.815

I have a plan for developing my strengths.

I can easily relate what I am learning to who I am as a person.

0.830

I want to know the strengths of the people in my life.

Behaviors I used to see as irritating I now see as strengths.

0.845

I can see other people in light of their strengths.

0.793

0.854

I know how to apply my strengths to achieve academic success.

0.875

I know how my strengths impact my relationships.

Strengths Awareness

Understanding my strengths helps me do what I do best.

Item

Summary of Factor Analysis Results (n = 779)

Table 2

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

0.890

Leadership Skills

Campus Involvement

(continued )

Classmate Interactions

96

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

© NASPA 2015

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

Leadership Skills

0.721 0.683

Participating in student clubs or organizations

Participating in spiritual or religious activities

Helped a classmate better understand the course material when studying together

Worked on class projects or studied as a group with other classmates outside of class

0.797

Campus Involvement

Performing community service or volunteer activities

0.559

Sense of Belonging

Ability to lead

Academic Engagement 0.868

Strengths Awareness

Self-awareness and understanding

Item

(Continued)

Table 2

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

0.886

0.920

Classmate Interactions

Strengths and Leadership

Block 4. The authors used the Strengths Awareness Measure (Anderson, 2003), an instrument which asks students to rate their agreement with 10 items about their strengths awareness (e.g., I can name my top five strengths) on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Schreiner (2004) previously found the items had good reliability (α = 0.86).

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Data Analysis The authors conducted all data analyses using SPSS 21.0 (IBM Corp, 2012). They utilized a factor analysis for the purpose of data reduction to explain a larger set of measured variables with a smaller set of latent constructs (Henson & Roberts, 2006). To develop the dependent and independent measures used in this study, the authors conducted a factor analysis on 27 items with oblique rotation (promax). Rather than rely upon Kaiser’s eigenvalue rule (which can overestimate the number of factors), the scree plot test (which can suffer from subjectivity and variability), or Bartlett’s test (which is sensitive to sample size), the authors utilized Velicer’s (1976) minimum average partial (MAP) method, Ruscio and Roche’s (2012) comparative data (CD) technique, Horn’s (1965) parallel analysis (PA) method, and Raiche, Roipel, and Blais’s (2006) optimal coordinate (OC) method to estimate the factors (Courtney, 2013; Zwick & Velicer, 1986). The authors utilized the procedures outlined by Courtney (2013) to analyze the data using SPSS R-Menu v2.0 (Basto & Pereira, 2012). Velicer’s MAP values suggested a distinct sixth-step minimum squared average partial correlation suggesting six factors. Additionally, against a plot of eigenvalues, the PA and OC procedures estimated six factors and the CD method suggested retaining six factors. Due to this evidence, the authors retained six factors: strengths awareness, academic engagement, sense of belonging, leadership skills, campus involvement, and classmate interactions. They computed the factor scores using the regression method and saved them as standardized scores with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Table 2 demonstrates the factor loadings over 0.50. Each of these factors had high internal consistency: strengths awareness (α = 0.922), academic engagement (α = 0.834), sense of belonging (α = 0.869), leadership skills (α = 0.738), campus involvement (α = 0.831), and classmate interactions (α = 0.783). After the factor analysis, the authors utilized a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, which is commonly used by researchers seeking to examine the variance specific measures explained above and beyond the variance explained by control measures (Petrocelli, 2003). The authors also manually calculated structure coefficients in the regression model, which represent the magnitude of the bivariate correlation between the independent variables and the predicted y variable in isolation (Nathans, Oswald, & Nimon, 2012). The authors calculated the structure coefficients by dividing the Pearson bivariate correlations (r) by the multiple correlation coefficient (R) for each independent variable. It can be advantageous to examine the structure coefficients in combination with standardized coefficients (β weights) to offer a “more insightful stereoscopic view of the dynamics within our data” (Courville & Thompson, 2001, p. 245).

Limitations There are several limitations of this study worth noting. For example, the data were drawn from two surveys which were completed by less than 15% of the total first-year class. Students who completed both surveys may have been enthusiastic about the strengths initiative, thus potentially biasing the results with regards to students’ strengths awareness. Students who eventually withdrew, stopped out, or transferred to other institutions were not likely to have taken the surveys, decreasing the likelihood that the authors achieved an adequately representative sample. Along

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

97

Strengths and Leadership

those lines, an additional limitation regarding the sample is the overrepresentation of females and White students compared to the population of first-year students at the institution. Scholars are encouraged to investigate the benefits of strengths-based programs for more diverse populations of students.

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Results Table 3 presents the standardized coefficients (β), the structure coefficients (rs), and significance levels (p). The results from the hierarchical regression analyses predicting students’ perceived leadership development suggested first-year students’ strengths awareness explained a significant amount of variance in perceived leadership development after accounting for the variance explained by the variables entered in the first, second, and third blocks (R = 0.804, R2 = 0.646, F[23, 756] = 59.593, p < 0.001; R2 Change = 0.031). After examining the contributions of students’ demographic characteristics, pre-college perceived leadership, and collegiate variables, students’ strengths awareness significantly contributed to first-year students’ perceived leadership development. Only one significant relationship was observed in the first block of the regression; specifically, international students reported significantly lower perceived leadership development compared to their peers. In the second block, all three elements of students’ leadership skills when they started at the university were positively associated with current perceived leadership skills. Given the large amount of variance in leadership development explained in this block, it is apparent that students’ perceived leadership skills before they enter college are strong predictors of their perceived leadership development after enrolling. In the third block, which included variables associated with students’ college experiences, several significant relationships were observed. Students in education, agriculture, business, STEM, and health majors all reported significantly (p < 0.001) lower perceived leadership development compared to their peers. Students’ academic engagement, classmate interactions, and sense of belonging were significantly (p < 0.001) and positively associated with perceived leadership development. Finally, in the fourth block, the results suggest that first-year college students’ strengths awareness was significantly (p < 0.001) and positively associated with perceived leadership development. The results suggest college students who have greater strengths awareness are more likely to perceive their leadership development even when considering the potential influences of demographic variables, pre-college perceived leadership skills, and college experiences. Even though strengths awareness explained only a very small proportion of variance in perceived leadership development, the strengths awareness structure coefficient—which represents the magnitude of the relationship between the strengths awareness and perceived leadership development in isolation—suggests the relationship between the two variables is positive and moderate. Overall, examinations of the standardized coefficients suggest that students’ pre-college leadership skills were the most important predictors in the model (β = 0.202, β = 0.342, and β = 0.262, respectively) followed closely by their strengths awareness (β = 0.190).

Discussion and Recommendations Mather (2010) described the organic connections between student affairs practice and positive psychology frameworks, which focus on elevating individuals’ emotional well-being (Seligman, 2002) and promoting awareness of individuals’ strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Framed within principles of positive psychology, student affairs professionals who utilize strengths assessments (such as the Clifton StrengthsFinder) in their work with 98

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

© NASPA 2015

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

Strengths and Leadership

Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Students’ Perceived Leadership Development Perceived Leadership Development

Predictor

β (Constant)

SE

rs

0.215

P ***

Block One: Student Background Characteristics Female

−0.018

0.048

0.087

Black

0.002

0.134

0.015

Asian

−0.023

0.082

−0.169

0.012

0.218

0.002

Hispanic

−0.006

0.148

0.129

International

−0.095

0.135

−0.254

In-state resident

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Native American or American Indian

−0.018

0.050

0.015

Pell grant

0.013

0.059

0.012

First-generation

0.009

0.057

−0.004

R2

0.061

**

***

Block Two: Pre-College Leadership Skills Ability to lead

0.202

0.023

0.619

***

Understanding the importance of personal social responsibility

0.342

0.029

0.811

***

Self-awareness and understanding

0.262

0.029

0.777

***

2

0.496

R change Block Three: College Experiences First-year seminar

0.028

0.049

0.108

Education or agriculture major

−0.071

0.070

−0.020

**

STEM or health major

−0.053

0.053

−0.071

*

Business major

*

−0.049

0.089

−0.081

Lived in residence hall

0.001

0.073

0.034

Academic engagement

0.081

0.026

0.421

**

Sense of belonging

0.125

0.024

0.377

***

Campus involvement

0.022

0.023

0.187

Classmate interactions

0.046

0.025

0.305

−0.011

0.045

0.076

Grade point average R2 change

*

0.057

***

0.321

***

0.031

***

Block Four: Strengths Awareness Strengths awareness

0.190

R2 change 2

0.024

R

0.646

***

F

59.593

***

Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

99

Strengths and Leadership

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

students can awaken students to their natural talents and abilities, engage students in their collegiate experiences (Shushok & Hulme, 2006), and enable students to thrive and flourish in their academic pursuits (Schreiner, 2010). Student affairs practitioners who undertake efforts to help first-year students identify and apply their strengths may be well-positioned to positively promote students’ leadership development. Although it is important not to overlook the importance of students’ pre-college leadership skills in explaining students’ current leadership skills, it is noteworthy that students’ strengths awareness explained a significant level of variance in students’ perceived leadership development after examining the contributions of students’ demographic variables, pre-college leadership skills, and college experiences. Given the associations between college students’ strengths awareness and their leadership development, the authors recommend that student affairs practitioners include strengths-related approaches in their daily work. While the present study focused on first-year students, strengthsbased approaches can be utilized for all students and may gain increased relevancy as students progress through academic levels and become more invested in their career development (Stebleton, Soria, & Albecker, 2012). The first step in this process is to provide opportunities for students to assess their strengths in order to develop strengths awareness. Assessments similar to the Clifton StrengthsFinder, such as the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Seligman, Park, & Peterson, 2004) and the Realise2 (Centre for Applied Positive Psychology, 2010), can also help students develop strengths awareness. If practitioners choose to use the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment, there are several resources to help students learn more about their top five strengths, identify key moments when they have utilized their strengths and how strengths can be applied in a variety of contexts, and discover how strengths can be utilized in leadership (Clifton et al., 2006; Rath & Conchie, 2009). The authors recommend that facilitators seek training and resources related to the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment, including participation in workshops hosted by the Gallup Organization. Bowers and Lopez (2010) analyzed the ways in which the most successful students utilize their strengths and suggested three constructs are necessary for students to fully engage with their strengths: social support, successful experiences with strengths, and reinforcement of strengths. Practitioners can embed strengths-related activities within their programmatic efforts by intentionally developing teams or groups of students based on the diversity of their strengths. In this manner, practitioners can actively work to provide students with opportunities in which they not only utilize the individual combination of their strengths but also learn to appreciate the diversity of others’ strengths in study groups, leadership teams, or other areas (Lopez & Louis, 2009). Practitioners should proactively structure opportunities for students to receive frequent affirmations regarding their use of their strengths. For example, student employees can discuss how they utilize their strengths to best perform work-related tasks and student affairs practitioners who employ student workers can structure workplace opportunities to maximize and celebrate the strengths of their employees. While these teams, tasks, and opportunities for feedback can be facilitated in any variety of student affairs settings, the authors recommend practitioners develop individualized approaches based on each student’s unique combination of strengths (Lopez & Louis, 2009). Students can also be encouraged to recognize when their peers are using their strengths in action and provide affirmations for them (Lopez & Louis, 2009). Student affairs practitioners are encouraged to discover their own strengths alongside students because practitioners can demonstrate their own self-awareness and model strengths in ways that positively impact students’ engagement (Lopez & Louis, 2009). He (2009) proposed a strengthsbased mentorship model utilizing an appreciative advising framework and suggested mentors use

100

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

© NASPA 2015

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

Strengths and Leadership

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

strengths assessments, cultivate an open relationship with mentees, select mentorship methods to form ideal mentorship relationships, provide opportunities for reflection, and challenge students through a collaborative relationship. Student affairs practitioners in any division can serve as mentors who model strengths awareness and application to their students, thereby reinforcing the importance of self-awareness in their own leadership. Finally, not neglecting the constellation of pre-college and collegiate factors both positively and negatively associated with students’ leadership development is important. Compared to domestic students, international students reported significantly lower leadership development. While differences in leadership development have been identified by gender (Dugan, 2006) and race (Dugan & Komives, 2010), the differences shown here by domestic and international students represents a potentially new contribution to the literature. Additional effects of the collegiate experience were also noted. For example, compared to liberal arts majors, students pursuing education, agriculture, STEM, health, or business majors reported significantly lower leadership development. While the findings specific to STEM students are similar to those previously reported (Astin, 1993; Sax, 2000), the results for other types of academic majors may warrant further investigation, as the curricular experience may also serve as fertile grounds from which leadership can be cultivated. The results of this study also suggest that students who feel engaged in the classroom, have frequent academically related interactions with their peers, and feel a sense of belonging at their institutions are also more likely to report leadership development. These findings lend support to the well-established idea that the time and energy students put into their experiences may result in greater developmental benefits for students (Astin, 1993).

Conclusion In an uncertain world, future leaders are needed who possess strong qualities of self-awareness (Astin & Astin, 2000). An awareness of individual strengths brings about greater self-confidence and a sense of identity and direction (Clifton et al., 2006). The results of this study suggest that systematic strengths-based approaches and programs on college campuses may result in extended benefits for students’ leadership development. The authors recommend continued research and practice to discover the potential benefits of strengths approaches in higher educational contexts as a means of stimulating students’ development in areas critically necessary to advance our society. References Anderson, E. C. (2003). StrengthsQuest: Curriculum outline and learning activities. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization. Asplund, J., Lopez, S. J., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2009). The Clifton StrengthsFinder® 2.0 technical report: Development and validation. Lincoln, NE: Gallup. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263. Basto, M., & Pereira, J. M. (2012). An SPSS R-Menu for ordinal factor analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 46(4), 1–29. Boatman, S. A. (1999). The leadership audit: A process to enhance the development of student leadership. NASPA Journal, 37(1), 325–336. Bowers, K. M., & Lopez, S. J. (2010). Capitalizing on personal strengths in college. Journal of College and Character, 11(1), 1–11. Centre for Applied Positive Psychology. (2010). Realise2. Retrieved from http://www.cappeu.com/realise2.htm Chatman, S. (2011a). Factor structure and reliability of the 2011 SERU/UCUES questionnaire core: SERU project technical report. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies of Higher Education, University of California. Chatman, S. (2011b). No evidence of substantive non-response bias for the 2011 administration: SERU project technical report. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies of Higher Education, University of California. Clifton, D. O., Anderson, E. C., & Schreiner, L. A. (2006). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths in academics, career, and beyond (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Gallup Press.

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

101

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Strengths and Leadership Courtney, M. G. R. (2013). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: Using the SPSS R-menu v2.0 to make more judicious estimates. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 18(8), 1–14. Courville, T., & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 229–248. Douglass, J. A., Thomson, G., & Zhao, C-M. (2012). The learning outcomes race: The value of self-reported gains in large research universities. Higher Education, 64(3), 317–355. Dugan, J. P. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 335–343. Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students: Findings from a national study. A Report from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students’ capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 525–549. Fincher, J. (2009). Consciousness of self. In S. R. Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 299–334). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103–110. Hallenbeck, D. A., Dickman, M. M., & Fuqua, D. R. (2004). Dimensions of leadership and motivation in relation to residential setting. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 33(1), 23–31. He, Y. (2009). Strengths-based mentoring in pre-service teacher education: A literature review. Mentoring & Teaching: Partnership In Learning, 17(3), 263–275. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 256–268). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hodges, T. D., & Harter, J. K. (2005). A review of the theory and research underlying the StrengthsQuest program for students. Educational Horizons, 83(3), 190–201. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Komives, S. R., & Johnson, M. (2009). The role of high school experience in college student leadership development. Educational Considerations, 37(1), 30–39. Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 593–611. Komives, S. R., Wagner, W., & Associates. (2009). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). A leader’s legacy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lane, F. C., & Chapman, N. H. (2011). The relationship of hope and strength’s self-efficacy to the social change model of leadership. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(2), 116–137. Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 2–8. Louis, M. C. (2011). Strengths interventions in higher education: The effect of identification versus development approaches on implicit self-theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 204–215. Mather, P. C. (2010). Positive psychology and student affairs practice: A framework of possibility. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2), 157–173. Nathans, L. L., Oswald, F. L., & Nimon, K. (2012). Interpreting multiple linear regression: A guidebook of variable importance. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 17(9), 1–19. Pascarella, E., Wolniak, G., & Pierson, C. (2003). Explaining student growth in college when you don’t think you are. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 122–126. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Petrocelli, J. V. (2003). Hiearchical multiple regression in counseling research: Common problems and possible remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(1), 9–22. Raiche, G., Roipel, M., & Blais, J. G. (2006, June). Non-graphical solutions for the Cattell’s scree test. Paper presented at the International Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Montreal. Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people follow. Omaha, NE: Gallup Press. Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of a known factorial structure. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 282–292. Salisbury, M. H., Pascarella, E. T., Padgett, R. D., & Blaich, C. (2012). The effects of work on leadership development among first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 300–324. Sax, L. (2000). Citizenship development and the American college student. In T. Ehrlich (Ed.), Civic responsibility in higher education (pp. 3–18). Phoenix, AZ: Oryz Press. Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Affirming students’ strengths: A campus-wide approach to student success and retention (Report to the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education P116B000306). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Schreiner, L. A. (2010). The thriving quotient: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2–10. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press.

102

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

© NASPA 2015

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

Downloaded by [173.79.158.162] at 14:41 07 April 2015

Strengths and Leadership Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. Seligman, M. E. P., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2004). The Values in Action (VIA) classification of character strengths. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1), 63–78. Shushok, Jr., F., & Hulme, E. (2006). What’s right with you: Helping students find and use their personal strengths. About Campus, 11(4), 2–8. Soria, K. M. (2012). Creating a successful transition for working-class first-year students. The Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 20(1), 44–55. Soria, K. M., Fink, A., Lepkowski, C. C., & Snyder, L. (2013). Undergraduate student leadership and social change. Journal of College and Character, 14(3), 241–252. Soria, K. M., Hussein, D., & Vue, C. (2013). Leadership for whom? Socioeconomic factors predicting undergraduate students’ positional leadership participation. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(1), 14–30. Soria, K. M., Lepkowski, C. L., & Weiner, B. (2013). Living in the margins: Examining the experiences of atheist undergraduates on campus. Developments Journal, 11(2), 1–6. Soria, K. M., Lingren Clark, B., & Coffin Koch, L. (2013). Investigating the academic and social benefits of extended new student orientations for first-year students. The Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 20(2), 33–45. Soria, K. M., Nobbe, J., & Fink, A. (2013). Examining the intersections between undergraduates’ engagement in community service and development of socially responsible leadership. Journal of Leadership Education, 12(1), 117–140. Soria, K. M., Snyder, S., & Reinhard, A. (in press). Strengthening college students’ capacity for integrative leadership by building a foundation for civic engagement and multicultural competence. Journal of Leadership Education. Soria, K. M., & Stubblefield, R. (in press-a). First-year college students’ strengths awareness: Building a foundation for student engagement and academic excellence. Journal of First-Year Students and Students in Transition. Soria, K. M., & Stubblefield, R. (in press-b). Knowing me, knowing you: Building strengths awareness and belonging in higher education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice. Soria, K. M., & Thomas-Card, T. (2014). Relationships between motivations for community service participation and desire to continue service following college. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 20(2), 53–64. Soria, K. M., & Troisi, J. N. (2014). Internationalization at home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(3), 260–279. Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Albecker, A. (2012). Integrating strengths-based education into a first-year experience curriculum. Journal of College and Character, 13(2), 1–8. The Gallup Corporation. (2013). What is StrengthsQuest? Retrieved from http://www.strengthsquest.com/content/141728/ index.aspx Thompson, M. D. (2006). Student leadership process development: An assessment of contributing college resources. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 343–350. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. Wisner, M. D. (2011). Psychological strengths as predictors of effective student leadership. Christian Higher Education, 10(3–4), 353–375. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442.

JSARP 2015, 52(1)

© NASPA 2015

http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp

doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.996057

103