1

Additional Findings from Participation in

MSL 2015 - Elon UniversityApril 7, 2016

Steve Mencarini, Bob Frigo, and Kim Fath

MSL/ NCLP, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015

Presentation Outline

• Purpose & Frameworks for the Study

• Methodology

• Highlights of Elon’s Findings:

– Leadership

– Service-Learning

– Additional Campus Analyses

2

Purpose of the MSL

To examine student leadership values at both the

institutional and national levels with specific attention

to the campus experience factors that influence

leadership development in college students.

3

To build an international

research program that

advances college student

leadership development.

Framework of the MSL

Theoretical Framework:

Social Change Model of Leadership

Development (HERI, 1996)

Conceptual Framework:

I-E-O College Impact Model

(Inputs-Environment-Outcomes)

(Astin, 1993, 2001)4

The Social Change Model

5

Social Change Model: 7 C’s

Individual Values:

- Consciousness of Self

- Commitment

- Congruence

Community Value:

- Citizenship

6

Group Values

- Collaboration

- Common Purpose

- Controversy with Civility

Methodology

The Survey Instrument:

• Web-based (link sent via e-mail) during

February 2015

• Average completion time of 24 minutes across

all schools

• Schools could also ask up to 10 institution-

specific custom questions

• Survey management by Survey Sciences Group

7

Methodology

Ninety-seven institutions participated in 2015

– Geographically diverse

– Variety of institutional types and classifications

e.g., community colleges, women’s colleges, research

universities, liberal arts schools, HBCU’s and HSI’s

Institutions such as W&M, Emory, Georgetown, UNC-CH,

Lehigh, NC State, Northwestern, etc.

– Differing levels of leadership programming

(extensive at some, nascent at others)

– See www.leadershipstudy.net for complete list8

Methodology

Random Samples:

• A random selection of undergraduate students from

each institution (4,000 for most) was invited to

participate; total population was used for campuses

with 4,000 or fewer students

– Elon participated with 4,000 randomly sampled students

Comparative Sample:

• Each institution was allowed to identify custom

populations to serve as comparison groups

– Participants in CFL’s LEAD program9

Methodology

Data Collection & Results

• Standard data cleaning techniques were employed

• Findings were generated using descriptive and

inferential statistical methods and summarized in

final report for each institution

• Raw data was provided to schools for additional

analyses

• Incentives including gift cards to restaurants and

Phoenix cash

10

11

Select

Findings

Response Rates

Our Institution 2015

National

Sample

Invited 4,000 311,678

Responded 1,664 96,588

Response rate 41.6% 31.0%

12

Demographics

Our Institution 2015 National Sample

Gender

Female 69.59% 64.58%

Male 30.41% 35.42%

Class

First-Year 23.9% 23.5%

Sophomore 19.2% 21.62%

Junior 22.9% 25.2%

Senior 34.0% 29.68%

13

Demographics

Our Institution 2015 National Sample

Race/ethnicity

White/Caucasian 89.2% 67.51%

Middle Eastern/Northern African - 0.71%

African American/Black 7.2% 5.31%

American Indian/Alaska Native - 0.29%

Asian American 3.4% 6.99%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander - 0.3%

Latino/Hispanic 4.6% 6.28%

Multiracial - 10.01%

Race Not Listed - 2.59% 14

What are the overall

findings about leadership?

2015 National

Sample

General Elon

student

LEAD participants

Consciousness of Self 4.05 4.08 4.26*

Congruence 4.24 4.30* 4.43*

Commitment 4.40 4.47* 4.54

Collaboration 4.18 4.23* 4.35

Controversy with Civility 4.23 4.26 4.35

Citizenship 3.94 4.03* 4.37*

OMNIBUS SRLS (total

score)

4.17 4.23* 4.38*

15

* Indicates p<.01

Is there a difference in leadership

between the class years?

First Year Soph. Junior Senior

Consciousness of Self 4.014 4.004 4.094 4.231,2,3

Congruence 4.28 4.26 4.31 4.34

Commitment 4.44 4.41 4.5 4.51

Collaboration 4.184 4.154 4.27 4.341,2

Controversy with Civility 4.214 4.194 4.28 4.351,2

Citizenship 4.00 3.944 4.08 4.112

OMNIBUS SRLS (total score) 4.184 4.164 4.25 4.311,2

16

* Indicates p<.01

Is there a difference in leadership

between males and females?

Female Male

Consciousness of Self 4.09 4.06

Congruence 4.342 4.211

Commitment 4.512 4.381

Collaboration 4.262 4.161

Controversy with Civility 4.302 4.161

Citizenship 4.082 3.911

OMNIBUS SRLS (total score) 4.262 4.141

17

* Indicates p<.01

18

White/

Caucasian

African

American/

Black

Asian American Latino/Hispanic Multiracial

Consciousness of

Self4.09 4.21 3.91 4.03 4.03

Congruence 4.3 4.41 4.11 4.40 4.28

Commitment 4.47 4.56 4.31 4.48 4.47

Collaboration 4.24 4.30 4.13 4.07 4.18

Civility 4.25 4.33 4.09 4.28 4.28

Citizenship 4.02 4.19 3.95 4.07 4.06

OMNIBUS SRLS

(total score)4.23 4.34 4.08 4.21 4.21

* Indicates p<.01

Is there a difference in leadership

broken out by race?

Is there a difference in

leadership based on level of

faculty mentor relationship?

Never Once Sometimes Often

Consciousness of Self 3.903,4 3.904 4.051,4 4.221,2,3

Congruence 4.133,4 4.204 4.261,4 4.421,2,3

Commitment 4.303,4 4.304 4.421,4 4.611,2,3

Collaboration 4.063,4 4.094 4.201,4 4.361,2,3

Controversy with Civility 4.073,4 4.144 4.231,4 4.381,2,3

Citizenship 3.783,4 3.914 4.001,4 4.191,2,3

OMNIBUS SRLS

(total score)

4.043,4 4.094 4.191,4 4.361,2,3

19

* Indicates p<.01

Is there a difference in

leadership based on level of

staff mentor relationship?

Never Once Sometimes Often

Consciousness of Self 4.014 4.024 4.11 4.231,2

Congruence 4.264 4.224 4.304 4.431,2,3

Commitment 4.393,4 4.454 4.491,4 4.611,2,3

Collaboration 4.153,4 4.194 4.261,4 4.421,2,3

Controversy with Civility 4.193,4 4.204 4.301 4.381,2

Citizenship 3.913,4 4.004 4.081,4 4.261,2,3

OMNIBUS SRLS

(total score)

4.153,4 4.184 4.251,4 4.391,2,3

20

* Indicates p<.01

Study

Abroad

Internship Research Service

learning

Consciousness of

Self

4.16* 4.14* 4.14 4.15*

Congruence 4.35* 4.33 4.36 4.37*

Commitment 4.51* 4.50* 4.53* 4.54*

Collaboration 4.30* 4.30* 4.30* 4.33*

Controversy with

Civility

4.32* 4.30* 4.34* 4.33*

Citizenship 4.11* 4.10* 4.14* 4.21*

OMNIBUS SRLS

(total score)

4.29* 4.28* 4.30* 4.32*

21* Indicates p<.01; please note that the significant findings are comparing those

who did and did not participate in the experience, not between experiences

Is there a difference in leadership

based on participation in the 4

other Elon experiences?

Never Once Some-

times

Many

Times

Much of the

Time

Consciousness of Self 3.775 4.02 3.925 4.035 4.241,3,4

Congruence 4.055 4.28 4.185 4.245 4.431,3,4

Commitment 4.225 4.45 4.345 4.425 4.591,3,4

Collaboration 3.944,5 4.105 4.105 4.201,5 4.381,3,4

Controversy with Civility 4.065 4.055 4.185 4.205 4.381,2,3,4

Citizenship 3.503,4,5 3.704,5 3.901,5 4.001,2,5 4.221,2,3,4

OMNIBUS SRLS

(total score)

3.924,5 4.095 4.105 4.181,5 4.371,2,3,4

22

* Indicates p<.01

Is there a difference in leadership

based in how involved you are?

Never Once Sometimes Many

Times

Much of

the Time

Consciousness of Self 3.964,5 3.924,5 4.075 4.151,2,5 4.381,2,3,4

Congruence 4.245 4.164,5 4.265 4.352 4.491,2,3

Commitment 4.435 4.365 4.415 4.495 4.641,2,3,4

Collaboration 4.144,5 4.145 4.225 4.311 4.441,2,3

Controversy with Civility 4.205 4.145 4.235 4.31 4.421,2,3

Citizenship 3.894,5 3.824,5 4.015 4.121,2,5 4.391,2,3,4

OMNIBUS SRLS

(total score)

4.144,5 4.094,5 4.205 4.281,2,5 4.461,2,3,4

23

* Indicates p<.01

Is there a difference in leadership

based if you have a leadership role?

HS

participa-

tion

HS

leader-

ship role

College

participa-

tion

College

leader-

ship role

Leader-

ship

minor

Leader-

ship

workshop

HS part. 1

HS lead.

role

.521* 1

College

part.

.221* .203* 1

College

lead. role

.137* .204* .586* 1

Lead.

minor

.117* .137* .135* .167* 1

Lead.

workshop

.169* .169* .306* .234* .417* 1

24

What is the correlation between

various leadership involvements?

* Indicates p<.01

R- square B β

Step 1 .336*

Gender -.079 -.06

Academic level .039 .105

HS leadership

roles

.034 .083

Pre-SRLS score .445 .496

Step 2 .366*

College

leadership roles

.051 .189

Step 3 .370*

LEAD

participation

.104 .071

25

Does the LEAD Program have an

impact on leadership?

* Indicates p<.01

ADDITIONAL CAMPUS ANALYSES

26

Campus Rec employees

leadership capacities

• Compared employees to non-employees

• Significant results (p<.05): Overall socially

responsible leadership, congruence, collaboration,

and citizenship; sense of belonging; resilience;

leadership efficacy

• Non-significant results: consciousness of self,

commitment, controversy with civility (although

the means for the employees were higher in all

three categories, it was not significant)

27

Campus Rec:

Involvement in Programs

• Instructor-led group fitness: correlates to ALL leadership outcomes

(consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, collaboration,

controversy with civility, citizenship), leadership efficacy, sense of

belonging

• Intramural sports participation: none of the leadership outcomes,

however it does correlate with leadership efficacy, resilience, and

sense of belonging

• Open rec: consciousness of self, commitment, collaboration, overall

socially responsible leadership, leadership efficacy, resilience, and

sense of belonging

• Outdoor adventure: social change behaviors, collaboration, controversy

with civility, citizenship, leadership efficacy, resilience, and sense of

belonging

28

Kernodle Center:

Service Hours

• 2014-2015 Total Hours of Validated Service Hours: 128,869

MSL Service Hour Data Harvesting

• Questions: In an average month, do you engage in any community service?

(1=Yes 2=No)

• In an average month, approximately how many hours do you engage in

community service…

• As part of a class?

• As part of a work study experience?

• With a campus organization?

• As part of a community organization unaffiliated with your school?

• On your own?

MSL Service Hour Approximation: 174,341

29

Kernodle Center: Student

Impact Assessment Project

• Primary Goals

– Understand how service-learning impacts the knowledge, skills, attitudes,

and public action of students to identify needed improvements

– Determine if service-learning can take place in a co-curricular context in

addition to a credit-bearing context

• Research Questions

1.) How is the Kernodle Center preparing students to be engaged global citizens

and informed leaders motivated by concern for the common good?

2.) What knowledge do students gain from participating in service-learning?

3.) What skills do students gain from participating in service-learning?

4.) What attitudes do students develop from participating in service-learning?

5.) What public action experiences do students gain from participating in

service-learning?

30

Kernodle Center: Student

Impact Assessment Project

• Survey Models

– DukeEngage Group Programs Outcomes and Community Impacts

Evaluation

– Civic Minded Graduate Scale and Narrative Prompt

• Survey Organizing Frameworks

– Kernodle Center for Service Learning and Community Engagement

Student Learning Outcomes

– Civic Learning Spiral

• Proposed Assessment Instruments

– Pre-Experience Survey Instrument and Narrative Prompt

– Post-Experience Survey Instrument and Narrative Prompt

– Six Months Post-Experience Survey Instrument and Narrative

Prompt31

INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT

32

Where we started

FIRST GENERATION GENDER RACE

RESIDENTIAL

STATUS

SEXUAL

ORIENTATION

Non 1st

Gen 1st Gen F M White

Nonwhit

e Res Comm Het. LGBQ

I feel valued as a person at

this school

I feel accepted as a part of the

campus community

I have observed discriminatory

words, behaviors or gestures

directed at people like me

I feel I belong on this campus

I have encountered

discrimination while attending

this institution

I feel there is a general

atmosphere of prejudice

among students

Faculty have discriminated

against people like me

Staff members have

discriminated against people

like me

Sense of Belonging

Climate

Descriptor Response Options

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your

experience on your current campus:

I feel valued as a person at this school 1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Neutral

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

I feel accepted as a part of the campus community

I feel I belong on this campus

Non-Discriminatory

Climate: Indirect

Descriptor Response Options

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your

experience on your current campus:

I have encountered discrimination while attending

this institution 1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neutral

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

I feel there is a general atmosphere of prejudice

I would describe the environment as

negative/hostile

Non-Discriminatory

Climate: Direct

Descriptor Response Options

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your

experience on your current campus:

Faculty have discriminated against people like me 1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neutral

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Staff members have discriminated against people

like me

Other students have discriminated against people

like me

Defining Social

Identities

I’m a

cisgender

female

I’m a

transgender

male

I’m Puerto-

Rican

I’m gay

I have an

anxiety

disorder

I have a

visual

processin

g

disorder

My father went

to college but

didn’t finish

My

mother is

Latino

and my

father is

White

I’m the first in

my family to go

to college

I’m

bisexual

First Generation

Neither parent/guardian has completed a

baccalaureate degree (Elon Definition)

**May have attended

college or earned

an associates degree

Gender Identity

Could not include students who did not

identify specifically as male or female

Race/Ethnic Identity

What do we use

to assign a

student to

ALANAM

membership?

Results by identity

Scale

Parent

Education Gender Race/Ethnicity

Sexual

Orientation Ability Status

Firs

t-G

en

No

n-

Firs

t Ge

n

Ma

le

Fe

ma

le

ALA

NA

M

No

n-A

LA

NA

M

LG

BQ

He

tero

se

xua

l

Ide

ntifie

d

Dis

ab

ility

No

ne

Sense of

Belonging3.50 3.83 3.78 3.80 3.51 3.85 3.49 3.81 3.53 3.83

Non-

discriminatory

Climate –

Indirect

3.20 3.60 3.48 3.59 3.14 3.64 3.07 3.59 3.33 3.59

Non-

discriminatory

Climate – Direct

3.80 4.24 4.06 4.25 3.77 4.28 3.74 4.22 3.99 4.22

[1] A student is classified as first-generation if neither parent has earned a baccalaureate degree (Elon definition)[2] Transgender students omitted from analysis due to insufficient number of respondents in that identity group.[3] Includes students who identify from at least one of the following groups: Middle Eastern/North African, African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic/Multiracial, or Race Not Listed

Are the differences

statistically significant?

Scale

Parent

Education Gender

Race/Ethni

city

Sexual

Orientation

Ability

Status

Sense of

BelongingX - X X X

Non-

discriminat

ory Climate

– Indirect

X X X X X

Non-

discriminat

ory Climate

– Direct

X X X X X

[1] A student is classified as first-generation if neither parent has earned a baccalaureate degree (Elon definition)[2] Transgender students omitted from analysis due to insufficient number of respondents in that identity group.[3] Includes students who identify from at least one of the following groups: Middle Eastern/North African, African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic/Multiracial, or Race Not Listed

How much of a

difference?

Scale

Parent

Education Gender

Race/Ethnic

ity

Sexual

Orientation

Ability

Status

Sense of

Belonging● - ● ● ●

Non-

discriminato

ry Climate –

Indirect

● ○ ● ● ○

Non-

discriminato

ry Climate –

Direct

● ○ ● ● ○

[1] A student is classified as first-generation if neither parent has earned a baccalaureate degree (Elon definition)[2] Transgender students omitted from analysis due to insufficient number of respondents in that identity group.[3] Includes students who identify from at least one of the following groups: Middle Eastern/North African, African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic/Multiracial, or Race Not Listed

How do our results in

2015 compare to 2012?

Sense of Belonging

2012 2015 Effect

Ability Status

Identified Disability 3.68 3.53 -

No Identified Disability 3.92 3.83 .12

Sexual Orientation

LGBQ Students 3.55 3.49 -

Non – LGBQ Students 3.92 3.81 .14

Race/Ethnicity

ALANAM Students 3.76 3.52 .26

Non- ALANAM Students 3.94 3.85 .10

Gender

Male 3.84 3.78 -

Female 3.94 3.80 .17

Parent Education

First Generation 3.73 3.50 .25

Non-First Generation 3.93 3.83 .12

[1] Includes students who identify from at least one of the following groups: Middle Eastern/North African, African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native,Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic/Multiracial, or Race Not Listed

Sense of Belonging

2012 2015 Effect

Ability Status

Identified Disability 3.68 3.53 -

No Identified Disability 3.92 3.83 .12

Sexual Orientation

LGBQ Students 3.55 3.49 -

Non – LGBQ Students 3.92 3.81 .14

Race/Ethnicity

ALANAM Students 3.76 3.52 .26

Non- ALANAM Students 3.94 3.85 .10

Gender

Male 3.84 3.78 -

Female 3.94 3.80 .17

Parent Education

First Generation 3.73 3.50 .25

Non-First Generation 3.93 3.83 .12[1] Includes students who identify from at least one of the following groups: Middle Eastern/North African, African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native,Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic/Multiracial, or Race Not Listed

Do students who were

here in 2012 feel

differently in 2015?

How do our results

compare to the national

data?

IS THE CLIMATE THAT CHILLY FOR

OUR STUDENTS?

IT DEPENDS ON YOUR QUESTION

50