PAGE 1 Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership Prepared by J. Judd Harbin, Ph.D. Director for Campus Life Assessment December 2015 This report summarizes the UNLV data collected during the spring 2015 administration of the Multi‐ Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL) and compares the UNLV data set to similar institutions who participated in this administration of MSL. INSTRUMENT The MSL assesses the development of leadership‐related competencies and skills among college students. It examines “experiences during college and their influences on leadership‐related outcomes (e.g., complex cognitive skills, social perspective‐taking, leadership efficacy)” (Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, 2015, p. 2). Framed by an adapted version of Astin’s college impact model, the MSL asks for demographic information from each student, about their experiences before and during college, and about the outcomes the student has gained. The instrument includes more than 400 variables, scales, and composite measures. Items contribute to thirteen general outcomes and four additional experimental outcomes. Seven of the general outcomes comprise the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS). Four of the remaining general outcomes comprise independent scales of their own. The final two general outcomes form a two‐dimensional scale related to the positive psychology construct of hope. Among the experimental outcomes, one stands by itself, and the other three relate to the construct of racial esteem. 1. Consciousness of Self 2. Congruence 3. Commitment 4. Collaboration 5. Controvery with Civility 6. Citizenship 7. Omnibus Socially Responsible Leadership 8. Resiliency 9. Leadership Efficacy 10. Complex Cognitive Skills 11. Social Perspective‐Taking 12. Hope (Agency) 13. Hope (Pathways) 1. Spirituality: Search for Meaning 2. Private Collective Racial Esteem 3. Public Collective Racial Esteem 4. Importance to Identity The instrument was revised since it was last administered at UNLV. For example, two of the scales that were included on the version last administered here were eliminated from this most recent version. The two eliminated scales are Change and Common Purpose. Both scales were eliminated from the instrument because they were eliminated from the underlying social change model. Furthermore, one of the subscales of the Collective Racial Esteem (CRE) scale, membership affiliation, was also removed
Transcript
PAGE 1
Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership Prepared by J. Judd Harbin, Ph.D.
Director for Campus Life Assessment December 2015
This report summarizes the UNLV data collected during the spring 2015 administration of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL) and compares the UNLV data set to similar institutions who participated in this administration of MSL. INSTRUMENT The MSL assesses the development of leadership‐related competencies and skills among college students. It examines “experiences during college and their influences on leadership‐related outcomes (e.g., complex cognitive skills, social perspective‐taking, leadership efficacy)” (Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, 2015, p. 2). Framed by an adapted version of Astin’s college impact model, the MSL asks for demographic information from each student, about their experiences before and during college, and about the outcomes the student has gained. The instrument includes more than 400 variables, scales, and composite measures. Items contribute to thirteen general outcomes and four additional experimental outcomes. Seven of the general outcomes comprise the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS). Four of the remaining general outcomes comprise independent scales of their own. The final two general outcomes form a two‐dimensional scale related to the positive psychology construct of hope. Among the experimental outcomes, one stands by itself, and the other three relate to the construct of racial esteem.
1. Consciousness of Self 2. Congruence 3. Commitment 4. Collaboration 5. Controvery with Civility 6. Citizenship 7. Omnibus Socially Responsible Leadership 8. Resiliency 9. Leadership Efficacy 10. Complex Cognitive Skills 11. Social Perspective‐Taking 12. Hope (Agency) 13. Hope (Pathways)
1. Spirituality: Search for Meaning 2. Private Collective Racial Esteem 3. Public Collective Racial Esteem 4. Importance to Identity
The instrument was revised since it was last administered at UNLV. For example, two of the scales that were included on the version last administered here were eliminated from this most recent version. The two eliminated scales are Change and Common Purpose. Both scales were eliminated from the instrument because they were eliminated from the underlying social change model. Furthermore, one of the subscales of the Collective Racial Esteem (CRE) scale, membership affiliation, was also removed
PAGE 2
from this version for similar reasons. Two scales related to the positive psychology concept of hope were added to this version. For more information about the instrument or the revisions, please review documentation provided on the MSL website: http://leadershipstudy.net/. For students who completed the survey in one sitting, UNLV students completed it in a mean of 24.1 minutes (median: 22). This completion time was consistent with the national mean and median: 24.0 and 22, respectively. SSG did not report the completion times for students who left the survey and returned later to complete it. METHODOLOGY During the spring 2015 semester, the Survey Sciences Group (SSG) administered the MSL nationwide on behalf of Loyola University Chicago. UNLV provided a random sample of 4,000 students and an additional, purposeful sample of 1,054 students. The additional students were selected because they were highly engaged in Campus Life programs during fall 2014. Each Campus Life program tracks its own participants, so each program provided rosters to Campus Life Assessment. Those rosters were grouped into one of three types of engagement. Campus Life student leaders and student employees (SLSE) comprised the first grouping. These leadership and employment roles include resident assistants, student organization officers, fraternity and sorority organization officers, members of student boards and councils, and student employees of departments within Campus Life (i.e., Housing & Residence Life, Campus Recreation Services, Civic Engagement & Diversity, Campus Life Business Office, and Student Union & Event Services). The number of students meeting this criteria is 324. Students who participated in at least one event from at least two programming areas within Student Engagement and Diversity (SED) comprised the second group. The number of these students is 1,089. Students minoring in Leadership & Civic Engagement (LCE) comprised the third grouping. The number of these students is 69. Depending on a particular student’s involvements, the student could appear in more than one grouping—e.g., a student employee who also minored in Leadership & Civic Engagement. The total number of highly engaged students was 1,379. In addition, 325 of these 1,379 students already appeared in the random sample, so they did not have to be added to the study. While coded as a randomly sampled student, the 325 were also coded on separate variables to identify their engagement with Campus Life. The 1,054 students who appeared in an engagement grouping but who were not one of the randomly selected students were coded as an additional students, part of the purposeful comparison sample. For each student in either the random sample or the purposeful sample, UNLV provided SSG with the student’s sample membership (random vs purposeful comparison), first name, last name, campus email address, unique identifier (five digit code uniquely created for this project), sex, race/ethnicity, academic classification, and whether that student was a member of each of the three engagement groupings. The email address was used to contact students in order to invite them participate in the study and to remind non‐responders of the opportunity to participate. The other characteristics were used to assess representativeness of the participants. To be eligible for the random sample in spring 2015, students had to be enrolled for at least one undergraduate credit hour during fall 2014 as of November 1, 2014 and had to be at least 18 years of age. Otherwise‐eligible students who restricted their contact information under FERPA were omitted.
PAGE 3
Representativeness of the sample was compared to eligible enrollment using Goodness of Fit chi‐square analyses. The random sample did not differ significantly from the eligible enrollment with regard to sex, race/ethnicity, or academic classification. Recruitment: Regardless of which method was used to sample the student into this study, the recruitment method was the same. Contact with students began with a pre‐notification letter emailed to all sampled students on Tuesday, March 31, 2015. The invitation to participate was emailed the next day on April 1, 2015. Reminders were sent on April 4, 9, and 13. The study was open for three weeks. The pre‐notification letter informed the student of their selection to participate in the study should they wish to do so, that the study was sponsored UNLV, and that completing the web‐based survey was best done on a desktop or laptop rather than a mobile device. The invitation and reminder emails contained a link to the web survey and a unique login key to gain access to the survey. Reminder emails were only sent to students who had not yet completed the survey and had not indicated that they did not wish to participate in the study. Students who declined to participate did not receive further emails. The survey was conducted entirely online. From the UNLV students who completed the MSL, SSG randomly selected 500 and transmitted the 5‐digit unique identifier to UNLV Campus Life Assessment. UNLV awarded each of those 500 students $3 RebelCash deposited directly to their RebelCard accounts. All students nationwide who completed the MSL were eligible to win national prizes awarded by Loyola University Chicago. The national prizes included two gift cards of $500 each, 10 gift cards of $250 each, and 15 gift cards of $100 each. NOTE: The degree‐seeking first‐year students and seniors included in this study were also invited to participate in the National Survey of Student Engagement administered earlier in this same semester. Participants: Of the 4,000 randomly selected students, 756 participated (18.9%). Of the 324 student leaders and student employees from Campus Life (SLSE), 127 participated (39.2%). Of the 1,089 students who attended at least one event in at least two categories of programs provided by Student Engagement & Diversity (SED), 270 participated (24.8%). Of the 69 students minoring in Leadership & Civic Engagement (LCE), seven (7) participated (10.1%). Because of the number of participants, the critical value of p was set at .01. This critical value provides a moderately conservative criteria for determining significance of statistical findings, for as the number of participants increases, smaller and smaller differences and associations reach statistical significance. As they grow smaller and smaller, they become less and less meaningful from a practical sense. Setting the critical value at .01, therefore, helps minimize the number of statistically significant findings lacking in practical importance. SSG provided a datafile that included not only each participant’s responses to the items but also the data supplied by UNLV about each student in the sample. The institution supplied data in the datafile was used to assess the representativeness of the respondents. Goodness of Fit chi‐squares were used to determine representativeness of the respondents, and where the participants’ characteristics showed statistically significant differences from those of the eligible students, the size of the difference was calculated as Cramer’s Phi (φ).
PAGE 4
From the random sample, participants did not differ significantly from the eligible students with regard to race/ethnicity. They did differ significantly with regard to sex (X2 = 23.422, df=1, N=756, p<.001, φ= 0.176) and academic classification (X2 = 26.035, df=4, N=756, p<.001, φ =0.186). The size of both effects is between small and medium. Consistent with most other survey projects in Campus Life, women were over‐represented among participants. In addition, seniors were under‐represented among participants. From the SLSE sample, participants did not differ significantly from the sample with regard to sex, race/ethnicity, or academic classification. From the SED sample, participants did not differ significantly from the sample with regard to race/ethnicity or academic classification. They did differ based upon sex (X2 = 7.890, df=1, N=270, p=.005, φ =0.171). Women were over‐represented among the participants. Because so few responded from LCE, that grouping were not analyzed separately. Among those seven, all of them were also a member of at least one of the other groupings (random sample, SLSE, or SED), so their individual responses were still reflected in the aggregate data from the other groupings. Characteristics of each UNLV sample (S) and students participating (P) from each sample
Random Sample
SLSE SED LCE
S P S P S P S P
Number of Students 4000 756 324 127 1089 270 69 7
Classification (%)
First‐Year 26 24 15 13 42 41 28 ‐ ‐
Sophomore 19 23 26 27 24 23 20 ‐ ‐
Junior 21 24 25 31 19 21 21 ‐ ‐
Senior 32 25 33 30 15 14 29 ‐ ‐
Other 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 ‐ ‐
Sex/Gender (%)
Woman 55 64 57 65 59 67 56 ‐ ‐
Man 45 36 43 35 41 33 44 ‐ ‐
Race/Ethnicity (Multi‐Select) (%)
American Indian or Alaskan Native 2 2 4 5 2 3 2 ‐ ‐
Asian 25 26 24 23 25 26 25 ‐ ‐
Black or African American 11 11 19 11 14 10 12 ‐ ‐
UNLV created a custom comparison group from the list of participating institutions. Seven institutions were selected, and they appear in Appendix A. For this report, responses from our randomly‐selected students were compared to other participating institutions from our current Carnegie classification
PAGE 5
(Research University, High Activity, abbreviated in this report as “RUH”) and to the custom comparison group (“CCG”).
FINDINGS Social Change Model (SCM) of Leadership Outcomes The UNLV participants from the random sample did not differ significantly from their counterparts at CCG and/or RUH institutions with regard to 11 of the 13 general outcomes and 3 of the 4 experimental outcomes assessed by MSL. For two of the three outcomes where UNLV differed significantly from RUH and/or CCG, the size of the difference (calculated as Cohen’s d) was trivial. For the third significantly different outcome, Public Collective Racial Esteem, the effect was small, and this outcome was one of the experimental ones for this administration.
UNLV RUH CCG
Outcome Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Citizenship1 3.81 0.75 3.96 0.68 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Hope (Agency)2 6.43 1.18 6.62 1.07 6.57 1.10
Public Collective Racial Esteem3 4.61 1.35 4.97 1.22 4.89 1.19 1 Scored on a 5‐point scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) 2 Scored on an 8‐point scale from Definitely False (1) to Definitely True (8) 3 Scored on a 7‐point scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7) Within UNLV, the MSL provides detailed reporting for each of the 13 general outcomes based upon the student’s self‐reported demographic characteristics and other factors which would fit into the “Input” column of Astin’s model: gender, race, class standing, sexual orientation, age, transfer status, enrollment status, political views, GPA estimate, educational generation, and disability status. MSL did not provide effect sizes for these analyses, so Cohen’s d was calculated manually by the director of Campus Life Assessment for each significant difference observed. These effect sizes can be found in Appendix B of this report. Customary threshold criteria for the magnitude of effect sizes were applied based on the absolute value of d: less than 0.2 for trivial; at least 0.2 for small; at least 0.5 for medium (or moderate), and at least 0.8 for large. Most significant differences were either small or trivial. Moderate effect sizes were observed for some of the significant differences. None of the significant differences revealed a large effect. This section will discuss the significant differences that revealed effects of moderate size. Such effects were found for consciousness of self, leadership efficacy, complex cognitive skills, and both hope scales: agency and pathways. The differences were related to self‐reported characteristics including class level, race, and GPA.
For Consciousness of Self, self‐identified seniors were more conscious of self than self‐identified first‐year students were. Looking at the items comprising the outcome, the differences were attributed to higher ratings on items related to self‐confidence and knowing oneself. While significant differences emerged between seniors and first‐year students on the ability to articulate priorities and describe one’s personality, those differences were small.
PAGE 6
For Leadership Efficacy, two significant differences revealed moderate effects, and both were related to race. Students who self‐identified as either White/Caucasian or Multiracial scored higher than students who self‐identified as Asian American scored. Both white students and multiracial students rated themselves moderately higher than Asian students did on confidence to lead others and on taking initiative to improve something. For organizing a group to accomplish a goal, the differences, while significant, were small. No significant difference was found with regard to working with a team on a group project.
For Complex Cognitive Skills, students who self‐identified as seniors scored higher than students who self‐identified as first‐year students scored. Seniors rated themselves moderately higher than first‐year students did on their ability to put ideas together and see relationships between ideas and their ability to critically analyze ideas and information. For ability to learn on one’s own, pursue ideas, and find information one needs as well for learning more about things that are new to oneself, the differences, while significant, were small.
For Hope‐Agency, two significant differences revealed moderate effects, and those effects were based on self‐reported race and self‐estimated GPA. Students who self‐identified as White/Caucasian scored higher than students who self‐identified as Asian American scored. The differences were related to a single item: meeting goals one has set for oneself. No significant differences were found for the other items: energetically pursuing one’s goals, feeling prepared by past experiences, and believing one has been successful in life. For self‐estimated GPA, students performing between 3.50 and 4.00 scored higher than students performing between 2.50 and 2.99 scored. Comparing these two groups, moderate differences were found for two items: believing one has been successful in life and meeting goals one has set for oneself. For energetically pursuing one’s goals, the difference, while significant, was small. No significant difference was found for the last item: feeling prepared by past experiences.
For Hope‐Pathways, students who self‐identified as Multiracial scored higher than students who self‐identified as Asian American scored. The difference tracked back to a single item: I can think of many ways to get out of a jam. Multiracial students rated themselves moderately higher than Asian students did.
Also within UNLV, the MSL provides detailed reporting for each of the 13 general outcomes based upon the student’s experience with certain environmental factors present since the student started college—whether at UNLV or elsewhere. These environmental factors included off campus employment, on‐campus employment, community service, residing on or off campus, involvement in college organizations, leadership roles in those organizations, involvement in off campus organizations, leadership roles in them, participation in a variety of student groups, frequency of engagement in social change behaviors and sociocultural conversations, feelings of belonging on campus, participation in mentoring relationships, formal leadership training, and high impact practices. The environmental variables also include one’s major(s). Some of the environmental factors were not associated significantly with any of the 13 general outcomes: learning communities, living‐learning communities, on‐campus jobs, whether one resided on or off campus, formal leadership capstones, majors, and minors; student groups related to arts, international interest, media, military (e.g., ROTC), new student traditions, peer helping, recreation, social/special interest, LGBTQ issues, racial/ethnic identity, and women’s groups; and most academic
PAGE 7
majors including business, communication, computer or information systems, ecology, engineering, health‐related professions, military science, social sciences, and visual or performing arts. As with the input variables, MSL did not provide estimates of effect sizes for significant differences, so where MSL flagged significant differences, the director of Campus Life Assessment manually calculated Cohen’s d from the mean and standard deviations provided by MSL. These effect sizes can be found in Appendix C of this report. Most of the 394 significant differences were either small (219) or trivial (6). Moderate effect sizes were observed for 128 of the significant differences. The remaining 41 significant differences revealed a large effect. In this discussion, the outcomes appear in order of descending effect sizes. For example, the largest effect size was within sense of belonging on campus for the hope‐agency outcome, so the outcome of hope‐agency appears first. For each outcome, then, all of the environmental factors with moderate or large effect sizes within the outcome will be identified. Within each outcome, they are identified in descending order of effect size. Hope‐agency showed large or moderate differences for five environmental factors. Students saw themselves as more effective agents of their own success when they felt more belonging on campus, were often mentored by an employer, and regularly conversed about sociocultural topics with other students. For students who held leadership roles in college organizations, their hope‐agency was higher among the ones who held leadership roles more often. Students who self‐identified as majoring in humanities, however, scored lower on hope‐agency than other students. Citizenship showed large or moderate differences for 13 of the environmental factors. Greater citizenship was associated with more frequent engagement in social change behaviors, more frequent conversations on sociocultural topics, greater sense of belonging on campus, formal leadership training (including position‐specific, workshops series, retreats, immersive, course‐based, and certificate‐yielding), regular participation in student groups related to advocacy or sorority/fraternity life (including multicultural sororities and fraternities), assuming a leadership role in college organizations (more than once), more involvement in off‐campus organizations, assuming a leadership role in off‐campus organizations (more than once), being mentored regularly by a community member, more involvement in college organizations, performing community service, and studying abroad. In addition, students who self‐identified as majoring in humanities scored lower on citizenship than other students. Collaboration showed large or moderate differences for six of the environmental factors. Greater collaboration was associated with greater sense of belonging on campus, formal leadership training specific to one’s position, assuming a leadership role in college organizations (more than once), regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, more frequent engagement in social change behaviors, and being mentored regularly by a community member. Hope‐pathways showed large or moderate differences for five of the environmental factors. Students saw themselves as more effectively identifying many avenues to success or multiple solutions to problems when they assumed regular leadership roles in college organizations (more than once), felt more belonging on campus, were often mentored by an employer, and regularly conversed about sociocultural topics with other students. Students who participated in a formal emerging leaders program, however, scored lower on hope‐pathways than other students. With regard to leadership roles in college organizations, students who assumed leadership roles “sometimes” (more than never but less
PAGE 8
than many times) scored lower on hope‐pathways than either students who never led or who led “much” of the time (the highest value among the response options). Resiliency showed large or moderate differences for four of the environmental factors. Greater resiliency was associated with greater sense of belonging on campus, regularly assuming leadership roles in college organizations, regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, and being mentored regularly by a faculty member or instructor. Omnibus socially responsible leadership skills showed large or moderate differences for eight environmental factors. This overall rating of socially responsible leadership skills was associated with greater sense of belonging on campus, regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, regularly assuming leadership roles in college organizations, more frequent engagement in social change behaviors, formal leadership training (including position‐specific, retreats, and workshops series), regular participation in student groups related to advocacy, regularly assuming leadership roles in off‐campus organizations, and being mentored regularly by a community member. Leadership efficacy showed large or moderate differences for seven environmental factors. Leadership efficacy was associated with greater sense of belonging on campus, regularly assuming leadership roles in college organizations, formal leadership training (including position‐specific or through coursework), regularly assuming leadership roles in off‐campus organizations, more frequent engagement in social change behaviors, regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, and completing a senior capstone experience. Consciousness of self showed large or moderate differences for six of the environmental factors. Greater consciousness of self was associated with greater sense of belonging on campus, regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, regularly assuming leadership roles in college organizations, more frequent engagement in social change behaviors, formal leadership training (including retreats, conferences, coursework, and workshop series), and if mentored by a Student Affairs Professional, being mentored often. Complex cognitive skills showed large or moderate differences for five of the environmental factors. Greater complex cognitive skills were associated with regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, greater sense of belonging on campus, more frequent engagement in social change behaviors, regular participation in student groups related to advocacy, and if mentored by a faculty member, instructor, or fellow student, being mentored often. Controversy with civility showed large or moderate differences for five of the environmental factors. Greater controversy with civility was associated with regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, greater sense of belonging on campus, regularly assuming leadership roles in college organizations, more frequent engagement in social change behaviors, and regular participation in student groups related to advocacy. Commitment showed large or moderate differences for four of the environmental factors. Greater commitment was associated with regularly assuming leadership roles in college organizations, greater sense of belonging on campus, encountering or perceiving less discrimination on campus, and regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics.
PAGE 9
Congruence showed no large differences for any of the environmental factors. It did show moderate differences for four factors. Greater congruence was associated with regularly assuming leadership roles in college organizations, greater sense of belonging on campus, regular participation in student groups related to advocacy, and regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics. Finally, social perspective‐taking showed no large differences for any of the environmental factors. It did show moderate differences for three factors. Greater social perspective‐taking was associated with greater sense of belonging on campus, regular (more than once) conversations on sociocultural topics, and encountering or perceiving less discrimination on campus. Change Over Time From the random sample, to assess change over time on each of the general outcomes, the MSL considered participants who self‐indicated that they were in their senior year. Seniors identified by the institution in the sample file were excluded if they did not self‐identify as seniors in the demographic items on the MSL. Similarly, individuals with other academic classifications were included in the change over time analysis if they self‐identified as seniors. Among the 756 respondents from the random sample, 192 were identified by UNLV as seniors, but 223 respondents self‐identified as seniors. In addition, institutional‐identified seniors under‐responded to this survey. An extra measure of caution should be taken before attempting to generalize the findings for change over time to all UNLV seniors. For the self‐identified seniors who responded to the MSL, change over time was statistically significant and substantial. On three of the general outcomes, consciousness of self, hope (agency), and hope (pathways), the students’ responses indicated large changes between the point before they started college and their current year of college. These changes mirror the changes among students at RUH and CCG institutions. Moderate changes were noted for seven of the general outcomes: commitment, collaboration, controversy with civility, omnibus SRLS, resiliency, leadership efficacy, and social perspective‐taking. Five of these changes mirror the changes among self‐identified seniors at RUH and CCG institutions: collaboration, controversy with civility, omnibus SRLS, resiliency, and leadership efficacy. For the other two, the changes for UNLV students were moderate while the changes for their counterparts at RUH and CCG institutions were small: commitment and social perspective‐taking. Small changes were noted for the remaining three outcomes: congruence, citizenship, and complex cognitive skills. These changes mirrored changes among students at RUH and CCG institutions with one exception. Seniors at RUH institutions reported moderate changes in complex cognitive skills; seniors at UNLV and CCG institutions reported small changes. Involvement in Campus Life Programs UNLV opted to add to the MSL administration students who served as student leaders and student employees in Campus Life departments (SLSE), students who participated in at least one event from two or more programming areas of Student Engagement & Diversity (SED), and students who were enrolled in the Leadership & Civic Engagement minor (LCE). Students from these three groups who had been selected for the random sample were coded as both random sample participants and participants from the relevant group(s). Would the outcomes differ by level of engagement with Campus Life programs? Students who were randomly selected and were not also SLSE, SED, or LCE comprised the uninvolved group (n=683); their
PAGE 10
level of involvement was coded as zero (0). For the remaining students, their level of involvement was the count of the number of Campus Life programs in which they participated: for involved in one Campus Life program, n=324; two, n=40; and three, n=0. Three outcomes differed by level of involvement: citizenship, omnibus SRLS, and leadership efficacy. All of the differences were small or trivial except one. For citizenship, a medium‐sized difference emerged between students with no Campus Life programs and students involved in two Campus Life programs. This table provides the relevant means and standard deviations in bold as well as the effect size between them. The mean and standard deviation for students involved in one program appears in gray for reference purposes. Students with no involvement in Campus Life scored moderately lower on citizenship than students who participated in two Campus Life programs.
Number of Campus Life Programs None One Two
Outcome Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Cohen’s d
Citizenship 3.77 0.74 4.06 0.69 4.26 0.57 ‐0.61
Looking at the items comprising the citizenship outcome, each of the six items differed significantly across the three levels of involvement. Students participating in two areas rated themselves moderately higher than students participating in none on four items: participating in activities that contribute to the common good, believing it is important to play an active role in one’s communities, working with others to make one’s communities better places, and believing one’s work has greater purpose for the larger community. Small differences were observed for having many responsibilities in one’s community and valuing opportunities to contribute to one’s community. Student Leaders and Student Employees (SLSE) Student leaders and student employees (SLSE) have frequent contact with professional staff in Campus Life departments. For student leaders, the professional staff provide advising and mentoring for their leadership roles. For student employees, the professional staff provide supervision for their jobs and mentoring for their careers. To examine for differences in outcomes for involvement in SLSE, the 88 students who were involved as SLSEs only were compared to the 683 uninvolved students from the random sample. For three outcomes, significant differences were found: collaboration, omnibus SRLS, and leadership efficacy. For each outcome, though, the differences were small. To examine for differences in outcomes for involvement in SLSE only compared to involvement in SLSE plus other Campus Life programs, each of the 13 general outcomes were compared. SLSEs who were involved in another Campus Life program (n=39) did not differ significantly from SLSEs involved only as student leaders or student employees (n=88). Student Engagement Students who participated during fall 2015 in at least one event from two or more programming areas within Student Engagement & Diversity (SED) took advantage of more opportunities for involvement than other students. They not only attended co‐curricular events but also attended more broadly than other students.
PAGE 11
To examine for differences in outcomes for SED participation, the 231 students who were involved in SED were compared to the 683 uninvolved students from the random sample. For one outcome, a significant difference was found: citizenship. The difference, however, was small. To examine for differences in outcomes for involvement in SLSE only compared to involvement in SLSE plus other Campus Life programs, each of the 13 general outcomes were compared. For one of the general outcomes, SEDs who were involved in another Campus Life program (n=39) differed significantly from SEDs who only participated in Student Engagement and Diversity programs (n=231). That outcome was leadership efficacy. The difference, however, was small. Civic Engagement and Leadership Minor Because of the low number of respondents from Campus Life involvement group, a separate analysis was not conducted. Comparing within Campus Life The 13 general outcomes for students who participated in SLSE (n=88), SED (n=231), or both (n=39) were compared. No significant differences were found. For SEDs, the number of events they attended in each of the programming areas within Student Engagement & Diversity was incorporated into the survey responses. Few of these attendance counts correlated with any of the 13 general outcomes, and where correlations were significant, they were small.
IMPLICATIONS Appendix D maps the environmental factors with statistically significant, moderate or large effects onto the thirteen outcomes. This map might be useful in mentoring, advising, or supervising sessions with students when a particular outcome is a target of those sessions. For all 13 outcomes, a greater sense of belonging and more frequent sociocultural conversations were associated with greater success. For the broadest impact, programs and services should focus on ways to enhance students’ sense of belonging on campus and to cultivate opportunities for sociocultural conversations. Assuming a leadership role more often in on‐campus organizations was associated with greater success on 11 of the outcomes while involvement in these organizations was associated with greater success on only one. Promoting more frequent leadership in campus organizations might also enhance students’ leadership development broadly. More frequent participation in social change behaviors was associated with greater success for seven of the outcomes, so cultivating more such opportunities could benefit students broadly. Leadership training, and mentoring were associated with greater success on many of the outcomes, and the type of training or the role of the mentor, respectively, varied. The map in Appendix D could prove helpful in suggesting leadership training or mentors when students need to learn more on specific outcomes. For example, an adviser, mentor, or supervisor of a student leader who needs to collaborate more might suggest that the student participate in position‐specific leadership training or meet more often with a community‐member mentor. For another student leader who needs more complex
PAGE 12
cognitive skills, the suggestion might be to meet more often with either a faculty mentor or student mentor or to get involved with an advocacy‐based student group. Students who were involved in two ways with Campus Life departments performed better in terms of citizenship than students who were not involved with Campus Life. For students who were engaged in only one Campus Life opportunity, professional staff might encourage greater involvement. For example, student employees and student leaders could be encouraged to participate in events from two or more SED programming areas or to minor in Leadership & Civic Engagement. For another example, LCE minors might be encouraged to participate in two or more SED programming areas. Looking at the outcomes in terms of factors where significant differences emerged, citizenship differed on more of the factors than other outcomes did. More intentional program design may be needed in order for students who participate in those programs to achieve greater success on any outcome that was not associated with that particular program (or environmental factor) in this study.
PAGE 13
References
Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership (2015). University of Nevada‐Las Vegas School Report: Executive Summary. Author. Available in electronic form from UNLV Office of Campus Life Assessment.
Temple University 36,507 RUH Non‐Residential Yes No
University of Central Florida 53,401 RUVH Non‐Residential Yes Yes
University of Memphis 21,424 RUH Non‐Residential No No
University of Missouri‐Columbia 31,237 RUVH Residential No No
University of Oregon 22,335 RUVH Non‐Residential No Yes
University of Rhode Island 16,389 RUH Residential No Yes
University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee 30,418 RUH Non‐Residential Yes No
UNLV 29,080 RUH Non‐Residential Yes N/A
The Executive Director of Student Engagement & Diversity and the Director of Campus Life Assessment reviewed the roster of participating institutions and selected seven (7) institutions as a custom comparison set. Only large, public institutions were considered. Those institutions had to be classified as a Carnegie Research University with at least High Activity. From the resulting list, preference was given to institutions that were non‐residential or urban.
PAGE 15
Appendix B: Effect sizes of statistically significant differences in leadership outcomes for input factors within UNLV.
Outcome Factor Groups(a‐b) Mean(a) SD(a) Mean(b) SD(b) d
