Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Running head: HONORS EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP
Pairing the LeaderShape Institute with Honors Experiential Learning
for Leadership Development
Richard Robles
University of Cincinnati
Honors LeaderShape 2
Introduction
The University Honors Program at the University of Cincinnati re‐designed the program
in 2007 with a focus on experiential learning in the thematic areas of community engagement,
global studies, leadership, and research/creative arts. Rather than attain a specified number of
credit hours, students would now have to participate in six honors experiences within one or
more of the thematic areas. Each thematic area is broadly defined such that it allows students
to engage in a variety of seminar courses and experiential learning projects. Within the spirit of
experiential learning, these learning opportunities offer students to reflect on what they
learned, what parts of the course were integrated in their current body of knowledge, and what
they are now empowered as a result the knowledge gained. But do these learning ideals
adequately apply to the thematic areas? If students focused their learning in a specific
thematic area, should there be specific learning outcomes required within the learning?
Additionally, should there be common learning outcomes within the theme so that there is a
mechanism to communicate to the student and other constituents how learning occurs? As a
result, the program began outlining specific learning objectives for the four thematic areas.
Specifically focusing on the leadership thematic area, the expectation is that a student
leader in the University Honors Program is involved in the University and beyond (i.e., student
organizations, college activities, community engagement, etc.) in a capacity of responsibility
and would achieve the following learning objectives through their honors experiences:
(1) Possesses knowledge of various leadership theories and identifies with the
characteristics of leadership;
(2) Identifies the various characteristics of a leader in a given situation/role;
Honors LeaderShape 3
(3) Has the ability to relate, communicate and work effectively with peers; and
(4) Develops a vision of the future and acknowledges the impact of decisions (as
applicable to the individual and affiliated organizations).
Appendix A illustrates how the learning objectives are expanded in the form of a rubric as the
basis of assessment. The rubric is used to evaluate students’ reflective essays after they have
completed a self‐designed experiential learning project. But the rubric and learning objectives
have not been applied to an established learning experience or seminar course.
The purpose of this evaluation and report is to investigate whether the learning
objectives could be applied to an established learning experience. Specifically, the study
focuses on the following evaluative questions:
(1) Are the Honors leadership objectives effective indicators for student learning?
(2) Does a student’s definition of leadership change after a significant learning
experience?
About the LeaderShape Institute
Created in 1992, the LeaderShape Institute is an internationally established leadership
program that develops young adults to “lead with integrity.” The six‐day process guides
students through a series of activities, discussion, and reflection providing them the tools to:
(1) Act consistently with core ethical values, personal values, and convictions;
(2) Develop and enrich relationships;
(3) Respect the dignity and contribution of all people;
(4) Believe in a healthy disregard for the impossible; and
(5) Produce extraordinary results (LeaderShape Institute, 2009).
Honors LeaderShape 4
Each of the six days scaffolds activities and learning so that students leave with a breakthrough
blueprint of their vision of the future at the end of the experience. Group work is conducted in
small‐group “family clusters” and in the larger “learning community”. Typically, two lead
facilitators from the LeaderShape Institute central office and up to six university faculty or staff
facilitate a campus‐based session.
The UC LeaderShape Institute
The University of Cincinnati has been affiliated with the LeaderShape Institute since
1997 when the campus‐based sessions were coordinated through Student Activities and
Leadership Development (SALD). Participation never reached the maximum capacity of 60
students, resulting in an average of less than 30 students per session or the session was
cancelled. During 2004‐2006, SALD received sponsorship from the Procter & Gamble Company
and the UC Alumni Association MasterCard Grant Fund. The LeaderShape Institute was held
each year during the summers and participation averaged 25 students per session. After the
funds expired, SALD was not able to sustain funding for the program for additional sessions.
The LeaderShape Institute became an established learning opportunity for University
Honors Program students through a UC|21 Presidential Grant of $40,000 awarded during the
2007‐2008 academic year. The first attempt to implement the campus‐based LeaderShape
Institute solely for University Honors students was held during the week of March 23, in
between the winter and spring 2008 quarters. Due to a lack of participation resulting from the
Christian Easter holiday, LeaderShape was postponed to fall 2008.
The postponed session was held December 13‐18, 2008, at the Dayton YMCA Camp Kern
in Oregonia, OH. Thirty‐seven students (19 freshmen, 10 sophomores, 6 juniors and 2 seniors)
Honors LeaderShape 5
participated in the six‐day session, which is significantly higher than any previously organized
session by UC. Of the 37 students, 14 were from the College of Engineering, 10 were from the
College of Business and 9 were from the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences. Three staff
members from the University Honors Program and the director of the UC Center for
Community Engagement served as the small group cluster facilitators. Due to illness, only one
of the two lead facilitators was able to come and implement the curriculum.
Data Collection
One of the unique features of the LeaderShape Institute is an on‐going assessment of its
participants before and after their participation in a session. The 37 participants completed a
pre‐ and post‐survey focused on leadership development. Survey questions were prescribed by
the LeaderShape Institute, which is based on Komives Leadership Identity Development model.
Administered through SurveyMonkey.com, the pre‐session survey was announced to
participants four weeks prior to the session through orientation meetings and e‐mail. The post‐
session survey was posted immediately after the LeaderShape Institute, but participants did not
complete it until a month later. Two participants did not complete the post‐survey and three
others answered all of the questions but the last question.
Appendix B lists the first set of ten survey questions, which were asked prior to the
LeaderShape Institute. These questions were meant to gauge the participants’ level of campus
involvement, complexity of personal social networks, and to see whether they have a role
model and/or mentor. For the first eight questions, participants answered on a likert scale of
1 (0‐3 in frequency or number), 2 (4‐6), 3 (7‐9), 4 (10‐12) or 5 (greater than 13). The last two
questions were answered either yes or no.
Honors LeaderShape 6
Tables 1 and 2 feature the set of survey questions participants completed before and
after the session. The questions in table 1 asked participants to rate their agreement to a series
of situational statements on a likert scale of strongly disagree (‐2), disagree (‐1), neutral (0),
agree (1) or strongly agree (2). Next, participants were asked to rate their confidence level in
accomplishing a list of tasks on a likert scale of low (1), fair (2), moderate (3), good (4), or high
(5). The final set of questions asked participants to identify the term that best describes them
as a leader (1= independent, 2= interdependent, or 3= dependent), their view of leadership (1=
positional or 2= relational), and to define leadership in their own words.
Data Analysis
Responses to the initial set of questions asked in Appendix B of the participants were
compiled and analyzed using statistical analysis software. A correlational matrix of the
questions are shown in Table 3. The statistical significance of the questions show that
involvement in a student organization does play a role in the meaningfulness of a student’s co‐
curricular experience and support networks. It is interesting to note how much there is a
statistically significant correlation between the size of one’s peer support network and the
amount of trust conferred in their relationships, but relationships was not a word commonly
associated with leadership until after the LeaderShape experience. Hypothetically, as one’s
circle of peer influence increases, trusted peers do not have the opportunity to add dimension
to the relationship through role modeling and mentorship. Furthermore, the amount of adults
serving as sources of affirmation and support are seen solely as role models for participants and
does not progress towards mentorship opportunities.
Honors LeaderShape 7
Although peer networks in student organizations are important and meaningful to the
participant, practice is needed to nurture relationships. Pre and post analysis of the responses
to the situational agreement (Table 1) and ability assessment (Table 2) questions showed
statistically significant shifts in participant self‐confidence, interpreted confidence received
from peers, and self‐awareness of identify. Participants recognized the importance of
developing inclusive relationships and the possibility of conflict to produce extraordinary
results. The results also show that students have a high confidence in their ability to take risks,
become visionary, and become change agents. Further involvement in campus organizations
would help build confidence in communicating effectively, delegating, and fostering inclusive
relationships with diverse populations.
Finally, the impact of the LeaderShape Institute is visually apparent when participants
were asked to define leadership in their own words before and after the experience. The words
were converted into two separate text documents and converted into word clouds using a web
site called Wordle.net. According to the web site, the word clouds “give greater prominence to
words that appear more frequent in the source text” and provides a frequency distribution
based on the words used (Feinberg, 2009, n.p.).
The total number of words used by all participants when defining leadership before the
experience was 820 (M=23.3, N=31). Figure 1 is the word cloud of the students’ definition of
leadership before the LeaderShape Institute. Before the experience, some of the more
commonly used words in the definition included the following: vision, leader, goals, ability,
others, people, group, guide, goals, common, and positive.
Honors LeaderShape 8
After the experience, the total number of words used by all participants to define
leadership was 865 (M=27.3, N=31), an increase of 5 %. The word cloud in Figure 2 shows how
different words have increased in frequency and scale. For example, before the LeaderShape
Institute, the word “vision” was used six times. After the LeaderShape Institute, the same word
appeared 19 times in the students’ definitions. In addition to the previously mentioned words,
the following words appear in greater frequency after the experience: change, relationships,
community, towards, integrity, and action. A paired t‐test analysis of the definitional word
count showed no statistical significance (t=1.224, df=30, p>0.10) between the before and after
LeaderShape experience. Although there was no statistical significance in the number of words
used by the participants the word clouds illustrates the increased depth in student responses.
Results and Findings
As a learning experience, the LeaderShape Institute offers students the opportunity to
gain skills to develop an understanding of various leadership perspectives, specifically the idea
of leading with integrity and acting congruently with their values. Through family cluster
discussions and learning community activities, participants have identified with various the
roles and characteristics of a leader and begun to realize the impact of their actions. Finally,
the development of breakthrough blueprint for future individual visions provided students
significant direction and the confidence to produce results. The pre‐ and post‐survey results
support the student gains from such an experience. Comparing the two word clouds (aka,
“wordles”) clearly shows how an experience affects a student’s definition of leadership.
Referring back to the initial evaluative questions, the survey items could be tied to each of the
Honors LeaderShape 9
four University Honors Program leadership learning objectives and illustrate how an experience
would address a student’s development as a leader.
Anecdotally, several of the University Honors Program staff members who participated
as cluster facilitators developed a strong connection with the participants. Several participants
have gone on to become more involved in the University Honors Program through the student‐
run auxiliary organization or assist in the implementation of first‐year experience initiatives.
Affiliation with the University Honors Program may increase the perceived support and
affirmation from the staff and foster possible role model and/or mentor opportunities. The
connection with the program could also offer students to further their leadership skills through
other classes, conferences, and/or high impact retreats.
As students increase their skills and social networks, it may be interesting to follow
them as they place their newfound leadership skills in context in their co‐curricular
involvement. Although the pre‐ and post‐survey results did not show a statistically significant
difference, the participants recognized that leadership could be more positional but their
personal view of leadership is both relational and interdependent. It may be worthy to reassess
the students to measure residual effects from the LeaderShape Institute and their impact on
their peers, social networks, and co‐curricular involvement.
Conclusion
Overall, the University Honors Program needs to continue offering the LeaderShape
Institute. Although the pre‐ and post‐ assessment showed statistical significance for several
variables, decisions in revising the University Honors leadership learning objectives should not
be based on an experience that benefitted 37 students, which is probably the most significant
Honors LeaderShape 10
weakness considering the LeaderShape Institute curriculum is based on 60 participants. As
more students participate in the program, the data collection and analysis would add to the
breadth of the experience and offer future conclusions on growth by a high‐achieving student
population. To add depth in measuring the effectiveness of the LeaderShape Institute, the
University Honors Program may want to follow the first‐year student participants to determine
whether the skills obtained through the experience are retained, enhanced, or lost as they
increase their social network and get more involved with the University of Cincinnati.
Since the survey questions could be tied to the University Honors leadership learning
objectives, the survey has applicability to other leadership seminar courses or learning
opportunities offered by the program. As part of the University Honors course proposal
process, faculty could identify how the course objectives meet the leadership learning
objectives. When embedded in course evaluations, a comparison can be made between faculty
member expectations and student value. Randomly selected seminars or experiences could
have students complete a pre‐ and post‐survey to possibly draw comparisons between the
average responses over time. In the end, the LeaderShape Institute’s survey may provide an
additional story thread to the University Honors Program’s overall assessment practices.
Honors LeaderShape 11
References
Feinberg, J. (2009). Index. In Wordle: Beautiful Word Clouds. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from
http://www.wordle.net.
LeaderShape Institute (2009). The LeaderShape Institute Curriculum. Retrieved June 1, 2009,
from http://www.leadershape.org.
Honors LeaderShape 12
Appendix A. Leadership Reflective Essay Rubric
The table below is the rubric used to evaluate reflective essays resulting from experiential
learning projects within the University Honors Program leadership thematic area
Honors LeaderShape 13
Appendix B. Pre‐Survey Questions
(1) How many leadership programs, classes, conferences, retreat, etc. have you
attended?
(2) How many organizations (student organizations, religious organizations, Greek
organizations, athletic team, community organizations, jobs, etc.) are you
currently involved with at any level?
(3) How many organizations (student organizations, religious organizations, Greek
organizations, athletic team, community organizations, jobs, etc.) are you
currently involved with at any level that you would consider your involvement
“meaningful” to you as an individual?
(4) How many friends do you have that can influence your decisions and behaviors?
(5) How many adults serve as sources of affirmation and support?
(6) How many peers serve as sources of affirmation and support?
(7) How many peers do you fully trust?
(8) How many times per week do you practice quiet reflection or meditation?
(9) Do you have someone who you consider a role model?
(10) Do you have someone who you consider a mentor?
Honors LeaderShape 14
Table 1.
Situational Agreement Questions
for growth.
relationships fundamentally important to the
role of a leader.
how others see me.
my abilities.
Note. Participants rated each statement on a scale of strongly disagree (‐2), disagree (‐1),
neutral (0), agree (1) or strongly agree (2).
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01
Honors LeaderShape 15
Table 2.
Ability Assessment Questions
weaknesses
who are different from me
my organization or community
my core ethical and personal values
in congruence with my values
peers both verbally and non‐verbally
my community or organization
Honors LeaderShape 16
necessary to implement my vision
(independent=1; interdependent=2;
dependent=3)?
leadership (Positional=1; Relational=2)?
Note. Participants rated their confidence level for each of the leadership tasks on a scale of
low (1), fair (2), moderate (3), good (4), and high (5).
* p < 0.01
Honors LeaderShape 17
Honors LeaderShape 18
Figure 1. Word cloud of participants’ definition of leadership before LeaderShape.
Figure 2. Word cloud of participants’ definition of leadership after LeaderShape.