__MAIN_TEXT__

Page 1

Volume 2, No. 3

SLPKC WINTER NEWSLETTER A Word from the Co-Chairs Special points of interest: 

A word from the SLP Co-Chairs (1)

Resident Assistant Mentoring Study (1)

Collegiate Leadership Competition (5)

SLPKC Survey (5)

NASPA PreConference (5)

Pre-Conference Update & Survey (5)

CliftonStrengths (6)

New Directions for Student Leadership (7)

Submit for our Next Newsletter (8)

Jimmy Brown, Director, Center for Leadership & Involvement, University of Chicago Kim Kushner, Coordinator, Events & New Student Programs, University of Missouri-Kansas City

On behalf of the SLPKC Leadership Team, we hope that this has been a productive and successful start of the academic year for you. As we look ahead to the end of the Fall Semester/Quarter, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on our successes to date and challenge ourselves to continue thinking about the ways we can improve upon our leadership offerings. As a gentle reminder, our mission is to serve as a resource for higher education professionals who have a professional interest in leadership training, education, and development for college students. We expect that our community will share best practices, provide critical evaluation of the field, examine standards for leadership programs, support national and regional efforts to develop student leadership programs, make contributions to the literature, recognize exemplary programs, and cultivate a forum for the presentation of new ideas. To help meet this mission, we had identified the following strategic goals for our term as co-chairs, which is quickly coming to an end… (continued on page 2)

Revelations from a Resident Assistant Mentoring Study: Misalignment on Mentoring Contact us! SLPCHAIRS@Gmail.com

Dr. Sherry L. Early, Britt Frye & Dr. Jessi Hanna, Marshall University What do we really know about mentoring Resident Assis-

tants (RAs)? Does mentoring affect RAs’ leadership efficacies? To address these two research questions we created a successful collaborative research project between Housing and Residence Life

(HRL) and Leadership Studies faculty. We wanted to learn more about mentoring encounters/relationships and leadership efficacy (selfefficacy and leadership … (continued on page 3)


SLPKC WINTER

Meet the SLPKC Executive Board Jimmy Brown, Chair University of Chicago Kim Kushner-Cook, Chair University of Missouri-Kansas City Sean Ryan, Chair Elect Longwood University Avani Rana, Chair Elect The College of New Jersey Rachel Winters, Conf. Events University of Virginia Michele Kurtz, Conf. Events Wake Forest University

Meghan Perez, Grad. Support University of Tennessee Chris Campbell, Grad. Support Amherst College Benjamin Williams, Lit. Review Georgia Tech Amy Fitzjarrald, Lit. Review University of Houston Megan Webster, Newsletter Fairfield University Maggie McCarthy, Newsletter University of Missouri– St. Louis Morgan Zuziak, Podcast University of Nevada– Reno Jeff Nilsen, Pre Conf. University of Chicago Amy Ackerman, Pre Conf. University of Virginia Kim Piatt, CLDE-KC Rep SUNY Brockport Page 2

A Word from the Co-Chairs Continued (Continued from Previous Page)

SLP-KC STRATEGIC GOALS 2016-2018  Increase our online presence through the use of social media and interactive fea-

tures on the NASPA website.  Find opportunities for face-to-face interactions of SLPKC members, both regionally and during our National Convention.  Strengthen the relationships between SLPKC and the other KCs, which will allow us to reach a broader audience of professionals.  Strengthen our Regional connections, finding new opportunities for our Regional Representatives to serve as resources for best practices and current research related to student training and development.  Provide opportunities for scholarly research for leadership educators in all aspects of leadership development and assessment. We would like to draw your attention to our call for applications to serve on the KC Leadership Team for the 2018-2020 term. Serving on the KC leadership team is a wonderful professional development opportunity, and it gives you the opportunity to engage in a conversation about student leadership programs with colleagues from all areas of higher education. We hope that you will take some time to explore the positions available and submit an application to join our team! As we head into the Winter semester/quarter, we encourage you to follow our social media and check-out our website to stay up-to-date on all the resources and activities sponsored by the KC. We have many webinars, podcasts, and program highlights on the way! As a reminder, if there is anything that we can do to further support your work, please do not hesitate to contact us. We wish you the best of luck for the New Year and look forward to connecting with all of you in the upcoming months.


Winter 2017 SLPKC Newsletter

Misalignment on Mentoring Continued (Continued from Page 1) behaviors). Any successful assessment or research project requires communication and delegation of tasks. Leadership Studies faculty and HRL worked together on this particular assessment by:  Creating of a Memo of Understanding (MOU) between Housing and Residence Life and Leadership Studies based on mutual benefit and research/departmental needs;  Attending face-to-face meetings;  Delegation of tasks regarding communication with HRL staff to Britt Frye;  Delegation of tasks regarding Institutional Review Board to Drs. Early and Hanna;  Ongoing email correspondence between Early, Frye, and Hanna;  Dissemination of a journal article by the primary researcher, Dr. Early to all graduate level and fulltime staff by Britt Frye, Assistant Director for Academic Initiatives; and  Communication on logistics (e.g., reserving rooms, ordering food, informed consent forms). In order to determine if mentoring encounters had an impact on resident assistants’ leadership efficacies (self-efficacy and leadership behaviors). The learning outcomes of the research project were of mutual benefit to the researchers and practitioners. The primary researcher, Sherry Early wanted to address a gap/ limitation in her dissertation research; the practitioners wanted insights on relationship dynamics between paraprofessional and graduate assistant (GA) and fulltime staff. HRL and Leadership Studies faculty worked together with this assessment equitably. Historically, this assessment came about by Sherry Early approaching the Assistant Director for Academic Initiatives, Britt Frye via email and initiating a meeting and attached a copy of her dissertation research in the form of a journal article for his reference. Sherry Early met with Britt Frye and we discussed our professional histories with Housing and Residence Life (HRL). Sherry then discussed how HRL continues to be an area of interest in her research agenda as faculty. Britt Frye stated he was receptive to collaborating for further research on mentoring relationships and leadership by providing access to Marshall University’s HRL staff. Sherry completed the Institutional Review Board proPage 3

cess. Together, Early, Frye, and Hanna developed a timeline for a two-week period for focus groups and interviews. Britt Frye reserved the space and advertised this opportunity to participate to HRL staff. Factors contributing to the positive working relationship included:  Not making assumptions about one another’s intentions or needs regarding the assessment;  Being transparent regarding tangible outcomes of the assessment (e.g., HRL’s need for a professional development training on findings);  Willingness of HRL to provide financial resources, meeting space, and communicate with HRL staff;  Willingness of the researchers to come to the Huntington/undergraduate campus from the South Charleston/graduate campus in the evenings to conduct focus groups; and  Researchers were responsible for all administrative IRB aspects (e.g., informed consent forms). The theoretical framework that guided this study was Mentoring Theory and the Social Change Model of Leadership; the conceptual framework that guides this study is Astin’s Input-Environment-Outcome Model. Together, they account for students’ pre-college experiences, current collegiate experiences, and perceptions of their leadership efficacies. Within mentoring literature there are two aspects; 1) mentoring for interpersonal development and 2) mentoring for career development. Findings related to this assessment included HRL GAs and full-time staff emphasized the career development or vocational aspect of mentoring with their staffs. However, paraprofessional staff identified a need for the interpersonal development aspect of mentoring. This identified misalignment was rather shocking to the GA/full-time staff. From the RA perspective, they had identified mentors to help further their careers (faculty, family members, coaches, etc.) who were not their supervisors. They expressed when a critical incident occurs on their floor, the staff tends to focus on the student and may unintentionally neglect the RAs’ emotional wellbeing. This has resulted in RAs turning to returning RAs as opposed to their supervisors for support. Another important finding was that although HRL staff were not identified “mentors” they were seen as leaders by the paraprofessional staff. (Continued on page 4...)


SLPKC WINTER (Continued from previous page) The innovative component of this assessment from the Student Affairs perspective is that we have isolated the misalignment between paraprofessional staff needs and what professional staff has been providing. In doing so, an examination of communication, culture and transparency within Marshall University’s HRL program has ensued. The innovative component of this assessment from the Academic Affairs perspective is that we have been able to not only hear from the protégé (in dissertation research) but also from mentors when it comes to leadership. Moreover, we can role model a successful, mutually beneficial partnership between HRL and Leadership Studies. Lessons learned from this collaboration include that you can address limitations in your dissertation research. Sherry Early was able to use a multi-institutional, quantitative study and compare findings with a single institution, qualitative study on mentoring and leadership efficacy. We also learned the value of hearing from both mentors and protégés. In this research, we were able to pinpoint the misalignment between RA needs and what the supervisors were providing. We also learned some Student Affairs practitioners want to engage with faculty, but they can be intimidated to approach them. Waiting for Student Affairs professionals to come to faculty is a potential pitfall. So, faculty reaching out (especially those with a Student Affairs background) make the receptivity to collaboration much higher. I have also learned the power of transparency through a co-constructed MOU. This document not only lends itself toward mutual benefit/accountability for both faculty and practitioner, but also allows for discussion for future collaborative endeavors for a sustained relationship.

“We were able to pinpoint the misalignment between RA needs and what the supervisors were providing” Daphney Alston, Region I Rep. Southern Connecticut State University

Stacey Malaret, Program Review University of Central Florida

Christina Ferrari, Region II Rep. Columbia University

Heather Brake, Program Review Arkansas State University

Anthony Crenshaw, Region III Rep. University of Richmond

Lauren Krznarich, Social Media/Comm. Indiana University Bloomington

Matt Skoy, Region IV-W Rep. North Dakota State University

Susan Hua, Social Media/Comm. University of San Francisco

Janna Bernstein, Region V Rep. University of Nevada– Las Vegas Melanie Lee, Region V Rep. University of Utah

Aaron Jones, Lead– Conference University of California—Santa Cruz Jeffrey Domagala, Webinar University of Michigan

Christine Hernandez, Spotlight & Awards Mount Saint Mary’s University—LA Taylor Stokes, Spotlight & Awards University of Florida

Trisienge Ortiz, Region VI Rep. Marshall B. Ketchum University Myles Surrett, Lead- Communications Clemson University Page 4

Meet the SLPKC Executive Board

Joshua Fredenburg, Webinar Nova Southeastern University Amy Fitzjarrald, Lit Review & Resources University of Houston Ben Williams, Lit Review & Resources Georgia Tech University


Winter 2017 SLPKC Newsletter

Collegiate Leadership Competition Collegiate Leadership Competition (CLC), a nonprofit experiential leadership program founded in 2015, creates a dynamic practice field where student leaders apply what they are learning in a context that stretches them to the boundaries of their leadership knowledge, skills and abilities. CLC develops the next generation of exceptionally skilled problem solvers, communicators and collaborative team-workers. Learn more by viewing our video on YouTube!

SLPKC Survey The NASPA Student Leadership Programs Knowledge Community (SLPKC) is interested in your input regarding goals and topics for the upcoming two years (2018-2020). We appreciate you taking this quick survey to give us some insight on topics, including demographics, needs, and opportunities to engage with the Knowledge Community. Please follow https://goo.gl/forms/ rEDhshoYsjr9Qtk93 to complete the survey. We will be accepting answers until January 31st . Thank you for your time and commitment to the SLPKC!

NASPA Pre-Conference Workshop Pre-Conference Workshop, Saturday, March 3rd, 1-4PM SLPKC & CLDEKC present: Student Activism, Leadership Education, and Civic Education: A look at how institutions are navigating this around the country.

Page 5

Abstract: The need for civic learning and democratic engagement at higher education institutions is more important than ever. Presenters will address the elements of developing a civic-minded institution and how they can be enhanced at various types of colleges and universities. Participants will conduct a review of their own institution. A

panel comprised of professionals from the area will share perspectives on how their institutions and offices are navigating these topics and responding to current events.

years. She oversees 40 different programs related to civic engagement, leadership development, and social change. Dr. Osteen has a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland in College Student Personnel with an emphasis in leaderSpecial Guest: Dr. Laura ship development and organiOsteen is the Director of Lead- zational change. Dr. Osteen ership and Social Change at will be facilitating the first hour Florida State University where of the pre-conference discussshe has been for the past 14 ing the 5 elements of a civicminded institution.


SLPKC WINTER

Critical Components of a CliftonStrengths Program on College Campuses Steven Lerer, Associate Director for the Office of Leadership, Service, and Career at the University of California, Merced According to the Gallup Organization, the CliftonStrengths® assessment is in use at over 600 college and universities with approximately 2 million codes used each year which values at a cost of over 20 million dollars annually. Higher Education is also one of the fastest growing area for strengths and that number of codes purchased continues to increase each year. Given the above information, it is important for us to explore what might be the most important components of a Strengths Development program at a college campus. Based on my personal experience using the CliftonStrengths® assessment over the past four years at UC Merced, I would recommend two major tenants of a quality program at your campus. First, knowing the cost of the assessment per student, it would be unwise for a campus to invest in the CliftonStrengths® assessment without building a long-term strengths development program for students. This program could be integrated into orientation, first -year seminars, and career planning throughout students’ entire time at the university. While self-understanding is important for students, the opportunity to use themes repeatedly can have a greater influence on their experience using the overall concepts of Strengths. Additionally, lack of support could potentially lead to self-doubt and the muting of themes, which would be the opposite of what the program sets out to accomplish. Investing in trained facilitators and coaches across campus could also increase the potential yield of the development program. Second, Strengths Based Development programs should be both widespread and locally focused. By widespread I refer to the fact that the more people with Strengths language on campus, the more likely students will receive the support and guidance needed to continuously use their themes and reflect on those experiences. Strengths Based Development should not be limited merely to students. Staff and Faculty and possibly parents could engage in this program. This would allow for students to discuss their themes with anyone at any time, which would result in continual improvement. By locally focused I assert that natural teams with a better understanding of their peer’s talent themes could influence greater agency, self-confidence, and thinking about multiple pathways to goals. In my office, I use CliftonStrengths® as the major focus of team development. My staff have shared that their experience working on a strengths-focused work team was of great influence in their self-awareness and use of strengths, and did not lead to increased self-doubt. Replicating this type of environment in multiple areas of campus could influence students’ strengths development and their overall collegiate experience. This could be done in offices, student clubs, lab environments, and athletic teams. If campuses wish to maximize their investment in the Strengths programming, it is important to go all in or it may not be worth it at all. If a Strengths program is implemented on campuses, a robust and long-term commitment would be needed to see sustained impact on the collegiate experience of students. Do this and you can see how the assessment and related development activities can make a lasting impact in the lives of members of your campus community.

Page 6


Winter 2017 SLPKC Newsletter

Volume 156 of NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP A Competency-Based Approach for Student Leadership Development Associate Editor Kathy Guthrie and Editor Susan Komives are pleased to announce that volume 156 of NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP, A Competency-Based Approach for Student Leadership Development, has been released. Editor Corey Seemiller has a great group of authors and informative chapters on student leadership competencies. You can purchase this issue or subscribe to the NDSL series at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ yd.2017.2017.issue-156/issuetoc Annotated Table of Contents: 1. Developing Leadership Competencies Lucy Croft, Corey Seemiller This chapter provides an overview of leadership competencies including the history of emergence, contemporary uses, common frameworks, challenges, benefits, and future implications. 2. The Interaction of Efficacy and Leadership Competency Development Moe Machida-Kosuga This chapter covers the role of students’ self-efficacy in developing their leadership competencies. Practical strategies and recommendations are provided. 3. Using Leadership Competencies to Develop Talents into Strengths Corey Seemiller This chapter describes how to use a leadership competency approach to help students develop their five signature themes from the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment into strengths.

Page 7

4. Aligning Instructional Strategies with Learning Outcomes and Leadership Competencies Daniel M. Jenkins, Scott J. Allen This chapter provides recommendations for aligning instructional strategies with learning outcomes and leadership competencies to foster intentional student leadership development. 5. Using Leadership Competencies as a Framework for Career Readiness Anita R. Howard, Suzanne L. Healy, Richard E. Boyatzis This chapter offers both research and a practical approach for developing the emotional and social competencies associated with career readiness. 6. Utilizing Gamification to Foster Leadership Competency Development Adam R. Cebulski This chapter introduces gamification and a model for utilizing game design elements for leadership competency development. 7. Strategies in Assessment of Leadership Competencies David M. Rosch, Kerry L. Priest This chapter focuses on common pitfalls in assessing leadership competencies, simple strategies to avoid them, and innovative theoretical approaches and strategies in assessment. 8. Building a Competency-Based Leadership Program: A Practitioner’s Guide to Campus-Wide BuyIn and Implementation Kelley C. Ashby, Paul J. Mintner This chapter outlines a process used by a large, public, research institution to create and implement a competency-based leadership development initiative across campus.


Winter 2017 SLPKC Newsletter

@NASPA_SLPKC

@NASPASLPKC

@SALEAD STAY CONNECTED WITH YOUR FAVORITE FOLKS AT THE STUDENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY!

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, OR SUBMISSIONS? CONTACT YOUR NEWSLETTER CO-CHAIRS! Megan Webster—Mwebster@fairfield.edu Maggie McCarthy– Mccarthymarg@umsl.edu

Profile for NASPA SLPKC

NASPA Student Leadership Progrms Winter 2017/18 Newsletter  

NASPA Student Leadership Progrms Winter 2017/18 Newsletter  

Advertisement