DOS Annual Report by Student Affairs Communications, UC Berkeley

Office of the Dean of Students Cal Corps Public Service Center | Center for Student Conduct & Community Standards Center for Student Leadership | Center for Student Legal Services | Student Life BusOps

Student Affairs University of California Berkeley ď Ž

2009-2010

Annual

Report

Photo Credit: Steve McConnell / UC Berkeley

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 1 A NOTE ABOUT STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT REPORTING ........................ 3 CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER ........................................................................................................................... 5 ALTERNATIVE BREAKS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 7 BONNER LEADERS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 10 CAL IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTERNSHIP PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 13 CAL IN THE CAPITAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 16 CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP .......................................................................................................................... 19 BLUEPRINT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.............................................................................................. 20 LEADERSHIP SYMPOSIUM PLANNING TEAM 2009‐10 ............................................................................................ 24 FUTURE LEADERS PROGRAM 2008‐2010 ................................................................................................................ 28 FRATERNITY & SORORITY LIFE COUNCIL OFFICERS’ EXPERIENCE ........................................................................... 31 CALGREEKS NEW MEMBER CAMP 2009 ................................................................................................................. 33 CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS ......................................................................... 35 CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS ASSESSMENT ................................................. 36 STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 39 STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 40

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND ASSOCIATED RUBRICS FOR DOS ASSESSED PROGRAMS IN 2009‐10 APPENDIX B: OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AREA‐WIDE LEARNING OUTCOMES APPENDIX C: “WORD CLOUD” COMPILATIONS FROM QUALITATIVE RESPONSES IN POST‐ASSESSMENTS APPENDIX D: COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO LIKERT‐SCALE QUESTIONS IN POST‐ASSESSMENTS APPENDIX E: OVERVIEW OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES (COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS) WITH RELATED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME LANGUAGE APPENDIX F: OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX G: EXCERPTS FROM MULTI‐INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP (MSL) 2009 FINAL REPORT FOR UC BERKELEY

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW The Office of the Dean of Students (DoS) portfolio is comprised of these units:

 Cal Corps Public Service Center  Center for Student Leadership o Leadership Development o Student Involvement o Fraternity & Sorority Life

 Dean of Students Office  Center for Student Conduct and Community Standards  Student Legal Services  Student Life Business Operations  Technology and Marketing

This report contains program overviews and highlights for various components of DoS in 2009‐10, with detailed analysis of programs in which professional staff conducted assessment of student learning outcomes. From an area‐wide perspective, highlights included: ENGAGING FACULTY IN CO‐CURRICULAR SERVICE LEARNING The Cal Corps Public Service Center increased its support of faculty through multiple initiatives in 2009‐10:  The American Cultures Engaged Scholarship Program, funded by the Haas Jr. Fund through the Division of Equity and Inclusion to develop 30 new or revised American Cultures courses that will include community‐ based projects and emphasize public scholarship and practice. Faculty chosen to participate (Chancellor’s Public Scholars) receive grants, training, and staffing/administrative support from Cal Corps, while students selected for the program (Chancellor’s Public Fellows) receive $1,500 stipends for providing logistical support to faculty participants.  Cal Corps began staffing the Participatory Action Research Network, which is a group of 13 Berkeley faculty engaged in community‐based research efforts. The group meets quarterly and convenes a training series for interested graduate students.  Cal Corps hosted a regional colloquium (“Appraising Community in Engaged Scholarship”) for 136 faculty, students and staff STUDENTS OF CONCERN COMMITTEEE The Students of Concern Committee is a new initiative to lead the campus effort to coordinate assistance to students in need of various types of support. The Committee is a multi‐disciplinary body of stakeholders from across the University, led by the Dean of Students Office, which reviews referrals pertaining to students of concern, collects additional information, and identifies and enacts appropriate strategies to address each situation. The purposes of this team include:  Serving as a confidential means for early intervention of at‐risk students through collaboration with campus departments, faculty and staff.  Providing a centralized structure for campus departments and offices that need help dealing with a student who is displaying concerning, disruptive or distressed behavior.  Developing a strategic plan of action to ensure the safety of the student and the campus at large.  Ensuring that information is shared among strategic partners concerned about student welfare. STUDENT ORGANIZATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT Working in conjunction with the Office of Undergraduate Admissions, the Center for Student Leadership and Technology and Marketing components developed new user interface designs for the student organization registration and search processes. The current systems present students with a segmented experience, in need of a more intuitive way to guide users through the process of identifying student organizations they are interested in and completing the registration process for the academic year. The new interface, set to launch in the 2010‐11 academic year, will feature the following improvements:  Advanced search options beyond keyword and category, including membership population (Undergraduate, Graduate, Both), sponsorship (ASUC, Graduate Assembly, etc.), annual events, membership dues, and more.  More fluid process guiding students through the annual organization registration process.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 1

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

 Viewable organization constitutions.  Student ability to invite students to become signatories for the organization.  Increased access to reporting and information for internal users. FRATERNITY & SORORITY LIFE STRATEGIC PLAN Fraternity & Sorority Life completed the final version of its Strategic Plan for the next 10 years, titled “2020 Vision.” The plan was the result of 18 months of intensive work involving a diverse coordinating committee that included students and alumni of Berkeley’s fraternity and sorority community and participants from the campus and local community. The plan describes in detail how the fraternity and sorority community will implement specific goals in the areas of governance/accountability, growth (both personally and in the community as a whole), leadership, measures of success, safety, support for chapters, and community values from 2010‐2020. The strategic plan process was a best practice model for the development/training of undergraduate Greek chapter members as collaborative members of the campus and city communities. STUDENT PORTAL The Technology and Marketing staff made significant progress towards the creation of “myBerkeley project,” an online portal designed to unify the Berkeley Web experience for students. During 2009‐10, Tech and Marketing advocated for an improved online student experience and worked with numerous stakeholders and colleagues across campus to turn the idea into a sponsored project, and then an Operational Excellence initiative. Among the steps in this progress were:  Working with student leaders to identify their needs, priorities, and requirements definitions.  Engaging students in the advocacy, planning and application development processes.  Project management of the development effort with Educational Technology Services and Student Service Systems.  Marketing communications for the initiative. INDABA PROGRAM The Indaba Multicultural Leadership Retreat, developed and presented by the Center for Student Leadership, received the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) Commission for Student Involvement’s Program of the Year award. Indaba brought 65 students together from three leadership communities (Blueprint Leadership Development Program, Berdahl Future Leaders Program, and Leadership Symposium) at an overnight retreat designed to build relationships across cultural differences and form a purposeful and sustainable leadership community whose members are committed to one another.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 2

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

A NOTE ABOUT STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT REPORTING To develop student learning outcomes for DoS programs, program coordinators start with Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, with particular focus on the cognitive (intellectual development) and affective (emotional development) domains. They chose specific developmental areas within this taxonomy and linked them to one or more competency area constructs within the Social Change Model of student leadership development (UCLA Higher Education Research Institute, 1996), a model developed specifically for college students and chosen for the following reasons: 1. The SCM is philosophically consistent with the principles of student leadership development already incorporated into several existing departmental programs. 2. The SCM clearly asserts that positive social change is an integral part of leadership. Unlike some leadership development models, the SCM contemplates contributions beyond the individual, and engagement in larger communities, as inherent to leadership. 3. A research‐tested assessment survey instrument exists to measure the seven competencies incorporated into the SCM: the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS). 4. The Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, a national student leadership development survey in which the Berkeley campus participated in 2006 and 2009, provides benchmarks (both nationally and on our campus) for student competency levels on the SRLS. The constructs of the model are: Consciousness of Self, Commitment, Congruence, Common Purpose, Collaboration, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change. Using concise, specific language linked to skill development, program goals, Bloom’s taxonomy, and the Social Change Model, coordinators crafted clear student learning outcomes, all of which are detailed in this report. To assess learning outcomes, program coordinators used quantitative and qualitative tools, including a customized online survey developed by each program coordinator. Each component’s learning outcomes assessment report contains two parts: 1. Quantitative results of student scores on an instrument based upon the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS), a research‐tested instrument that measures students’ degree of competency within each of the areas that comprise the Social Change Model of leadership development. As noted above, program coordinators chose the SRLS constructs that were most closely related to their intended learning outcomes, and SRLS respondents self reported using a 5‐point Likert scale response continuum ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). These quantitative results are reported as follows: Bonner Leaders Social Change Model Competencies Achieved 09‐10 (1) Bonner Pre‐Assessment

4.48 4.44

4.29 4.28 SRLS scores scaled along “y” axis

3.81

3.98

3.87

Consciousness of Self

(2) Bonner Post‐Assessment

4.06

Congruence

4.20

4.24 4.27 3.99

Commitment

Collaboration

(3) Campus Average 4.16

4.27 4.35

4.30 3.97

3.83

Common Purpose

Citizenship

Program‐related pre‐ and post‐SRLS Campus average SRLS scores for each scores for each competency area competency area (2009 random sample) 2. A narrative analysis of qualitative data collected to assess the accomplishment of student learning outcomes, including data such as reflection papers, written reports, student portfolios and presentations, case studies, responses to short‐answer and Likert scale questions in the assessment surveys, and student discussion/focus groups. The analysis of learning outcomes is guided by rubrics, which identify three levels of accomplishment

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 3

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

for each learning outcome: Emerging (beginning ), Developed (intermediate), and Accomplished (advanced). The rubrics for every program’s learning outcomes are described in Appendix A to this report. We chose the SRLS as a measurement instrument because of its basis in the Social Change Model of leadership development, and to build upon the research begun by the University of Maryland’s Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL) in 2006 and continued in 2009.1 The MSL adopted the framework of the Social Change Model for measuring leadership development among college students across numerous environmental and experiential variables, using an adapted version of the SRLS as its primary tool to quantify this development. Internal reliability for the SRLS instrument used in MSL pilot study ranged from .72 for Controversy with Civility to .87 for Citizenship. The Berkeley campus participated in the MSL in 2006 and 2009. These surveys provide baseline value for the average score of a random sample of Berkeley students across each of the competency area constructs measured by the SRLS. These averages are the quantities used for comparison with our programs in charts like the one above. Related Appendices:

APPENDIX A: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND ASSOCIATED RUBRICS FOR DOS ASSESSED PROGRAMS IN 2009‐10 APPENDIX B: OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AREA‐WIDE LEARNING OUTCOMES APPENDIX C: “WORD CLOUD” COMPILATIONS FROM QUALITATIVE RESPONSES IN POST‐ ASSESSMENTS APPENDIX D: COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO LIKERT‐SCALE QUESTIONS IN POST‐ ASSESSMENTS APPENDIX E: OVERVIEW OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES (COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS) WITH RELATED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME LANGUAGE APPENDIX F: OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX G: EXCERPTS FROM MULTI‐INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP (MSL) 2009 FINAL REPORT FOR UC BERKELEY

More information about the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership is available at http://www.leadershipstudy.net/

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 4

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER

OVERVIEW Mission: To engage the University and the community in reciprocal partnerships to create educational programs for students, to promote leadership through service, and to foster social justice and civic engagement.

Seventy student staff manage most Cal Corps programs and partnerships with training and advising provided by nine Cal Corps career staff. In 2009‐10, Cal Corps programs engaged 8,091 students, served 200 community organizations, and partnered with more than 20 units across campus. The Center operates on a $1,200,000 budget that is supported by funds from the University, fee‐for‐service income, city and school district contracts, grants, $380,000 in work‐study allotments, in‐kind AmeriCorps education awards, and individual donors.

PROGRAM AREAS AND RELATED PROGRAMS

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

    

CO‐CURRICULAR SERVICE‐LEARNING (Leadership programming with academic coursework) CURRICULAR SERVICE‐LEARNING

     

DIRECT SERVICE EVENTS

Bonner Leaders Program (AmeriCorps) Service and Peace Fellows Program Student‐initiated Community Projects Student Leaders in Service (AmeriCorps) WT Chan Fellows Program Alternative Breaks Cal in Local Government Internship Program Cal in the Capital Internship Program Challenging Poverty Initiative Magnolia Project Summer Internship Program Oakland Community Builders

 American Cultures Engaged Scholarship Program (ACES)  Berkeley Engaged Scholarship Initiative (BESI)  Volunteer Advising and Placement  Berkeley United in Literacy Development (BUILD)  Creative Residencies for Emerging Artists Teaching Empowerment (CREATE)  Greening Berkeley Initiative  Destination:College Program (AmeriCorps)  Magnolia Project Service Trip  Residential Service Initiative  Shinnyo‐en Six Billion Paths to Peace Initiative  Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program (VITA)  Education Summit  Student Leaders in Service Orientation  MLK Day Service Day  Soul Food for the Activist: Sustaining Ourselves for a Lifetime of Service Retreat  Chancellor’s Awards for Public Service

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 5

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER (Continued)

2009‐10 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS     

The total estimated students impacted by Cal Corps programs was 8,091 students who provided approximately 320,497 hours of service with an approximate economic impact of $6.4 million. Provided more than 11,000 hours of leadership development to more than 150 student leaders. Received a 3‐year Learn and Serve America Higher Education grant from the Corporation for National and Community Service to provide direct service and infrastructure support to East Bay low‐income communities. Recruited 6 faculty in first year of American Cultures Engaged Scholarship Program (ACES) program and held Engaged Scholarship Colloquium which drew 75 faculty, staff, and students from 15 campuses. Continued partnership with 13 Berkeley public schools. AmeriCorps members were placed at each school as “Volunteer Managers,” who recruited over 300 new volunteers to BUSD.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 6

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

ALTERNATIVE BREAKS PROGRAM PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS The Alternative Breaks program utilizes student Break Leaders to plan weeklong service‐learning trips – with a co‐ leader – for 12 other Cal students during the academically scheduled Spring Break. The program goal is for these Break Leaders to lead their participants to: examine their beliefs and assumptions concerning the break topic; engage and exchange ideas to gain a deeper understanding about a particular social issue and geographic area; apply the service trip social issues to a local (Bay Area) context; and build friendships. Break Leaders schedule service projects with nonprofit organizations, fundraise, secure lodging, recruit participants, and plan and facilitate a spring DECal which pertains to the issue being addressed by the trip. In 2009‐10, 14 Break Leaders on 7 trips, supported by 3 senior Student Directors (who served as AmeriCorps Bonner Leaders) led 75 trip participants, providing a total of 3,420 service hours to communities outside the Bay Area while engaging in 1,287 hours of class dialogue and reflection.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Alternative Breaks 2009‐10 4.46

(1) AB Pre‐Assessment 4.58 3.83

Citizenship

(1) (2) (3)

(2) AB Post‐Assessment

(3) Campus Average

4.06

3.99

3.87

Controversy with Civility

Program average of SRLS instrument scores from Alt Breaks pre‐assessment survey administered September 2009 (n=14) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from Alt Breaks post‐assessment survey administered April‐May 2010 (n=13) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, administered April‐May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES Cal Corps staff who supervise and advise both the three Alternative Breaks Directors and the 14 Break Leaders conducted a “360‐degree” assessment. In addition to Break Leader self‐report, including by way of the Social Change Model’s Socially Responsible Leadership Scale, data was collected by trip participants and Cal Corps staff, who evaluated the effectiveness of the student Break Leaders during their pre‐trip DECals in addition to their performance on the trip itself. LEARNING OUTCOME #1 ‐ CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS WILL LEAD THEIR PEERS IN A MEMORABLE, SAFE, AND FUN SERVICE‐LEARNING TRIP. Overall student Break Leaders ended the year in the Advanced stage. This learning outcome included three learning objectives, for student leaders to: practice risk management techniques; cultivate relationships and leadership within a group; and apply reflection techniques. According to Likert‐scale self‐report in these first two areas, Break Leaders on average reported large gains, with an aggregate difference between pre‐ (3.45) and post‐ assessment (4.19) of .74, representing a 22% increase. Break participant feedback confirmed Break Leader self‐ report in the first two objectives, with a MEAN on post‐trip surveys in both areas of 4.3. The participants led by the Break Leaders indicated in a post‐trip survey that their student leaders successfully met the third objective, with an aggregate MEAN of 4.6 on questions such as “Reflection activities helped me internalize my service experience” and “Break Leaders created a learning environment in which I could examine my beliefs and assumptions.”

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 7

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

Qualitative responses confirm these results. In writing about their experience the week after their return to campus, Break Leaders wrote about cultivating relationships and leadership within a group: “For me, it is important to emphasize participant contribution and ownership over the trip. I learned that true leaders encourage others to lead as well.” “I have so much confidence in my ability to plan events and really help people come together. Personally I have grown more in this week than in any other week of my life. I am happy to participate in discussions, and that has always been something I’ve struggled with. I truly feel like I have the power to make huge changes in our world, and I am excited for that responsibility.” Likewise, participants remarked on how the reflection and educational portion of the trip impacted them: “Really, all of it was valuable…the people we were with were so interested and so engaged that the conversations we had after the activities with community partners were great learning experiences.” “It was a very meaningful eye‐opening experience that made me assess my own personal values and the time we spent reflecting was very valuable.” “This trip was very heavy on the reflection process, and that was the most valuable part.“ With a pre‐assessment SCM average for Citizenship of 4.46 and a post‐test average of 4.58, the gains according to this measure are practically negligible, though both pre‐ and post‐scores are far above the campus average (3.83). LEARNING OUTCOME #2 ‐ CONTROVERSY WITH CIVILITY: LEADERS WILL CREATE A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH BREAK PARTICIPANTS CAN EXAMINE THEIR BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS Overall student leaders ended the program year in the Developed to Advanced stage. This learning outcome included three learning objectives, for student leaders to: create a sense of collective responsibility within the group; facilitate dialogue/reflection sessions; and challenge self and others appropriately. According to Likert‐ scale self‐reporting in these three areas, Break Leaders on average reported modest gains, with an aggregate difference between pre‐ (3.63) and post‐assessment (4.13) of .5, representing a 14% increase. Break Leader post‐ trip reflections – which are taken to be more accurate in assessing learning in this area than above SRLS Likert scale scores – demonstrate the gains made in this area. One common theme that emerged was asking deepening questions. One Break Leader explained: We set ground rules at the very beginning to make sure that everyone felt safe to talk about issues that can be rather sensitive. We asked a lot of questions‐‐not all of which were meant to be answered; the purpose of these questions was to stimulate thought within each participant in the hopes of making them examine their own beliefs. Also, I personally shared beliefs that I knew would be different from my participants' beliefs to show them that examining their beliefs and assumptions is OK and that they should feel comfortable doing so. According to post‐trip surveys by trip participants for SLO 2, participants also reported that their Break Leaders demonstrated competency in this area, with an aggregate post‐trip mean of 4.44. With a pre‐assessment SRLS Controversy with Civility average of 4.06 and a post‐test average of 3.99, according to the SRLS this measure showed a slight though negligible decrease. Once again both pre‐ and post‐assessment are above the campus average of 3.73.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 8

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

PROGRAM ADAPTATIONS BASED ON 2008‐09 ASSESSMENT RESULTS The program successfully replicated the training package for Break Leaders first utilized in 2008‐09, and was able to expand from 4 to 7 trips (8 to 14 Break Leaders) in 2009‐10 – allowing the program to serve 74% more students and a similar number of community partners – while maintaining high quality learning experiences for both Break Leaders and participants. Program features now firmly in place include: a September weekend Leader Retreat to model an “Alternative Break;” UC Berkeley staff advisers to each trip; and a mixture of large group workshops and trip‐specific coaching.

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS While the learning on the part of student Break Leaders is important, the overall program goals are for these Break Leaders to provide their participants and the communities they serve with a positive experience. While the program successfully teaches Break Leaders the leadership and other skills to lead a service‐learning trip, the impact that these trips have on the 75 participants is just as important to the program. Participants’ learning is reflected in the following survey responses: Alternative Breaks Program Goals (Participant SLOs) Pre‐ Post‐ Post‐Pre SLO Item Post‐Pre % MEAN MEAN RAW During the trip I examined my beliefs and 1 4.3 4.7 0.4 10.3% assumptions. I have a deep understanding about my trip’s social 2 3.3 4.6 1.4 41.7% issue. I have a deep understanding about the geographic 2 3.0 4.6 1.7 56.1% area. 3 How social issues on my trip manifest in the Bay Area. 3.8 4.5 0.6 16.3% 4 I built friendships with other participants. 4.0 4.7 0.7 16.1% In leading successful trips, in addition to the SLOs above Break Leaders made tremendous gains in key areas – see below for Center‐wide Student Leader Competencies – which are not encompassed in the formal SLOs above. Break Leader Self‐report: Center‐wide Student Leader Competencies Post‐ Post‐ Pre‐ Post‐ Pre Pre Item MEAN MEAN RAW % Developing and maintaining strong community partnerships. 2.8 4.4 1.6 56.7% Forming and sustaining healthy groups 2.4 3.6 1.2 51.6% Engaging in self‐reflection 3.3 4.4 1.1 35.0% Understand one's preferred leadership style 3.4 4.5 1.1 32.8%

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The program will continue to utilize the training package for Break Leaders. With more than 170 applicants and a solid foundation for growth, the program will expand from 7 to 8 trips (14 to 16 Break Leaders) in 2010‐11 with four Break Directors to support the program. From the previous programming year (2008‐09) to this year (2009‐ 10) we observed mixed progress in some areas over the past two years (see below); even though gains were made within each year, in 2010‐11 based on variation in final Post‐MEANs the training package will focus on communication skills and conflict resolution based on these findings. Break Leader Self‐report 2008‐10 2009‐10: 2009‐10: 2008‐09: 2008‐09: Item Post‐ Post‐Pre % Post‐ MEAN Post‐Pre % MEAN 11.6% 4.5 Resolving conflicts effectively 4.0 24.0% 18.3% 4.1 Facilitating reflection 3.8 13.6% 16.9% 4.9 Communication skills 4.3 11.3%

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 9

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

BONNER LEADERS PROGRAM PROGRAM OVERVIEW & HIGHLIGHTS Program Overview: Cal Corps Public Service Center’s Bonner Leaders are Cal students who make positive change across campus and in the community. Jointly supported by 5 professional staff members, students make a 1‐2 year commitments of 8‐ 12 hours a week. They serve as program managers for service‐learning programs or volunteer programs in schools and nonprofits. Students receive 60 hours of intensive leadership training which includes retreats, weekly workshops, and 1:1 advising.

Program Highlights for 2009‐2010:  31 Bonner Leaders engaged 1,378 students in service‐learning projects, providing 41,565 service hours to the Bay Area and beyond.  Program staff team successfully transitioned in a new Program Coordinator  Conferences connected Bonner Leaders with Bay Area and nation‐wide networks of student leaders  Cross‐program collaboration among student leaders increased from 2008‐2009

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Bonner Leaders Program 2009‐10 (1) Bonner Pre‐Assessment

4.06

4.27

4.17

(2) Bonner Post‐Assessment

4.53 4.55

4.38 4.06

4.20

Consciousness of Self Congruence (1) (2) (3)

Commitment

4.47 4.47

4.32 4.32

4.28 4.29 3.99

3.87

(3) Campus Average

Collaboration

3.97

Common Purpose

3.83

Citizenship

Program average of SRLS instrument scores from Bonner Leaders pre‐assessment survey administered September 2009 (n=33) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from Bonner Leaders post‐assessment survey administered April‐May 2010 (n=27) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, administered April‐May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES The coordinator of the Bonner Leaders program utilized two key pre‐ and post‐ data sources for assessment of student learning outcomes: (1) Self‐report surveys, and (2) Student reflection papers. Self‐report surveys included SRLS questions and reflection papers were written to the same exact prompt. Paper responses were coded by the Bonner Program Coordinator and included only 18 pre‐ and post‐ pairs. Other pairs were missing either pre‐ or post‐ data. Interpretations below made from reflection papers represent the 18 coded pairs, only 58% of the students. Data reported from the self‐report surveys had N=27 (Post) and N=33(Pre). LEARNING OUTCOME #1 – CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF/CONGRUENCE: STUDENTS WILL DETAIL PERSONAL DEFINITIONS OF LEADERSHIP, SERVICE, AND HEALTHY COMMUNITY Results for this measure show the majority of students ending the program year in the Developed and Advanced stages. While a majority of students began in Developed or Advanced stages at the beginning of the year, we also saw 16% of students move from Developed to Advanced. The most notable shift was for students in Emerging stages, going down from 31% of students in the Emerging stage pre‐program, to only 19% of students post‐ program. Emerging Students moved both to Developed and Advanced stages. A look at qualitative data revealed the program’s success in achieving Learning Outcome #1. Student reflection responses overwhelmingly illustrated

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 10

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

a reassessment of their definitions of leadership, service, and healthy community. Three quotes that were most illustrative of student responses are: ‐ “The more I thought about what a healthy community looked like, the more I realized that there was no one answer. Not only does the definition of healthy community vary from one person to the next but the very idea of what a community needs to make it healthy varies from one community to the next.”

‐

“In my role as a volunteer manager at BOSS this year, I often wondered if I was actually performing any service at all, since I didn’t feel as though I was producing any tangible effect in helping the community in need. …Nonetheless, I came to realize…that my definition of service has been relatively narrow. I came to realize that service can also entail supporting others [who are] performing service and working for good causes.”

‐

“A community can have all the best institutions provided for its citizens, but crime, hate, racism, and other non‐temporal things will still provoke an unhealthy community.”

As the above quotes illustrate, students were able to articulate their own definitions as well as awareness that their definitions have changed. In addition, the second quote exemplifies how a student’s action, serving as a volunteer manager, helped her reconsider her definition of service so that her actions and definition aligned with each other. Quantitative data also supports the conclusion that students became clearer about themselves. SRLS scores in the area of Consciousness of Self increased from 4.06 to 4.17, and Congruence scores increased from 4.27 to 4.38. LEARNING OUTCOME #2 – COLLABORATION, COMMON PURPOSE, CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: STUDENTS WILL LEARN TO LEAD DIVERSE GROUPS OF PEOPLE Similar to Learning Outcome #1, most Bonner Leaders began and ended in the Developed and Advanced stages for Outcome # 2. While SLRS measurements confirm little to no shift in Collaboration (4.28 Pre v. 4.29 Post) and Common Purpose (4.32 v. 4.32), qualitative data reveal where shifts did happen. One third of the students shifted from Emerging or Developed to a “later” stage. Quotes typifying the Developed and Advanced stages were:

‐

“Leadership also means taking charge, facilitating, reflecting, and incorporating the voice of others so that they learn to become leaders.”

‐

“Leadership should seek and acknowledge the needs of the community so that real issues can be addressed and reworked.” These quotes are representative of the learning that occurred in key areas of this outcome. Self‐report measures on statements such as “I can act as an ally to underrepresented voices,” “I can understand my preferred leadership style,” “I can cultivate Leadership by modeling and making room for new leadership” showed an average increase of 12.5%. LEARNING OUTCOME #3 – COMMITMENT, CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS WILL LEARN TO BUILD HEALTHY COMMUNITIES Overall, students ended the program year in the Developed and Advanced stages. While 33% of students remained in the same stage for their understanding of Healthy Community, 61% of students showed “positive” movement. When asked, “What did you learn through your Healthy Communities Project?” typical responses included:

‐

“I learned about really analyzing the needs of a community and how to see where you would just be reinventing the wheel and where your impact would actually be unique.”

‐

“I learned that it can be a challenge to see projects and events through the end and that it's important to remain flexible and patient in developing a healthy community. A community is constantly changing, so processes designed to benefit a community should also be open to revision and evaluation.” 2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 11

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

While SLRS data does not show significant gains in Commitment (4.55 v. 4.53) or Citizenship (4.47 v. 4.47), other survey data show small to large gains. Most notably, there was an 18% increase in students self‐report to “enact [their] personal theory of social change.”

PROGRAM ADAPTATIONS BASED ON 2008‐09 ASSESSMENT RESULTS The two recommendations that were incorporated from 2008‐09 were: (1) to limit assessment on student surveys to advanced stage questions only, and (2) to collect follow‐up data on Healthy Communities Projects. The recommendation that was not incorporated was to work within cohorts to draw connections between large group days of service and the work of students in each cohort. Students spent little time in cohorts this year; rather, they interacted with all their peers in various settings.

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS Different from the “360‐degree” assessment of the program in 2008‐2009, this year’s assessment focused on fewer measurement tools in hopes of overcoming the challenge of missing data and inconsistent reporting. In past years, student supervisors’ performance evaluations and Cal Corps staff advisor reports were included in assessment. Feedback from last year’s Bonner coordinator indicated that supervisor and advisor reports were unreliable, due to wide variance in scoring student performance and the inability of supervisors to comment accurately about student learning. While more data was collected on Healthy Communities Projects, the coordinator did not make adequate plans to analyze the data. This plan would require a rubric for coding the types of projects and the process in which the projects were selected and executed. Lastly, what is not mentioned in this assessment report is the “muddling” of stages of development. Several students appear to have “gone backwards” in developmental stages, from Advanced to Developed or Developed to Emerging. While some may see this as failure, our program sees this as a success. This indicates that students are reconsidering their values, definitions, and leadership styles. A student who may be very clear about their leadership style at the beginning of the year, may learn through working with diverse groups of people, that their leadership style is not always affective. Their “consciousness of self” in this instance can be read as either greater or lesser. The student no longer knows what leadership style is effective, but s/he knows that s/he doesn’t know.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS  

Continue to focus on follow‐up data collection for Healthy Communities Projects. Collect the specifics of each project’s initiation, planning process, and execution. Create a rubric for measuring the process and the outcome. Review and clarify the overlap between Student Learning Outcome #1 and #3.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 12

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

CAL IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTERNSHIP PROGRAM PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: In 2009‐10, 19 students served as Cal in Local Government interns, serving approximately 2,960 hours at 14 government‐based offices in the East Bay. CLG is coordinated by two student Directors, who oversee all aspects of the program. This year’s interns brought a range of experiences to the program, from first‐year students to traditional graduating seniors to non‐traditional transfer students who had families. CLG interns attended a student facilitated DECal class every other week from October 2009 through May 2010, the goals of which were to provide an open forum to discuss local policy issues, provide skill‐building workshops, and create opportunities for student reflection and interaction with community speakers. The program culminates in the annual State of the City event, where students showcase their internships and learning through poster presentations to campus and community members as well as local government representatives.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Cal in Local Government Internship Program 2009‐10 (1) CLG Pre‐Assessment

4.01

4.20

4.16

(4) (5) (6)

(3) Campus Average 4.30

4.46

3.87

Consciousness of Self

(2) CLG Post‐Assessment 4.71 4.58

3.83

Commitment

Citizenship

Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CLG pre‐assessment survey administered September 2009 (n=19) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CLG post‐assessment survey administered April‐May 2010 (n=12) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, administered April‐May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES LEARNING OUTCOME #1 – COMMITMENT, CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS FOR CREATING CHANGE AT A LOCAL LEVEL. Student interns ended the program within the Developed stage of this learning outcome, with an average response of 3.71 on a 5‐point scale on self‐report questions “I learned a lot about that included “I can analyze how policy affects local issues” and “I better understand the way that local how to create change through the legislative process”. When asked “How did you governments work benefit from your internship experience? What skills or knowledge did you gain?” and I learned the many students responded that they experienced growth in their understanding of benefits of being local government, and in their level of skill, for example in “dealing with different aware of what is people and departments in local, regional, and national positions.” One student happening in local stated, “The decal [class] reinforced how important my internship was and made me a government.” more ‘civic minded’ person. The speakers were very inspirational to me and motivated me to get more involved in local government.” Other quantitative data in the areas of the SCM showed mixed results for this learning outcome. Responses to SRLS “Commitment” questions decreased from pre‐ to post‐surveys, while “Citizenship” showed minimal gains; both are higher than the general UCB sample. In the end, the ability of students to create projects at the State of

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 13

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

the City event that analyzed and summarized their experiences within this area demonstrated strong growth and accomplishment of this learning outcome. LEARNING OUTCOME #2 – CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF, COMMITMENT, CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS WILL APPLY PROFESSIONAL SKILLS IN AN INTERNSHIP SETTING. Both the internships and the DECal supported student learning in this area. By the end of the program students were within the Developed stage, recording an average of 3.95 on a 5‐point scale for responses on question such as “I can communicate more effectively in spoken form;” “I can communicate more effectively in written form;” “I am better able to work independently in a professional environment;” “I can work more effectively in the community;” and “I have a greater understanding of the different ways to serve the public.” One pattern that emerged from multiple choice and open‐ended responses was that the program led to increased communication skills, including networking skills, speaking skills, and conflict management. Student interns also showed an increase from their pre‐assessment on “I am civic minded” (increase from 4.17 to 4.25) and “I am confident in my “I became much more professional skills” (increase from 4.00 to 4.25). Interestingly, most other self‐ comfortable in a professional report questions in this category showed an average ‐0.20 decline from the pre‐ environment, felt like I had a assessment values, including: “I am able to bring valuable skills and knowledge much better grasp of local to my internship position;” “I feel prepared for involvement in the community politics, and understood the in my career and/or personal life;” and “I am aware of my own career goals and policy behind my project interests.” This contradiction can potentially be explained by the experience thoroughly by the end of the the students gained through the DECal and through the internships. CLG internship.” interns come into the program with basic assumptions about local government and about their own career goals, and the DECal and internships complicate and deepen student understanding of their own contributions and also present new possibilities for future careers. As their understanding of both of these things grows, the way they see themselves and their future options also complicates and deepens, and their self‐assessments become more nuanced. Feedback from intern supervisors helped to determine the learning that took “The decal [class] was valuable place within this area. When asked to rate their interns in end‐of‐internship in raising other important evaluations, 75% of supervisors rated their student interns “4 (Excellent)” or issues that I was not previously “5 (Outstanding).” Intern supervisors responded that: they were satisfied aware about. Also presenting in with the “student’s overall success in meeting the key responsibilities of class develops public speaking her/his Position Description” (4.17); students both “made valuable skills which are important later contributions to my organization” (4.45) and “conducted him/herself in a in our careers.” professional and respectful manner” (4.75); and in the end declared “Our organization would like to continue to participate with CLG in the future” (4.73) and “I would recommend CLG interns to others in my office” (4.75). These responses indicate that in the eyes of our community partners, students were successful in meeting this learning outcome, for which quantitative data in the areas of the SCM showed mixed results.

PROGRAM ADAPTATIONS BASED ON 2008‐09 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Based on last year’s assessments, the program placed a greater emphasis on agency recruitment, ending up just one intern short of the 20‐intern goal. Student interns were given more time for interaction among themselves, and the number of class speakers was reduced to allow time for more discussion and dialogue. The program continued to refine the final policy project, and aligned qualitative and quantitative post‐assessment questions with student learning outcomes.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 14

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS 1. Improvements to the policy project assignments resulted in more meaningful final projects that were tied to the mission of the host organization and well integrated with interns’ work on site. 2. The range of experience presented in the group of interns, which always includes first‐year students through seniors, is likely related to the smaller average gains made in each area.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 1. While post‐assessment questions were aligned with learning outcomes this year, pre‐assessment qualitative and quantitative questions were overlooked. For next year, CLG should align pre‐assessment questions with learning outcomes. 2. The outcomes this year demonstrate learning around professional development skills and goals, but student comments indicate that there is room to learn more about local government structures and processes. For next year, CLG should supplement the information presented in the DECal by dedicating more time to explore these things. 3. Since the last two years have shown a decline between pre‐ and post‐assessment items regarding “commitment,” include qualitative questions regarding commitment on pre‐ and post‐assessments to gain greater insight into the cause.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 15

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

CAL IN THE CAPITAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: In 2009‐10, 63 students served as Cal in the Capital interns, serving approximately 25,200 hours at federal government offices and departments, non‐profit organizations, think tanks and more. CITC is coordinated by three student Directors, who oversee all aspects of the program. CITC interns attended a student facilitated DECal every week from January 2010 through May 2010, the goals of which were to provide an open forum to discuss national issues, provide skill‐building workshops, and create opportunities for student reflection and interaction with faculty and alumni speakers. The program culminates in a full‐time summer internship in Washington, DC.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Cal in The Capital Internship Program 2009‐10

(1) CITC Pre‐Assessment 4.50

(2) CITC Post‐Assessment 4.46

(3) Campus Average

3.83

Citizenship

(1) (2) (3)

Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CITC pre‐assessment survey administered January 2010 (n=50) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CITC post‐assessment survey administered August 2010 (n=33) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, administered April‐May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research. (Quantitative data was not gathered for the Commitment and Consciousness of Self categories.)

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES LEARNING OUTCOME #1 – COMMITMENT, CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS FOR CREATING CHANGE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. Student interns ended the program within the Developed stage, with an “I am now a lot more aware average response of 3.70 on a 5‐point scale on self‐report questions that and interested concerning included “I can analyze how policy affects national issues” and “I can evaluate what is happening with the the effectiveness of proposals to address national issues.” When asked “How world and with our did you benefit from your internship experience? What skills or knowledge did government. It is one thing to you gain?” many students responded that they experienced growth in their learn about policy in a political understanding of government, including a “fresh new inside look at Congress science class, but it is and its inner‐workings” and “a greater understanding of the legislative process.” something completely One student said, “I have a much better understanding of our legislative branch. different to actually see policy‐ I've learned so much about different acts, senators, and legal issues that I was making take place on the Hill, unaware of before.” Although the average for responses to “Citizenship” and to be actively engaged in questions decreased marginally from pre‐ to post‐surveys, it remains higher that process.” than the general UCB sample, and students’ comments regarding their learning demonstrate growth in this area.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 16

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME #2 – CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF, COMMITMENT, CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS WILL APPLY PROFESSIONAL SKILLS IN AN INTERNSHIP SETTING. Both the internships and the DECal supported student learning in this area, though students identified the internship as the greatest factor in their learning. By the end of the program students were within the Developed stage, recording an average of 4.00 on a 5‐point scale for responses on question such as “I can communicate more effectively in spoken form;” “I can communicate more effectively in written form;” and “I am better able to work independently in a professional environment.” One pattern that emerged from multiple choice and open‐ended responses was that the program led to increased skills, including networking skills, speaking skills and research skills. Student interns also showed an increase from their pre‐assessment on “I am confident in my professional skills” (increase from 4.07 to 4.18) “I think I really developed my time‐ and “I can accurately represent myself through a cover letter and management skills and ability to resume” (increase from 3.79 to 4.09). Interestingly, most other self‐ take initiative on projects.” report questions in this category showed an average ‐0.24 decline from the pre‐assessment values, including: “I am able to bring valuable skills and knowledge to my internship position;” “I feel prepared for involvement in the community in my career and/or personal life;” and “I am aware of my own career goals and interests.” This contradiction can potentially be explained by the experience the students gained through the DECal and through the internships. CITC interns come into the program with basic assumptions about government, their skill level, and about their own career goals, and the DECal and internships complicate and deepen student understanding of their own contributions and also present new possibilities for future careers. As their understanding of both of these things grows, the way they see themselves and their future options also complicates and deepens, and their self‐assessments become more nuanced. This bore out in student responses: 72.7% of students responded “yes” to the question “Has this experience led you to reconsider academic courses you “I gained a greater understanding of the take in the future, your major, or your career goals?” Comments legislative process, the ability to compile included “I realize that I do not want to work at a think tank in the important research into concise memos, future;” “I had never considered working for the government, but now I am open to the option;” “I don’t want to go into politics and experience in drafting constituent anymore;” “I am more inclined towards a government‐related job;” letters.” and “I wanted to go to Law School before I got this internship, now I am thinking of doing MA in Communications.” Feedback from intern supervisors1 helped to determine the learning that took place within this area. When asked to rate their interns in end‐of‐internship evaluations, 96.5% of supervisors rated their student interns “4 (Excellent)” or “5 (Outstanding).” Intern supervisors responded that students met expectations in both quality (4.64) and quantity (4.61) of work; students both “made valuable contributions to my organization” (4.71) and “conducted him/herself in a professional and respectful manner” (4.68); and in the end supervisors declared “Our organization would like to continue to participate with CITC in the future” (4.68) and “I would recommend CITC interns to others in my office” (4.69). Comments from supervisors included: “[Our intern] was very reliable, respectful and dependable. She completed assignments independently after initial guidance;” “He brought a lot of enthusiasm and genuine interest in the legislative process;” and “…a great asset to our department. We were able to have complete confidence that any project would be completed successfully.” These responses indicate that in the eyes of our community partners students were successful in meeting this learning outcome, for which quantitative data in the areas of the SCM showed mixed results.

From CITC supervisor evaluation, administered August 2010 (n=28), all questions on a 5‐point scale with 5 being the highest

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 17

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

PROGRAM ADAPTATIONS BASED ON 2008‐09 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Based on last year’s assessments, the program placed a greater emphasis on the internship search and preparing students for life in DC. Student interns were given more time for interaction among themselves, and one‐on‐one sessions with the student Directors were required early on in the semester. Two sessions of the class were also reserved for an introduction to the legislative process and the social issues of DC.

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS Overall, the program was successful in providing students with meaningful internship experiences. However, based on student feedback, the DECal continues to require improvement to better support student learning and skill development.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The “Citizenship” category was the only one formally assessed for the program this year, due mainly to limits on length of survey and limited capacity to gather information. If possible, next year’s assessments should include comparison on the SRLS “Commitment” and “Consciousness of Self” categories. 2. The outcomes this year demonstrate learning around professional development skills and goals, but student comments indicate that there is room to improve the DECal to deepen learning around creating change at the national level. For next year, CITC should supplement the information presented in the DECal by dedicating more time to explore this area, and further integrate the professional skill development in the context of the program.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 18

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP OVERVIEW Mission: Coaching students to positively impact their communities through educational leadership opportunities. Vision: To empower the Cal community to engage all students in transformational leadership. The Center for Student Leadership includes three broad programmatic areas:  Leadership Development offers transformational leadership experiences to any student with the goal of helping them become ethical leaders who contribute to their communities and effect positive social change.  Student Involvement staff work primarily on behalf of the 1,100+ registered and sponsored student groups providing advising, event planning, group facilitation services, and workshops. This area also serves as the liaison to the ASUC and bridges.  Fraternity & Sorority Life provides advising and mentoring to 62 chapters and nearly 2,800 members of Greek‐letter organizations at Berkeley, including traditionally African‐American fraternities and sororities and multicultural Greek organizations.

PROGRAM AREAS AND RELATED PROGRAMS

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT INVOLVEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS

FRATERNITY & SORORITY LIFE

               

Leadership Symposium Blueprint Leadership Development Program Future Leaders Program Organizational Leadership Development Class Leadership Development Workshops Cal Debate Program Student organization registration Event advising and outdoor facilities reservations Advising to Recruitment and Retention Centers Activism support Cal Facilitation Team & Teambuilding in the Trees Organizational development advising Greek membership recruitment Executive board advising Judicial Council advising Values‐based leadership development, including New Member Camp

2009‐10 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS      

Registered a record number of student groups (1,152) Fraternity & Sorority community membership continues to grow (2,747 members, 10.8% of students) Fraternity & Sorority students contributed $552,000 worth of community service to the Bay Area The Indaba Multicultural Leadership Retreat received the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) Commission for Student Involvement’s Program of the Year award. 10th Annual Cal Student Leadership Symposium was attended by some 550 students from 13 different colleges and universities from the western region of the United States and Mexico. The Center for Student Leadership assessed student learning outcomes for five programs this year: 1) Blueprint Leadership Development Program, 2) Future Leaders Program, 3) CalGreeks Council Officers, 4) CalGreeks' New Member Camp, and 5) Leadership Symposium Planning Team.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 19

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

BLUEPRINT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: The Blueprint Leadership Program is a yearlong leadership experience that begins with a unit‐bearing leadership course in the fall, followed by a community service project in the spring. Through a series of engaging workshops and small group interactions, the fall course emphasizes students learning about personal identity, values, diversity, and teamwork. The spring project focuses on helping students apply what they learn about themselves as individuals and how to work in teams, to making change at the community‐level on an issue of social justice. Student participants: 1) Gain personal insight by exploring their leadership style, assessing personal strengths, and constructing a personal leadership philosophy. 2) Expand core leadership skills through active participation in experiential workshops, retreats, one‐on‐one leadership coaching, a leadership conference, and execution of a social justice project. 3) Develop cross‐cultural competency through small cohort dialogues connecting their salient social identity and their personal values to create a more inclusive community. 4) Think critically about the responsibilities of leaders and how to work towards social justice. Highlights for 2009‐2010:  17 students graduated from the program and one student is working on assignments this summer.  The Indaba Multicultural Leadership Retreat brought 65 students together from three leadership communities (Blueprint Leadership Development Program, Berdahl Future Leaders Program, and Leadership Symposium) and was the program’s highest rated learning experience.  Students grew in all three of the objectives for learning outcomes: 1) consciousness of self, 2) collaboration, and 3) conflict with civility.  Students self‐selected five themes for social justice projects (education, the environment, mental health, higher education access, and international issues) and carried out service in teams of 3‐4 students based on these themes.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Blueprint Leadership Development Program 2009‐10 (1) Blueprint Pre‐Assessment 4.18 3.88 3.87

4.42 4.23 4.06

Consciousness Congruence of Self

4.404.42 4.20

(2) Blueprint Post‐Assessment (3) Campus Average 4.54 4.54 4.43 4.33 4.27 4.24 4.24 4.14 4.03 3.99 3.97 3.96 3.83 3.78 3.76

Commitment Collaboration

Common Purpose

Controversy with Civility

Citizenship

Change

(1) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from Blueprint pre‐assessment survey administered September 2009 (n=16) (2) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from Blueprint post‐assessment survey administered April‐May 2010 (n=18) (3) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, administered April‐May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES LEARNING OUTCOME #1 ‐ CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO ACCURATELY PERCEIVE AND RESPOND TO THEIR PERSONAL VALUES, BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, AND EMOTIONS. Students clearly improved their consciousness of self during the course of the Blueprint program. Student SRLS scores for consciousness of self increased from 3.88 (on a scale of 1‐5) at the beginning of the program to 4.18 at

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 20

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

the end. Qualitative data1 validated this positive growth. As illustrated in the graph below, the majority of Blueprint students began the year in the emerging to developed stages of consciousness of self (learning reflect on their personal background, values, strengths, and limitations). By the end of the year, the majority were in the developed to advanced stages of consciousness of self (able to describe how these personal characteristics influence the way they lead in teams and groups).

SLO #1: Consciousness of Self

% of Students in Stage

100%

Before Blueprint After Blueprint

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Emerging

Emerging‐ Developed Developed‐ Developed Advanced Stage of Learning Outcome

Advanced

"Before Blueprint I had not so high self‐esteem. However, Blueprint … made me realize that I have certain qualities and strengths that …I need to use in my leadership. Blueprint gave me confidence because now I know in which situation I can do my best, what I need to do to succeed, what my weak areas are, and what makes me a good leader."

Students in the emerging stage of consciousness of self are in the process of "While it would not be true to say learning to reflect on how their personal background, values, strengths, and that my values have changed limitations influence their leadership style. The majority of students (~60%) significantly since the start of were in the emerging stage of this learning outcome before taking the course. Blueprint, I am more aware of them Students in the developed stage are able to identify personal tendencies and how they affect my decisions across situations based on their personal background, values, beliefs, and versus the decisions of others.” attitudes, and also able to manage their emotions. In the beginning of the course, about 25% of the students were transitioning from the emerging to developed stage and about 15% were in the developed stage of consciousness of self. Students in the advanced stage utilize their awareness of self to identify their personal tendencies across situations and accurately described who they are in teams and groups. Although there were no students at this stage at the beginning of Blueprint, by the end of the program, about 45% of students were either in between developed and advanced or fully in the advanced stage of this objective. LEARNING OUTCOME #2 ‐ COLLABORATION: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO WORK WITH OTHERS TOWARD A COMMON GOAL. Blueprint students also improved in collaboration during the course of the Blueprint program. Students’ collaboration SRLS scores increased from 4.27 at “I held myself accountable by feeling the beginning of the program to 4.43 at the end. Qualitative data indicated that personal responsibility for our group growth in their ability to collaborate was actually greater than this small jump. performance. Whatever I had As illustrated in the graph below, the majority of Blueprinters (~75%) started the promised, I tried to do my best to year in the emerging stage of collaboration (learning to reflect on how to accomplish it. … To hold others include multiple perspectives and leadership styles when working together). By accountable, I asked the reason why the end of the year, the large majority of students (~75%) were at or above the he/she could not do something that we agreed upon.” developed stage of this learning outcome—able to utilize their awareness of multiple perspectives to collaboratively create standards for responsibility and accountability. Students in the emerging stage of this learning outcome are learning how to include multiple perspectives and working styles when working with others. Students in the developed stage can utilize their awareness of multiple perspectives and working styles to share responsibility and create a set of standards for personal commitment when collaborating with others. Before participating in Blueprint, none of the students

Qualitative data comes from Blueprint students’ pre‐ and post‐assessment survey answers, interactions with students throughout the course, journal reflections and final papers, 360 peer feedback, and mentors’ assessments.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 21

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

demonstrated skills consistent with the developed stage of collaboration. Students in the advanced stage of collaboration not only share responsibility to create a set of standards for personal commitment when working together, but also create a culture in which they hold each other accountable. At the conclusion of Blueprint, final reflection essays illustrated that about 50% percent of students had advanced to the developed stage and 20% of students were transitioning from developed to advanced or fully in the advanced stage of collaboration. 100%

SLO #2: Collaboration

% of Students in Stage

80%

“After receiving my 360 feedback, I … shift[ed] focus from the individual value of commitment to the group value of collaboration. ...I realized that it was ineffective to take on too many tasks, because the group flow requires equal participation (when everybody plays an equal role in collective creation of the final performance).”

Before Blueprint After Blueprint

60% 40% 20% 0%

Emerging Emerging‐Developed Developed Developed‐Advanced Advanced

Stage of Learning Outcome

% of Students in Stage

LEARNING OUTCOME #3 – CONTROVERSY WITH CIVILITY: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO MANAGE CONFLICT CONSTRUCTIVELY. Students markedly developed their leadership abilities to engage in controversy with civility. Student SRLS scores for controversy with civility grew from 3.96 at the beginning of the program to 4.24 at the end. Students' journal reflections and papers indicated Blueprinters began the year reluctant to bring up conflict, with ~80% in the emerging or emerging to developed stage of this learning outcome. As illustrated in the graph below, students grew in this area, with the majority of students finishing the year acknowledging both the inevitability of conflict, as well as their personal challenges in addressing conflict. Furthermore, students expressed their commitment to continue to improve their skills in addressing conflict civilly. Students in the emerging stage of controversy with civility are beginning to recognize that differences in viewpoint are inevitable and are starting to explore their personal conflict style when giving and receiving feedback. In the developed stage, students recognize that different viewpoints are inevitable, are able to articulate the benefits of openly airing differences, and are able to articulate the strengths and limitations of their personal conflict style. While only ~20% of Blueprint students started the year in this stage, at the conclusion of the program, ~70% of students were in this developed stage. Students in the advanced stage of controversy with civility are able to utilize core dialogue skills such as reflective listening and suspending judgment1 during conflict and when giving and receiving feedback. At the end of Blueprint, ~ 25% of students were transitioning from developed to advanced or fully in the advanced stage of controversy with civility. 100%

SLO #3: Controversy with Civility 75%

80%

After Blueprint

60% 40%

“I have had experiences in the past where conflict was not managed properly, leading to bitterness in both parties. I have learned to use … the five steps of constructive feedback. Constructive being the key word, so the conversation is a positive one, instead of a one‐sided attack.”

Before Blueprint

45% 35% 20%

12%

20% 0%

12% 0%

0% Emerging

Developed Stage of Learning Outcome

Advanced

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 22

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

PROGRAM ADAPTATIONS BASED ON 2008‐09 ASSESSMENT RESULTS Based on the recommendations made in the 2008‐2009 report, the following changes were made to Blueprint. The changes and the results are as follows: Recommendations made in the 2008‐2009 report Results of the changes in 2009‐2010 1. Continue to build a strong community early in the 1. We held the Indaba overnight multicultural program through an overnight multicultural leadership retreat and built a strong community leadership retreat. Forming strong relationships early in the program. This retreat was the highest early on and helping students see themselves in a rated program component in Blueprint with all 18 larger leadership community is essential. students rating the retreat as “excellent”. 2. Eliminate the staff coaching model and implement 2. We implemented the student coaching model. a student coaching model. Having students who Students rated their overall cohort experience were in Blueprint this last year act as peer mentors highly—3.94 on a scale of 1‐4. In comparison, will deepen their understanding of relational students in the previous three years of Blueprint leadership, inspire mentees to become peer rated their cohort experience as 3.74, 3.61, and 3.71, respectively. However, the ratings on mentors, and capitalize on past students’ passion to students’ comfort level with their cohort mentor give back to the program. were more varied, meaning that more support and structure for the peer mentors is necessary. 3. The switch to an academic class format for the fall 3. Switch to an academic class format for the fall was successful. In fact, students requested that the semester, with the applied social justice project in spring semester also be made into a course and be the spring. Students felt the program was a lot of work considering it is non‐credit bearing, and credit bearing. preferred to learn leadership theories in one semester and then have opportunities to apply them in the spring semester.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The following program adaptations for the coming year will be implemented based on the assessment results: 1. Students expressed to their mentors and program staff that the most challenging aspect of the social justice project was the time required to establish community partnerships, which reduced the depth of the projects they were able to undertake. Furthermore, professional colleagues at the California Campus Compact spring conference and Building Successful Community Partnerships Summer Institute by the Cal Corps Public Service Center recommend that community partnerships should be long‐term and developed by faculty and staff. Therefore, over the summer, Blueprint program staff should work to establish several sustainable community partnerships for students’ spring social justice projects. 2. While the change in model to having student leadership coaches was successful; survey data indicated that more support and structure for the peer mentors is necessary. Next year there will be an additional unit‐ bearing course for Blueprint mentors with readings on facilitation and democratic‐decision‐making. 3. To create better efficiency in program staffing, several leadership programs will meet together as a larger leadership community for workshops and leadership development theory and then split up into their smaller community groups (such as Blueprint Leaders for Social Justice, Berdahl Future Leaders Program, and the Leadership Symposium Conference Planning Team) for more individualized curricula. The name for this larger leadership community will be: The Cal Leadership Institute.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 23

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

LEADERSHIP SYMPOSIUM PLANNING TEAM 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP SYMPOSIUM PLANNING TEAM OVERVIEW & HIGHLIGHTS The Leadership Symposium Planning Team (Lead‐Symp planners) provides a yearlong leadership development experience by working together with staff advisors to develop and implement a large student leadership conference. Lead‐Symp planners are selected in the early spring and undergo a training that includes personal leadership development aspects as well as gaining skills in event planning. During the year, 4 professional staff advisors provide guidance in conference planning and oversight. In addition, one advisor provides guidance for the student Co‐Chairs in developing the leadership capacities of the Lead‐Symp planners. Guided by the Social Change Model of Leadership Development, learning outcomes were developed for the Lead‐Symp planners that focused on the Consciousness of Self, Common Purpose, and Controversy with Civility components of the model. This year, the planning team met weekly on Wednesday evenings for the purpose of planning the conference while also participating in leadership development workshops. A distinct characteristic of this year’s planning team came from the fact that almost half the team were returning chairs from 2008‐09. This posed a number of advantages and challenges to the dynamic of the team. The main advantages included the familiarity of the team members with their responsibilities and with each other. The main challenge was in creating a cohesive team dynamic with new chairs and returning chairs, as well as holding the returning team members accountable. Despite multiple issues with conflict and accountability, this year’s Lead‐Symp planning team proved capable of coming together as a team to put on a successful conference for the tenth anniversary of the Cal Student Leadership Symposium.

Highlights:  The 2009 Lead‐Symp planners interviewed and selected 16 students as planners for the 2010 conference.  2010 Lead‐Symp planners attended the 2nd Annual Indaba Leadership Retreat as part of their training.  The CSL advisor implemented a leadership development focus with trainings, readings and workshops.  The 2010 conference reached its maximum capacity with: (a) a record number of student attendees from UC Berkeley as well as local and international colleges and universities (485); (b) a record number of alumni attendees (44); and (c) largest number of colleges and universities participating (13).  The Universidad de Monterrey from Mexico (UDEM) attended Leadership Symposium for the second year in a row, bringing 10 students and 1 professional staff. UDEM staff also presented a workshop at the conference. LEARNING OUTCOME #1 – CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: LEAD‐SYMP PLANNERS WILL SYNTHESIZE THEIR PERSONAL VALUES WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Lead‐Symp planners fell within the Developed to Advanced range of this learning outcome as most members were able to reflect and share how their personal background, values and beliefs inform their behavior when working with others. Those in the Advanced range are “I understood what able to go further and articulate how these personal attributes synthesize with their my leadership skills leadership strengths and limitations and how this influenced them as a member of the are when working in planning team. The instructional strategies that were designed to support this a team and how learning were: the Indaba Multicultural Leadership retreat, the Leadership Colors those skills affect the workshop, and the StrengthsFinder workshop. These activities focused on identity and other individuals in self exploration at the beginning of the Leadership Symposium Planning Team the team.” experience. Some representative comments from the post assessment included:  ”I've learned more about myself, and did a lot of self‐reflection. I am pretty assertive and talkative, and I have no problem expressing my own ideas in a group. I like to have fun, but sometimes I get absorbed in my own ideas. I've learned that at times I need to scale back, and listen more to what others have to say. I've learned to appreciate the collaborative environment of our team. I raised my level of emotional intelligence, and learned to be more attuned to the group, so that my message will resonate with the group.”

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 24

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10



“Being in LeadSymp made me realize that one can really only do a few things at a time, and one should be passionate and devoted to these few things. I guess this belongs to limitations: I realize that I am limited in my time and resources, and it's much better for myself and the groups I'm in to be truly dedicated. Making a difference lies in doing something great, and not doing mediocre jobs everywhere.” “I understand my personal goals and passions and how my actions can reflect them. I've come to realize and appreciate strengths in taking initiative, being organized, and detailed oriented. I have also learned my limitations with relation to stress. I understand the cycle I go through in dealing with stress and can better identify moments when I need to step back and take a break.”

LEARNING OUTCOME #2 – COMMON PURPOSE: LEAD‐SYMP PLANNERS WILL INCLUDE MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES TO CREATE SHARED VALUES AND WORK TOWARD A COMMON GOAL Lead‐Symp planners were in the Developed range of this learning outcome as they were able to identify and work with the various perspectives of team members to create a values based organization committed to developing and implementing a large scale student conference. From the advisor’s perspective, these students had the opportunity to reflect on the group’s common purpose simply by being exposed to group conflict and accountability issues–whether through missed meetings, missed deadlines or tension between co‐chairs. Relevant comments from the post assessment included:  “The most meaningful experience is to learn the interaction and dynamics of a team. We went through many stages of team development, and I've seen the roles different people take on a team and how they make a difference to the functioning of the team. I also learned how a leader can truly make a difference.”  “This past year taught me the importance of teamwork and being able to communicate well with my partner. Since this is my last year, I knew that it will be especially crucial that my partner would be able to carry on the position next year. I recognized that I did not do a good job of teaching my previous co‐chair about the intricacies of the position.”  “When we were working on a team, I've realized that I work better and I'm more efficient when there is a common goal. I've also realized that environment and group vibe is very important for me. Our team was collaborative, and although we had disagreements, we were able to work around our differences. Also, there was a lot of respect for everyone on the team, which I found was very important for me. Even when I didn't do something right, no one was putting me down, and I appreciated it a lot.” LEARNING OUTCOME # 3 – CONTROVERSY WITH CIVILITY: LEAD‐SYMP PLANNERS WILL PRACTICE EFFECTIVE DIALOGUE SKILLS, CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PEER ACCOUNTABILITY Lead‐Symp planners fell between the Developed and Advanced ranges of this learning outcome. From the Advisor’s perspective, this was the largest area of growth for this year’s planning team: this year’s team encountered numerous opportunities to discuss, analyze and process what “Controversy with Civility” means. One of the program recommendations from the 2008‐09 Leadership Symposium “The challenges that we Planning Team post‐assessment was to focus on accountability and specifically faced allowed us to Controversy with Civility for 09‐10. To that end, the 09‐10 curriculum included a bond.” workshop on feedback. However, this year’s team experienced multiple issues with group conflict and accountability. This resulted from not all planners attending the Indaba retreat, many planners missing specific training meetings, and cancellation of the group’s Ropes Course due to lack of attendance. Also, many student planners realized they had over‐committed themselves to extracurricular activities which took their focus away from the Lead‐Symp Planning Team. As a result, the advisor and overall chairs planned an impromptu workshop on accountability to address the group conflict. Individual coaching sessions were also implemented between advisors, overall chairs and students to address accountability, conflict management and feedback. Relevant comments on this learning outcome in the post assessment included:  “The most meaningful aspect this year was learning how to work with a co‐chair. From conflicts with leadership styles and different approaches to solving problems, I got to understand how to give and receive feedback that ultimately strengthened our working relationship and friendship. Although this year had a lot of struggles, I was able to overcome my fears of being too "mean" and became more assertive in holding people accountable.”

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 25

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10



 

“The most meaningful aspect of being in Symposium this year was learning (again) how to deal with issues of accountability and conflict. “I have learned to confront This year, since it went more awry than last year, forced me to get to conflict and not be afraid to know my co‐chair much better. I feel like my learning deepened in my openly discuss it with others.” second year as Chair and that I really started to put all the pieces together.” “I have become more confident and assertive. Being exposed to different working styles and different conflicts within the group made me better at handling/mediating problems, and helped me recognize how to work with different types of people.” “It's all about the people. To mediate any conflict, it's so important to figure out why the conflicts started and what are the rooms for negotiation. It's also important to find out different people's reasons behind the conflict, and only from there can a successful solution be developed.” “I've learned to listen and ask questions in order to understand the situation. I've also learned how to give feedback appropriately so we can be more productive and am open to receiving feedback. When mediating conflict between other members of the group, I've learned when the conversation becomes unproductive and better ways to facilitate the discussion in order to avoid hurt feelings and hurt relationships.”

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS The overall Leadership Symposium Planning Team SRLS scores were generally higher than the random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) in the three components of the Social Change Model that were measured. Further, qualitative data illuminated a recurring theme that involvement on the Leadership Symposium Planning team provides a great opportunity to experience multiple facets of personal leadership development while examining the complexities of working in a group. Lastly, a stronger focus needs to be made by the advisors and Lead‐Symp planning team to continue fine‐tuning the teambuilding and trainings to ensure that all Lead‐Symp planners participate fully. Specific emphasis must be placed on teambuilding, effective dialogue skills, conflict resolution, and peer accountability. Students cited a need to continue their development in the areas of conflict resolution, peer accountability, and teambuilding. Fortunately, a culture of openness is a primary value of this organization. However, lack of attendance at crucial teambuilding trainings and retreats undermined the group’s ability to come together as an efficient and effective team in a timely manner. A mid‐year assessment of the Lead‐Symp Planning Team and its curricular outcomes and instructional strategies ensured that these issues were addressed with additional trainings and individual coaching sessions. As such, this group of students successfully addressed their communal issues and was able to come together as an efficient and effective team. PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Continue to adjust the personal leadership development training that occurs with the Leadership Symposium Planning Team by adding trainings throughout the entire fall semester. This will be addressed through the implementation of CSL’s Cal Leadership Institute. Students who are admitted into this selective leadership institute will engage in a year‐long leadership development curriculum taught by professional staff and leadership experts. The curriculum has two components. In the fall semester, all students will take part in “Leadership Fundamentals” a unit‐bearing leadership course with seminars on cross‐cultural competency, teamwork, developing one’s personal leadership style, constructing a personal leadership philosophy, and expanding one’s core leadership skills. Students participate in experiential workshops, retreats, and one‐on‐ one mentoring. Students will be in one of the following community groups to put their leadership skills into practice: Blueprint Leaders for Social Justice, Leadership Symposium Planning Team, or the Future Leaders Program. In the spring semester, students will advance their leadership skills through one of the following: 1) social justice projects, 2) planning a leadership symposium, or 3) engaging with students from Universidad de Monterrey, Mexico. 2. At the students’ request, continue to set expectations at the beginning of the Lead Symp Planning Team experience while also fine tuning the method for preparing Lead‐Symp planners to learn about effective

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 26

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

dialogue skills, conflict resolution, feedback, and peer accountability. The class‐like setting of the Cal Leadership Institute should provide better focus and accountability to participants. 3. Continue requiring planners to attend the Indaba Retreat – the teambuilding and bonding that occurs at this event is a crucial element to the Lead‐Symp planning experience. Every effort should be made to have the Lead‐Symp chair positions fully staffed in early fall so that all can attend Indaba.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Leadership Symposium Planners 2009‐10 4.024.12 3.87

Lead Symp Pre‐Assessment (1) Lead Symp Post‐assessment (2) (3) Campus Average 4.414.40 4.324.40 4.234.25 4.234.24 4.20 4.134.144.06 3.99 3.994.03 3.97 3.83 3.78

Consciousness of Congruence Self

Commitment

Collaboration

Common Purpose

Controversy with Civility

Citizenship

4.074.04 3.76

Change

(1) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from LeadSymp Planners preassessment survey administered September 2009 (n=15) (2) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from Lead Symp Planners postassessment survey administered AprilMay 2010 (n=14) (3) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the MultiInstitutional Study of Leadership, administered April May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 27

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FUTURE LEADERS PROGRAM 2008‐2010 FUTURE LEADERS PROGRAM OVERVIEW & HIGHLIGHTS The Future Leaders Program (FLP) provides a leadership development experience around the unique life experiences of outstanding transfer student leaders and scholars. Guided by the Social Change Model of Leadership Development, learning outcomes were developed for students who participated in the program for two years, from 2008‐2010. Highlights:  FLP graduated its third cohort from the program, consisting of 6 students. Students are selected by the UC Berkeley Committee on Undergraduate Scholarships and Honors (CUSH) who identified top incoming transfer students from community college across the state of California based on high academic achievement, strong involvement in their community, and demonstrated leadership potential.  Each FLP student successfully participated in oral examination conducted by a panel of distinguished leadership practitioners in the community.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Future Leaders Program 2008‐2010 (Two‐Year Measure) (1) FLP 2008 Pre‐Assess

3.87

Consciousness of Self (1) (2) (3) (4)

(3) FLP 2010 Post‐Assess

(4) Campus Average

4.40 4.44 4.51

4.45 4.27 4.34

4.36 3.94 4.03

(2) FLP 2009 Mid‐Assess

3.99

Collaboration

3.97

Common Purpose

4.12

3.98

4.50 4.40 4.38 4.16 3.78

Controversy with Civility

3.83

Citizenship

Program average of SRLS instrument scores from pre‐assessment survey administered September 2008(n=7) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from mid‐program assessment survey administered April‐May 2009(n=7) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from post‐assessment survey administered April‐May 2010(n=5) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, administered April‐May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES LEARNING OUTCOME #1 ‐ CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF, CITIZENSHIP: FLP STUDENTS WILL ARTICULATE HOW THEIR VALUES AND TALENTS CAN POSITIVELY IMPACT THEIR COMMUNITIES. At the beginning of the 2 year experience, FLP students began in the pre‐Emerging stage as they lacked common language to communicate their leadership abilities. After the first year, FLP students were assessed to fall within the Emerging to Developed stages. After the second year, FLP students fell within the Developed and Advanced stages of the consciousness of self component of this learning outcome. On the SRLS scale, students rated 3.94 (on a scale of 1‐5) at the beginning of the program, 4.03 midway through the program, and 4.36 at the end of the 2 year program. This assessment is further validated by instructor evaluation at their leadership defense, where students articulated their personal leadership values and philosophy. Post‐program qualitative data showed majority of students understood how awareness of self contributes to better team dynamics. Qualitative data validated this positive growth and can be encompassed in the following quotes typical in this area: “I learned a great deal about my own self. Also, even though I had a lot of previous leadership experience, I had a hard time putting that into words.”

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 28

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

“... we did a lot of assessments for finding ourselves…therefore, I could know myself better than before and understand my role in a team.” “Increasing my self‐awareness was one of the ways that FLP helped me to grow as a leader.” Within the citizenship component, FLP students fell in the Emerging and Developed stages of this learning outcome. Students showed a decrease in the SLRS scores during the course of the FLP program. Students rated 4.50 at the beginning of the program and 4.38 at the end. Based on student reports, reasons for this decrease can be attributed to an emphasis in organizational behavior rather than developing values attributed to socially responsible citizenship. The final project found several students working with a non‐profit group that was not their primary choice due to variables beyond their control. Instructors observed inconsistent commitment levels among several students who did not choose this non‐profit group. Further, students reported high program workload and decreased motivation levels may have played as a factor their involvement with the non‐profit group. LEARNING OUTCOME #2 ‐ COLLABORATION: FLP STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE A HEALTHY GROUP ENVIRONMENT THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF DIVERSE LEADERSHIP STYLES AND BACKGROUNDS. FLP students fell in the Advanced range of this learning outcome rubric. Students showed strong growth in collaboration during the course of the FLP program, going from 4.27 at the beginning of the program to 4.34 after the first year, and 4.55 at the end of the two‐year program. The FLP program provided an opportunity for consistent practice within this capacity. Instructors observed multiple group situations where students excelled despite being intentionally grouped with others who possess diverse leadership styles and backgrounds. Instructors observed the students’ ability to recognize and manage divergent perspectives and work styles without creating team dysfunction, particularly around: ropes course experience, small group dynamic activities, conference presentation planning; and the semester long organizational consulting team project . These observations were confirmed through class discussions, written assignments, and meetings with the instructor. Qualitative data validated these conclusions, as demonstrated in the following quotes: “I improved my ability to give feedback a lot. I had a lot of opportunities to give constructive feedback to my team members. Also, I learned how to use proper words when I am giving a feedback.” “I learned how to combine our strengths to reach a common goal. I used to take almost all the responsibilities without finding others’ strengths.” “When I am working in a team, I have to be willing to let go of some of my ideas or submit them for revisions.” LEARNING OUTCOME #3 ‐ COMMON PURPOSE, CONTROVERSY WITH CIVLITY: FLP STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE SHARED VALUES AND GOALS WHILE WORKING WITH OTHERS POSSESSING DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND APPROACHES. FLP students were assessed to be in the Advanced range of common purpose for this learning outcome. Students showed strong growth here, increasing from 4.40 at the beginning of the program to 4.44 after the first year, and 4.51 at the end of the two‐year program. The following quotes exemplify the group’s key learning: “Every time we had a group or individual conflict, I recalled our ultimate goal. As long as our goal was consistent and our service could meet the audiences' needs, we could blend in our ideas together and utilize them to enhance our performance.” “I learned that as a leader who is part of a team, I have to make sure that there is something the entire team shares, be it values or a vision.” “Something other than external rewards has to motivate each team member if they are going to excel, and sharing those motivators [that we have] in common can help the team as a whole excel.”

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 29

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

FLP students were assessed to be in the Advanced range of controversy with civility. Although students showed a slight increase in the controversy with civility SLRS scores, qualitative data showed this as a key learning area. Students rated 4.12 at the beginning of the program and 4.16 at the end. Students reported that sessions and workshops that focused on managing discourse and giving feedback as one the programs biggest highlights and key learning. Further, instructor observations and class discussions around resolving conflict demonstrated a grasp of how to respectfully engage in discourse. Intentional activities to observe students engage in conflicts also showed good transfer from theory to practice. The qualitative data and can be summarized in the following quotes: “Conflict is not a bad ‘notion.’ The process of overcoming conflict taught us the most. It is almost impossible to avoid conflict; however, it is very possible to learn to manage conflict.” “Feedback is something that I thought I could do but was rarely required to actually put into practice…It was surprisingly difficult and an excellent learning experience.”

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS The overall Future Leaders Program Socially Responsible Leadership Scale scores were generally higher than the random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) that were measured. Although many facets of this program were effective in teaching competencies that were outlined in the learning outcomes, one of the key challenges to this cohort was providing consistent and seamless instruction. Staffing changes led to different instructors over the course of the past two years, creating gaps in instruction. This was demonstrated in their citizenship scores as the students were not able to demonstrate the comprehensive understanding of what socially responsible citizenship means. Although students had a strong commitment to one another, many students were not able to transfer this commitment to supporting a community external to their group, which was a primary objective of this experience.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The following program adaptations for the coming year will be implemented based on the assessment results: 1. An increase in focus integrating the different aspects of the transfer student experience. We will be seeking resources with Transfer Re‐entry and Single Parent program and integrate aspects of their expertise into the FLP program. 2. Greater interaction between the FLP Year 1 students and FLP Year 2 students. Revisions to the curriculum will be made to create “peer mentoring” relationships between year 1 and year 2 students. 3. Citizenship as it relates to the Social Change Model of Leadership Development will be better defined with an increased emphasis in having student better reflect on and act upon the value of giving back to the community. 4. Exposure to a greater array of student perspectives through increased interaction with other leadership communities. 5. Due to budgetary constraints, consolidating FLP with other leadership programs will provide consistent instruction will allow more seamless coaching with the service project during the final semester of this program. Efforts are needed to provide more staff coaching with the students. 6. The program will continue to utilize the services of an external organizational leadership consultant who provided pro bono work during the past semester. Although efforts to motivate students to complete the project took place, instructor observation showed that only two students demonstrated a strong commitment to work and follow through on commitments with the non‐profit agency as well as with one another past the academic year. Further, this project was complicated as staffing changes forced the program to change instructors throughout the year possibly creating gaps in instruction and coordination.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 30

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FRATERNITY & SORORITY LIFE COUNCIL OFFICERS’ EXPERIENCE PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: 2009 marked the second year for the assessment of the intentional learning of the Fraternity & Sorority Life Council Officers’ experience. CalGreeks’ executive council officers are elected by their peers in December to lead their community for one calendar year through values‐based leadership based on their ethical decision making. The council officers experience consists of a comprehensive weekend‐long off‐site retreat, 1:1 leadership coaching and advising with the professional Fraternity and Sorority Life staff, participation at a four‐day national student leadership conference, and other experiential leadership opportunities. In 2009, a total of 29 student leaders from all four councils (Interfraternity Council, Multi‐Cultural Greek Council, National Pan‐Hellenic Council, and Panhellenic Council) participated in the council officers’ experience over their 12‐month officer term.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

Fraternity & Sorority Life 2009 Council Officers (1) F&S Pre‐Assessment 4.17

4.20

Collaboration

3.99

(2) F&S Post‐Assessment 4.13

(3) Campus Average 4.27 3.97

Common Purpose

1) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from F&S Councils pre‐assessment survey administered December 2008 (n=18) 2) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from F&S post‐assessment survey administered December 2009 (n=19) 3) Random sample of Berkeley students (n=769) completing SRLS instrument as part of the Multi‐Institutional Study of Leadership, administered April‐May 2009 by the Univ. of Maryland and UC Berkeley Office of Student Research.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES LEARNING OUTCOME #1 ‐ COMMON PURPOSE: OFFICERS WILL BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE CONGRUENCE BETWEEN COMMUNITY VALUES AND INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS. Post‐assessment quantitative results for Common Purpose (4.20) were slightly higher than pre‐assessment scores (4.17) and greater than the campus average (3.97). Combined with qualitative results from monthly reflection responses and other instructional strategies, the majority of officers were in the DEVELOPED stage of this learning outcome. At the end of their year’s experience, the majority of council officers, individually and as a member of their particular council were able to define, interpret, and explain the values of the CalGreeks community. This is illustrated by one student’s reflection: “I have learned that during recruitment we need to attract the right members and then once they are in our community they need to be educated into our values. We have a lot of really great values; we just need to get more people in our community to experience them first hand!” During an advisor check‐in, one council president shared that as a council they were able to hold chapters accountable by utilizing the CalGreeks’ four pillars (leadership, scholarship, friendship, and service). Another student commented in the post‐assessment survey, “CalGreeks is a community of fraternities and sororities that come together through a shared vision and values. All four councils are unique – we are made up of different races and creeds – but at the end of the day, we all stand for friendship, leadership, scholarship, and service.”

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 31

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME #2 ‐ COLLABORATION: OFFICERS WILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE CROSS‐COUNCIL RELATIONSHIPS TO COMBINE VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES AND COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY. In general, after their year‐long experience, monthly reflection responses showed that the majority of the council officers were in the EMERGING stage, on their way to the DEVELOPED stage, for this outcome. Post‐assessment quantitative results for Collaboration (4.15) were slightly higher than pre‐assessment scores (4.13) and greater than the campus average (3.99). Typical qualitative responses included: “It can be very easy to simply focus on problems within our own individual community, but we need to remember that we are also a part of a larger CalGreeks’ community and need to support our fellow councils.” Another Council Officer stated, “I suddenly understood the definition of the word community better. Everyone from the community had a different story and different experiences. This affected my definition of the community because it made me understand that a community isn’t a group consisting of four different parts; instead, it is just one group of many people. The amount we have in common is far greater than the differences that set us apart.” Although they were able to establish relationships working with other “[I]t made me understand officers of other councils and were able to address how they worked together, it that a community isn’t a was clear that council officers had the tendency to avoid one‐on‐one group consisting of four confrontation. There were instances when council officers had disagreements different parts; instead, it is with officers from their own council and officers from another council and just one group of many instead of working out the situation together, they would bring a Fraternity & people. The amount we have Sorority Life staff to mediate and facilitate the discussions for them. As council in common is far greater president stated, “I saw a lack of accountability from my fellow E‐Board than the differences that set members, and as a result there was very little progress within our council. I wish us apart.” we could have been more accountable collectively and gotten more things done to move this council forward.” LEARNING OUTCOME #3, “OPT‐IN” EXPERIENCE – CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: OFFICERS WILL BE ABLE TO GAIN AWARENESS OF THEIR PERSONAL LEADERSHIP CAPACITY. Learning outcome #3 was an “opt‐in” experience. The plan was to host monthly gatherings in order for council officer to gain awareness of their personal leadership capacity. Unfortunately, due to a Fraternity & Sorority Life staff vacancy in August, we were not able to plan for monthly council officer gatherings during 2009.

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS Overall, the qualitative data revealed a recurring theme that the CalGreeks council officers experience provides a great opportunity for students to “make lifelong friendships, while learning about themselves and how to be a part of an organization that is larger than themselves.” One student noted, “I feel that my experience on my council has definitely made me much more of a leader. I am confident in my ability to guide others and to direct our efforts to an appropriate end, no matter the situation. I will also continue to be true to my leadership philosophy of just being a good example for others to follow.”

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS   

Provide more opportunities for informal gatherings between councils/officers that focus on developing relationships between the members of the four councils that promotes collaboration. Include learning outcome #3 as a program specific learning outcome for all council officers. Provide specific experiences that address how to hold peers accountable and how to delegate.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 32

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

CALGREEKS NEW MEMBER CAMP 2009 PROGRAM OVERVIEW: The University of California, Berkeley Fraternity & Sorority Life overnight New Member Camp offers participants a chance to experience a unique curriculum. The program follows an institute philosophy, meaning that the entire group has a shared experience; they all participate in every aspect of the program. Sessions feature hands‐on experiential learning activities, small group processing, “I learned that Ritual and individually focused contemplations. Small group meetings, known as chapter and values are meetings, are designed to allow participants to explore ideas and issues more fully significant for the in a more secure/safe setting. Everyone is expected to participate fully and be tradition of the actively involved in all educational components, structured activities, and informal fraternity.” group activities throughout the institute. The program is open to any member of a recognized fraternity/sorority chapter who has been in their chapter for less than 12 months. This year, 51 new members registered to attend New Member Camp (37 in 2008).

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: 



 

Small group facilitators observed that the opening Challenge Course activity was an effective icebreaker and team builder for their group. They were able to utilize that time to observe their group’s dynamics and individual participation. 100% of new members who participated in the post‐assessment indicated that the video media was useful. A student commented, “All the media was eye opening and intense.” o Broken Values 1‐Hazing: In Memory of Jack Phoummarath o Broken Values 2‐Sexual assault: Playing the Game 2 o Broken Values 3‐Alcohol: Tell Me Something I Don’t Know A new member pointed out, “I noticed students participating in debate and discussion at first only to please their facilitator, but as time went on they were genuinely involved.” Fraternity and sorority members who attend the New Member Camp will be able to utilize awareness of their personal values and beliefs, examine personal values as they relate to the values of their fraternity/sorority organization, and assess the challenges facing the CalGreeks community. These learning outcomes are demonstrated by: o Emerging stage: identification and reflection o Developed stage: awareness and examination o Advanced: alignment of actions with values

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES: LEARNING OUTCOME #1 – CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS WHO ATTEND THE NEW MEMBER CAMP WILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE AWARENESS OF THEIR PERSONAL VALUES AND BELIEFS In general, new members were in the EMERGING stage for this outcome. Combined with qualitative results from pre‐ and post‐assessment and facilitator observation notes, it can be determined that the majority of new members were able to reflect on their personal values and beliefs. 100% of new members that responded to the pre‐assessment indicated that being seen as a person of integrity is important to them. On the post‐assessment, a new member responded, “I think the biggest challenge I will face is to constantly be aware of my values and those of my fraternity when I am in public and presenting myself to others.”

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 33

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME #2 – CONGRUENCE: FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS WHO ATTEND THE NEW MEMBER CAMP WILL BE ABLE TO EXAMINE PERSONAL VALUES AS THEY RELATE TO THE VALUES OF THEIR FRATERNITY/SORORITY ORGANIZATION New members were able to explain the intersection of personal values with their “We are responsible organization’s values and it can be determined that the majority of new members for representing the were in the DEVELOPED stage. Typical responses included: “I believe that my personal values of our chapter values align with my fraternity’s values very well” and “My personal values are the in our daily lives. It is same as my sorority, and I contribute to the sorority in many ways and spread my our responsibility that own personal values of kindness and respect and honesty to my sisters.” After the while our chapter can Chapter Meeting Two: A New Beginning, facilitators observed that new members in have fun we must their group were able to articulate what congruence of personal values and make sure they are organization values looks like. A new member stated, “I believe that as a member of using safe practices.” the CalGreeks’ community, you have to uphold the values of your respected chapter while also abiding to represent the community as a whole.” LEARNING OUTCOME #3 – COMMITMENT: FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS WHO ATTEND THE NEW MEMBER CAMP WILL BE ABLE TO ASSESS THE CHALLENGES FACING THE CALGREEKS’ COMMUNITY Discussions on Broken Values: Hazing, Sexual Assault, and Alcohol allowed for new members to become aware of current and future challenges of the CalGreeks community. According to the post‐assessment, new members indicated “yes,” there are possible solutions to these challenges or problems. One new member indicated that they will personally uphold their values to confront these challenges or problems. On the post‐assessment, a new member stated, “I believe that it will be a challenge to uphold those values everyday because life presents so many challenges and it takes courage, strength, and discipline to live by those values daily.” This may be due to the discussions during General Session 3: Fraternal Values. Objectives for this session were to discuss in a large group how our ceremony Rituals can become our daily rituals and how rituals influences fraternity and sorority members. In general, new members were in the EMERGING stage for this outcome.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 34

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS OVERVIEW Mission: The Center for Student Conduct and Community Standards has an educational purpose in helping our community discuss and hold each other responsible for living up to the standards outlined in the Code of Student Conduct. We address behavior through a resolution process that reflects the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved. The Center for Student Conduct and Community Standards serves the campus community in three broad areas:  Student Conduct: As the entity responsible for administration of the campus student conduct system and the Berkeley Campus Code of Student Conduct, Student Conduct and Community Standards investigates, addresses, and resolves academic misconduct and behavioral incidents in the undergraduate, graduate, and professional student populations in a timely, fair, and reasonable manner.  Outreach and Education: Student Conduct and Community Standards supports and encourages a fair and safe environment in which students can pursue their scholastic and personal goals by educating the entire Berkeley community on the acceptable standards of student behavior and the resources available to address student behavioral choices that do not comport with these standards.  Consultation and Training: Student Conduct and Community Standards provides consultative services to the Berkeley community on issues related to aberrant student behavior, referral to resources, student crisis response and management, etc. Additionally, in collaboration with campus partners, Student Conduct and Community Standards conducts trainings and workshops for faculty, staff, and students on issues related to student conduct.

PROGRAM AREAS AND RELATED PROGRAMS STUDENT CONDUCT CASE MANAGEMENT

 Academic misconduct and non‐academic behavioral cases  Individual students and student groups  On and off campus

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

 Decision‐making, values exploration and clarification  Technology leverage to meet community’s needs

CONSULTATION AND TRAINING

    

Committee on Student Conduct ASUC Student Advocate’s Office Fraternity/Sorority Judicial Committees Behavioral Risk Assessment Team UCPD; Campus Compliance

2009‐10 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS 

  

Managed higher number of total cases referred to Student Conduct and Community Standards – 956, which includes all cases sent to the office whether the cases resulted in charges or were investigated and dropped because of a lack of information, lack of compelling evidence, etc. This represented a 50.5% increase from 635 cases in 2008‐09. Revised mission statement of Center. Developed new web site. Conducted student learning outcomes assessment for participants in conduct process.



BREAKDOWN: Academic cases (222), non-academic cases (697); individual cases (919), group cases (37)

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 35

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS ASSESSMENT STUDENT CONDUCT AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS HIGHLIGHTS The Center for Student Conduct and Community Standards (Student Conduct) serves the campus community in three broad areas:  Student Conduct – gathers information and addresses/resolves academic and non‐academic misconduct involving students and student organizations  Outreach and Education – educates students, faculty, staff, and graduate student instructors on the expectations for student behavior at the University  Consultation and Training – consults with members of the University community regarding student conduct and provides training for students, faculty, staff, and graduate student instructors on issues related to student conduct For the 2009‐2010 year, Student Conduct received 956 cases involving students and student organizations. This includes cases that were dropped, resolved between a faculty member and student, resolved informally between Student Conduct and a student/student organization, or resolved through a panel or administrative hearing.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES Student Conduct 2009-2010 3.44 3.42

3.39

Consciousness of Self

Congruence

Citizenship

Program average of SRLS instrument scores from the 2009‐10 Student Conduct participants (n=114); based on a four point Likert scale

GENERAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS The survey was sent to students who interacted with the conduct process either as an individual or representing their student organization. The survey was completed by 114 students. Ninety percent (90%) of these students resolved their conduct incident through an administrative disposition and ten percent (10%) resolved their conduct incident through a hearing. Seventy six percent (76%) of the incidents were non‐academic related, eighteen percent (18%) were academic related, and six percent (6%) were student organization related. There are some important program observations to highlight based on the data from the survey respondents. Ninety percent (90%) of the survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they were treated with respect throughout the conduct process. Additionally, ninety‐ four (94%) of them strongly agreed or agreed that they had the opportunity to explain their actions to the conduct officer, and eighty‐nine (89%) of them strongly agreed or agreed that the conduct officer listened to what they shared. Almost three fourths (71%) of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the amount of time to resolve the case was reasonable. Some of the students would have preferred that the process moved more quickly.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES OUTCOME #1 ‐ CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF AND CONGRUENCE: STUDENTS WILL DEMONSTRATE AN AWARENESS OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE CAMPUS COMMUNITY. All but one of the students (99%) said that they knew themselves pretty well. Ninety two percent (92%) of the respondents thought that their behaviors were congruent with their beliefs, and ninety two (92%) percent of the respondents thought that their actions were consistent with their values. This data seems to show that many of the students have identified their personal beliefs and values and behave/act according to them. What is

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 36

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

interesting, though, is that two‐thirds (67%) of the respondents recognized that what they value and their actions in their conduct incident were not congruent. The following representative quotes capture this sentiment:  “Yes, I knew that what I did was not morally right, but still did it.”  “I should be held accountable for my actions as I was wrong…”  “I learned a lot about myself and that I have to do more to uphold the values I hold dear.” The students overwhelmingly agreed (94% agreed or strongly agreed) with the idea that their values aligned with the expectations as members of the campus community. Students believe that what they value aligns with the expectations of the campus community. Interestingly, however, only thirty‐eight percent (38%) of the respondents said that they were familiar with the Code of Student Conduct (the Code). The Code is one place across campus where the expectations of students are outlined, as it spells out what behavior and actions are not appropriate for our campus community. With only thirty‐eight percent (38%) of the respondents familiar with the Code, it appears that not all students see that the Code provides expectations about behaviors and actions appropriate for the community. As a result, some of the students who went through the conduct process may not have known that their conduct did not align with the Code prior to going through that process. Once students went through the conduct process, though, 86% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had a better understanding of the Code as a result of participating in the conduct process. When evaluating this data and where the group of respondents fell on the emerging ‐ developed ‐ advanced spectrum, it appears that most respondents are generally in the Developed range of this outcome. The information above tells us that while the respondents have identified their personal beliefs and values (the emerging level) and believe that these values and beliefs align with the expectations of the community (the developed level), the students still acted in ways that were not in alignment with their beliefs and values and also, not in alignment with the expectations of the community (as 64% believed that their actions were not in line the expectations of the community). It appears that the respondents have not blended these understandings together (their personal values and beliefs along with the expectations of them as members of the community) to create an approach that balances the two. In addition, there is an ongoing challenge for students, who are still in the process of growing and developing, as they may recognize that their actions or potential actions are not aligned with their values (and possibly not in alignment with the Code) yet they sometimes still behave or act in ways that are not congruent with their own values (and lead to violations of the Code).

OUTCOME #2 ‐ CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: STUDENTS WILL DEMONSTRATE INSIGHT INTO HOW THEIR BEHAVIORS IMPACT THEMSELVES, OTHERS, AND THE COMMUNITY. The respondents recognize that their behavior impacts themselves, others, and the community. Almost all respondents (98%) agreed or strongly agreed that they consider the potential impacts on others when making decisions. Additionally, 83% agreed or strongly agreed that they understand how their actions impacted others in the Berkeley community. Most of the respondents recognize that their behaviors impact themselves, others, and the community. The following representative quotes illustrate this awareness:  “I did things to disrupt other people's lives.”  “I should definitely be held accountable for my actions because my actions affect not only me but the people and community around me as well as the groups I am involved in.”  “My actions have an effect not only on me, but the community at large.” Even so, not all of the respondents are thinking about how their behavior impacts themselves, others, and the community. The following quotes reflect this:  “My actions didn't hurt anyone or anything.”  “I got drunk. It's college. I didn't cause harm to anyone.” Examining the “I got drunk” response, it appears that this student has not fully realized that even the act of getting drunk (even if he/she is perceives that it is the thing to do in college) impacts others. Data from the California Safer Schools Survey – Fall ’09 survey which captured responses from Fall 2009 UC Berkeley Undergraduates reflects how someone who drinks impacts others (such as having to be babysat or taken care of by another student, disrupting another student’s studying or sleeping, or finding vomit in the halls or bathroom of a residence) but this student is only focusing on the most obvious harmful impacts. These responses show that some of our students are only thinking about how their behavior has harmful/hurtful impacts to others as

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 37

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

opposed to thinking about the entire spectrum of impacts (disruptive, offensive, etc.) that they might be causing to themselves, others, and the community. The students range from the Emerging to Developed stages of this outcome. Almost all of them can see and explain how their decisions, behaviors, and actions impact themselves and their friends (the emerging level). Some of the students though are further along this spectrum as they can see and explain how their decisions, behaviors, and actions impact the community (developed level). They understand these concepts – consider others when making decisions and their behaviors impact others. There seem to be two challenges for students: 1) For some students, they don’t see the variety of impacts they are causing to the community (beyond the harmful/hurtful impacts), and 2) For most students, they consider these concepts in the moment but then, this does not necessarily result in changes to their behavior or actions.

OUTCOME #3 – CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: STUDENTS WILL ENGAGE IN BEHAVIOR THAT ALIGNS WITH THE COMMUNITY. Just over eighty percent (81%) of the respondents to the survey shared that they accepted responsibility for their most recent conduct incident. Additionally, seventeen percent (17%) of the respondents accepted some responsibility and denied some responsibility for their most recent conduct incident. In the Student Conduct office, many of the students admit responsibility for their violation(s) when they first meet with a conduct officer. They typically know when their decisions, behaviors, and actions are not in line with the expectations outlined in the Code (emerging level). Looking at the overall numbers for the 09‐10 year, many of the students accepted the proposed sanctions/outcomes either from Student Conduct or from a faculty member and resolved their incident informally. Ninety percent (90%) of the respondents thought that they could have made different decisions during their conduct incident and those different decisions would not have resulted in them going through the conduct process. This data shows that many of the respondents recognize that they could have engaged in different behavior or actions. When asked whether they would make different decisions in the future when faced with a similar situation, the survey respondents overwhelming agreed or strongly agreed (83%). This recognition reflects the advanced stage of this learning outcome. The two comments below capture this sentiment:  “I was able to deeply reflect on my actions and on my life and choices. I have become much more careful when making choices and now take into consideration the consequences that might arise from them.”  “The conduct process has impacted me in a positive way because I have learned to take responsibility for my actions and reconsider my decisions when placed in the same situation.” Overall, the students appear to be mostly in the Advanced stage of this learning outcome. They recognize that their behavior and actions were not in‐line with the expectations of the Code and they make some changes. There are some students who would fall in the Developed stage though as these students can explain how their actions were not in‐line with the Code and can identify and articulate alternative choices but are not necessarily engaging in different behavior or actions.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the survey data, one program recommendation for Student Conduct is to improve communication and outreach to students about expectations for behavior outlined in the Code. Not all students were familiar with it prior to the conduct process, and it is important that students know these expectations while at the University. Another recommendation for Student Conduct is to work with those students going through the conduct process to help them to recognize the variety of impacts that their behavior had on the community. Many of the students are aware that their behavior impacted themselves and their friends. It is equally important that the students recognize how their behavior impacted the community, and Student Conduct can further incorporate this into the conduct conversations with the students as well as incorporate this concept into sanctions.

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 38

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES OVERVIEW Mission: Student Legal Services (“SLS”) supports student retention by improving students’ ability to stay in school via high‐quality counseling and assistance with their legal issues. SLS offers the following services to students:  Legal Consultations: Free and confidential consultations to currently registered students offering advice and guidance related to their legal questions, rights, and obligations. Areas of law include landlord/tenant law, criminal law, credit issues and collection matters, auto and health insurance claims, accidents and personal injury, consumer fraud, technology and privacy issues, general contract law, small claims actions, traffic and alcohol citations, basic estate planning matters, and family law. Although SLS does not typically represent students, it assists in the preparation and review of letters, legal documents, and court filings. Where appropriate, SLS provides referrals to outside counsel or other third‐party resources.  Tip Sheets and Forms: SLS offers a set of tip sheets and template documents on its Web site that relate to the most common areas of legal questions for students. Tip sheets include leases and rental agreements, recovering tenant security deposits, terminating a lease, auto accidents, alcohol and the law, shoplifting citations, how to interact with law enforcement, and a compilation of community legal resources. Forms include a demand letter, sublease agreement, lease assignment, roommate agreement, and a bill of sale.  Informational Workshops: SLS presents educational sessions about legal rights and obligations in various situations, including landlord/tenant law, dealing with law enforcement, filing small claims court actions, preparing for law school, and other topics of interest or concern to students.

PROGRAM AREAS AND RELATED PROGRAMS

MOST COMMON LEGAL ISSUES

TOP REFERRAL SOURCES

 Landlord‐Tenant (26.4%)  Police citations for alcohol, shoplifting and other misdemeanor offenses (17.8%)  Auto insurance/accident/other personal injury (8.5%)  Small claims court actions (6.4%)  Credit problems/consumer fraud (5.4%)  Family Law (4.3%)  Friend or previous SLS client (35.8%)  Campus administrative or academic department (25.3%, from 31 different administrative and academic departments)  Personal research by student (18.7%)  ASUC Student Legal Clinic, ASUC Renter’s Legal Assistance, and Student Advocate (16.2%)

2009‐10 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS  

  

Provided 611 total legal consultations (26.8% were return visits by students with follow‐up needs). Served a client base somewhat closely matched to the overall student population, with the following demographic groups consulting with SLS in a proportion higher than their average numbers on campus: African‐American and Native American students (both more than double the campus average), Hispanic/Latino students (70% higher than campus average), age 24+, transfer admits, undergraduates with lower parental income (median income 28% lower than campus average), and Pell Grant‐eligible undergraduates (41% more than campus average). [All student demographic data is aggregated.] Offered workshop and trainings on landlord‐tenant issues, credit and collection issues, car accidents and insurance, and preparation for law school. Topic areas of growth since previous year: credit problems, collection actions, and small claims court filings. Conducted student learning outcomes assessment of SLS clients, with 90 responses to online quantitative and qualitative survey. 2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 39

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW Student Legal Services (“SLS”) offers numerous legal resources to students, the most prominent being free and confidential consultations providing advice and guidance related to their legal questions, rights, and obligations. SLS provided some 611 client consultations in 2009‐10, which – in conjunction with providing legal assistance – are intended to support the specific student learning outcomes described below.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES Student Legal Services (SLS) conducted a survey of SLS clients to assess four student learning outcomes, as well as students’ overall experience and satisfaction with the service. The recipients of the survey were 246 students who had consulted with SLS in the 12 months prior to the survey date and for whom an email address was on file.1 Ninety‐five students responded to the survey, for a response rate of 38.6%. LEARNING OUTCOME #1: AFTER CONSULTING WITH SLS, STUDENTS WILL UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THEIR CASES.

I gained a better understanding of the The first learning outcome speaks to the fundamental 58 legal issues involved in my case. (n=92) purpose of SLS. Student clients overwhelmingly (98.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that consulting with SLS 33 improved their understanding of the legal issues related to their cases. When asked to elaborate on this understanding, representative responses included the 1 0 following:  When I first consulted a [different] lawyer over the Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly phone, I got a lot of scare tactics that I now see were in Disagree Agree place to get me to give them a lot of money. After meeting with SLS, I was better aware of what I was facing.  I learned the general landscape of legal rules that would govern my potential divorce and related child custody arrangement. Mark outlined the principles and referred me to additional useful reference materials that made the process much more approachable/feasible for me.  Mark made it very easy to understand the actual issue and case at hand that I had, and my options in the CA court. He was very organized and clear about the weight of my case and whether it was viable to pursue. He laid out clearly what the law was, how it was broken and how to carry out my lawsuit. LEARNING OUTCOME #2: AFTER CONSULTING WITH SLS, STUDENTS WILL IDENTIFY AND UNDERSTAND THEIR LEGAL (OR OTHER) OPTIONS RELATED TO THEIR CASES, AND THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THOSE OPTIONS. Since SLS does not represent or directly advocate I had a clear idea of the first “next step” to 56 on behalf of students, an important purpose of the take (if any) in my case. (n=89) consultation is to ensure that students know what 31 to do next in order to resolve the issue that they brought to the office. The vast majority of SLS clients (97.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that they 2 0 had an improved understanding of their available options after consulting with SLS, and a similar Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree percentage (97.7%) agreed or strongly agreed they Disagree knew the first “next step” to take in their case.

Of utmost concern in conducting the survey was preserving attorney‐client privilege and protecting the confidentiality of SLS clients. The survey was administered solely by the Director of SLS, Mark Lucia, through a private account on Zoomerang.com, so no client identities or client information were disclosed. All survey results have been aggregated and presented without link to any identifying information of individual respondents. Recipients of the survey were advised that responding to the survey was completely optional and that responses to short‐answer questions should be generalized enough to protect any personal or confidential information that the clients did not want disclosed (even if not attached to any other identifying information).

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 40

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

Sample responses included:  It was useful to have a professional opinion on how I I had a better understanding of the options could approach the issues at hand, whether it would be 55 available to me in my case (including non‐ safest just to ignore certain claims, what kind of letter legal options, as applicable). (n=91) to draft in response, what language best to adopt, etc. 34  I tried to take care of a legal name change on my own, but was overwhelmed by the amount of literature I needed to read as well as how to locate and fill out the proper paperwork. I was clearer on my options and the 2 0 necessary process after receiving help from Mr. Lucia.  My understanding changed a lot. I thought I had to hire Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree an attorney to resolve my claim against the person who hit us (my wife and I were in a car accident). After meeting with Mark, I learned I could do it on my own.  Since I learned my legal rights and the choices available to me, I was able to proceed in making an initial demand for the money owed to me, and then knew exactly how to proceed to small claims court. LEARNING OUTCOME #3: AFTER CONSULTING WITH SLS, STUDENTS WILL KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE A PROBLEM/INSTITUTION THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE OTHERWISE KNOWN HOW TO NAVIGATE.

Although a high percentage of SLS consultations relate to relatively simple legal matters, for almost all students these 31 matters are nonetheless their first foray into anything remotely legal, making the process quite new and unfamiliar. As a 7 0 result, SLS commonly helps students work within a system or bureaucracy that they Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree have never used before; 92.2% agreed or strongly agreed that SLS helped them navigate an issue or institution that they might not otherwise have known how to navigate. Representative narrative comments on this point included:  If I had not known the procedures and options that would be available when I went to court, I think the outcome would have been much worse for me ‐ there is no one at the court to help people understand these things, so I had a big advantage by being able to talk with the SLS lawyer beforehand.  With much more extensive knowledge on renters' rights and applicable California laws, not only am I better prepared for renting myself but can help advise friends as well.  While I was pretty aware of how the process worked (the point of small claims is to not need a lawyer after all), Mark provided vital reassurance and information that got me to actually go through with an uncomfortable process.  It was great to have someone walk me through the steps, so that now I can do it myself again if I need to (although hopefully I won't need to!) LEARNING OUTCOME #4: AFTER CONSULTING WITH SLS, STUDENTS WILL FEEL BETTER EQUIPPED TO HANDLE SIMILAR SITUATIONS IN THE FUTURE. Working with SLS helped me navigate a problem/institution that I might not have otherwise known how to navigate. (n=90)

Ideally, working through a legal question or problem with SLS provides students with transferable skills that they can apply to future experiences, whether legal or not. A high percentage (95.5%) of SLS clients agreed or strongly agreed that their work with SLS helped them feel better equipped to deal with similar future situations. Sample narrative responses to this question included the following:

After consulting with Student Legal Services, I feel better equipped to handle similar situations 35 in the future. (n=90) 0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 41

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

  

The first time I met with SLS, I was pretty much at a complete loss. The following time another problem happened with the same person, I was better able to prepare myself for the court trial. I went in to SLS again to make sure I was doing everything right and for the most part I was. The knowledge offered at SLS was specific enough to be helpful and general enough to be widely applicable to similar instances if the situation were to repeat itself. I made some mistakes in the process before talking to legal services. That will not happen again.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS In addition to four specific learning outcomes, SLS has a mission that captures a broader learning goal: SLS will support student retention by improving students’ ability to stay in school via high‐quality counseling and assistance with their legal issues. SLS seeks to foster student success at Cal by providing counseling and assistance that enable students to focus on school priorities and limit the potential “I was in a very stressed, distraction created by legal matters. When asked whether the legal issue they time‐sensitive and financially brought to SLS could have (or did have) an impact on their ability to stay in sensitive situation in which school, a remarkable 70.7% of SLS clients responded “Yes.” Of those students, SLS helped me to take 66.2% said “Yes” when asked whether the assistance they received from SLS necessary steps to resolve. improved their ability to stay in school. This is particularly important given that The time and trouble avoided students consulting with SLS come from underrepresented groups in with SLS's advice helped me substantially higher numbers than in the overall student population, and that to route my time and energy 77.3% of respondents said that if not for SLS, they would have no other access to toward successful studies.” legal counseling. These results demonstrate that SLS is serving its big‐picture goal of supporting student retention, and student comments bear out the variety of ways that SLS offers this support:  With the money that I earned from my settlement I am able to pay for tuition next year!!!! Thank you SLS!!!  SLS helped me get out of a bad living situation into a clean, healthy facility with adequate study spaces, fewer distractions and less excessive noise.  The SLS counsel I received was critical to overcoming a legal issue involving my dissertation. It would have been impossible for me to proceed with my dissertation research without a resolution.  I was in a terrible situation with a landlord, which led to a personal crisis and made it difficult to function. The legal advice I obtained helped extract me from that situation, and return to productive, intellectual work.  The last thing on earth students should be dealing with is being taken advantage of by grown adults in landlord positions. The SLS helps them focus on their goals by providing excellent service and care.  My legal battle this semester was tiring and long, but Mark pushed me in the right direction, provided all the right resources to make a successful case, and his kind and helpful service made a huge impact in my life! One additional positive note is that client satisfaction levels with SLS remain very high. A full 100% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “SLS is a worthwhile/beneficial service” (with 93.4% strongly agreeing), and 100% agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend SLS to a friend (91.3% strongly agreeing). Similarly, 98.9% of SLS clients agreed or strongly agreed that they would use SLS again if they had another legal issue or question. Overall, 96.7% were satisfied or very satisfied with SLS (73.9% being very satisfied).

2009‐10 Annual Report | Page 42

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

APPENDIX A

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND ASSOCIATED RUBRICS FOR DOS ASSESSED PROGRAMS IN 2009‐10

(ATTACHED)

Appendix A

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP BLUEPRINT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, 2009‐10 Framework Logic Program Specific for Program Specific Learning Rubric Learning Outcomes Outcomes Social Change Blueprint Each Objective can be further specified into one of three development Model of students will be stages: 1 Leadership able to:

Consciousness of Self

Collaboration

Controversy with Civility

1 2

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

Students will journey through these stages by way of

Each Objective will be measured by:

1. Emerging: Blueprint students will learn to reflect on how their 2. personal background, values, strengths, and limitations influences Accurately their leadership style perceive and respond to one’s Developed: Blueprint students will identify personal tendencies across 3. personal values, situations based on their personal background, values, beliefs, attitudes, and manage their emotions beliefs, Advanced: Blueprint students will utilize their awareness of their attitudes, and 4. personal backgrounds, values, beliefs, attitudes, and emotions to emotions accurately describe who they are in teams and groups 5.

Indaba Leadership Retreat Leadership reflections/philosophy paper Leadership Colors, StrengthsFinder assessment Mid‐year feedback worksheet EOY paper

1. 2.

Leadership reflections Group expectations worksheet Mid‐year feedback worksheet EOY paper Spring service project and presentation

Work with others toward a common goal

Manage conflict constructively

Emerging: Blueprint students will explain how they include multiple perspectives and working styles when collaborating with others Developed: Blueprint students will share responsibility and create a set of standards for personal commitment when collaborating with others Advanced: Blueprint students will share responsibility and will create a culture of accountability Emerging: Blueprint students will explore their personal conflict style when giving and receiving feedback2 Developed: Blueprint students will articulate the strengths and limitations of their personal conflict style when giving and receiving feedback Advanced: Blueprint students will utilize core dialogue skills (voicing, listening, respecting, and suspending2) during conflict and when giving and receiving feedback

3. 4. 5.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Conflict styles training Group expectations worksheet Mid‐year feedback worksheet EOY paper Spring service project and presentation

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Mentor feedback Pre‐and‐post SRLS Mid‐year feedback worksheet Philosophy & EOY paper

Mentor feedback Group expectations worksheet Mid‐year feedback worksheet Spring service project and presentation Pre‐and‐post SRLS EOY paper Mentor feedback Group expectations worksheet Mid‐year feedback worksheet Spring service project and presentation Pre‐and‐post SRLS EOY paper

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Currency/Doubleday. New York, NY. 1

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP FUTURE LEADERS PROGRAM (TWO‐YEAR COHORT), 2009‐10 Framework Logic Program Specific for Program Specific Learning Outcomes Learning Outcomes Social Change After completing the Model of program, FLP students Leadership1 will be able to:

Consciousness of Self Citizenship

Collaboration

Common Purpose Controversy with Civility

Rubric

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of:

The learning outcome will be measured by:

Emerging: Develop shared language to communicate their personal values and talents; Identify challenges facing their communities and Articulate how their work group. values and talents Developed: Identify personal leadership talents and strengths that can positively support their communities. impact their Advanced: Articulate their personal leadership philosophy, personal communities. background, values, leadership talents, strengths, and limitations with others to positively impact their communities. Emerging: Identify the diverse leadership styles of their work group; Actively listen to the personal histories of their work group. Create a healthy Developed: Engender trust and involve the diverse talents of the group environment group; Share responsibility and hold oneself accountable in a group that is inclusive of that capitalizes on various perspectives and communication styles. diverse leadership Advanced: Help others create a healthy group environment by building styles and trust, addressing difficult issues, and motivating others toward team backgrounds. goals; demonstrate accountability with self and others and put aside individual self interest for the success of the overall team. Emerging: Identify factors that contribute and hinder effective group dynamics. Create shared Developed: Practice communication strategies that recognizes and values and goals acknowledges that multiple perspectives exists, such as giving and while working with receiving feedback, listening for understanding, attentiveness to task others possessing and relationship, and managing conflicts diverse perspectives Advanced: Enact the process needed to collectively create shared and approaches. values and goals while integrating the diverse perspectives of other group members.

▪Indaba Multicultural Retreat ▪Self Assessments (Leadership Colors, Strengthsfinder, & IDI) ▪Reflection Papers ▪Leadership Autobiography ▪Attend Leadership Symposium ▪Leadership Symposium Group Presentation ▪Spring Service Project ▪Guest Speakers ▪Indaba Multicultural Retreat ▪Small Group Dialogues ▪Seminar Activities ▪Case Studies ▪Leadership Symposium Group Presentation ▪Spring Service Project ▪Ropes Course ‐Guest Speakers ▪Indaba Multicultural Retreat ▪Small Group Dialogues ▪Seminar Activities ▪Case Studies ▪Leadership Symposium Group Presentation ▪Spring Service Project ▪Ropes Course ‐Guest Speakers

▪Pre/Post SLRS, ▪Qualitative Surveys ▪Reflection Papers ▪One on one meetings with ▪instructor

▪Pre/Post SLRS ▪Qualitative Surveys ▪Peer 360 review ▪Instructor Assessment ▪Reflection Papers

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 2

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP CAL GREEKS COUNCIL OFFICERS, SPRING 2010 – FALL 2010 Framework Logic Program Specific for Program Specific Learning Learning Outcomes Outcomes Social Change Elected council Model of officers will be able Leadership1 to:

Common Purpose

Collaboration

Consciousness of Self

Rubric

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

Emerging: Officers define what they view as the purpose of their council. Take action as an Developed: Officers interpret and explain the CalGreeks’ officer that reflects fraternity and sorority community values of leadership, the council scholarship, friendship, and service and how they relate to purpose and the purpose of their council. community values Advanced: Officers model fraternity and sorority community values through values‐driven actions (e.g. planning for council programs, individual actions, etc.). Emerging: Officers establish relationships with officers Utilize cross‐ from other councils and address how they will work council together (forming)** relationships to Developed: Officers support and positively confront each understand varied others’ ideas and perspectives (storming & norming)** perspectives to Advanced: Officers collaborate with officers from other collaborate more councils to effectively create and implement CalGreeks’ effectively programs that reflect the input of all four councils and result in collective support for one another. (performing)** Emerging: Officers become aware of how their personal values, beliefs, and leadership strengths/limitations influence their leadership style Strengthen their Developed: Officers identify personal tendencies across personal situations based on their personal values, beliefs, and leadership capacity leadership strengths/limitations Advanced: Officers utilize awareness of their personal values, beliefs, and leadership strengths/limitations as they lead the council.

2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Leadership Symposium, Association of Fraternal Leadership & Values (AFLV‐West), and Indaba. Monthly reflection questions Mid‐year review with each Council President 1:1 meetings b/t staff and officers. Leadership Symposium, AFLV‐ West, and Indaba. Leadership Colors assessment and StrengthsFinder Monthly reflection questions Mid‐year review with each Council President 1:1 meetings between staff and officers. Leadership Symposium, AFLV‐ West, and Indaba. Leadership Colors assessment Leadership dev. skills workshops: Johari Window, IDP, Ldship Colors Monthly reflection questions Mid‐year review w/ each Council President 1:1 meetings between staff and officers.

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Advisor observations at council meetings Observation at AFLV and Indaba. Monthly reflection responses SRLS questions (pre and post) Advisor observations at council meetings Observation at AFLV and Indaba. Monthly reflection responses SRLS questions (pre and post) Advisor observations at council meetings Observation at AFLV and Indaba. Monthly reflection responses Workshop evaluations SRLS questions (pre and post)

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.

** Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63, 284-399.

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP FRATERNITY & SORORITY LIFE: NEW MEMBER CAMP 2009 Framework Logic for Program Specific Learning Outcomes Social Change Model of Leadership* Consciousness of Self

Congruence

Commitment

Program Specific Learning Outcomes Fraternity and sorority members who attend the New Member Camp will be able to: Utilize awareness of their personal values and beliefs

Examine personal values as they relate to the values of their fraternity/sorority organization

Rubric

Measurement

To measure these outcomes we will use the following: As demonstrated by…

Emerging: Reflect on how their personal values and beliefs influence their actions. Developed: Identify personal tendencies across situations based on their personal values and beliefs. Advanced: Utilize awareness of their personal values and beliefs to influence others in acting on their values.

   

Small and large group discussions Role play scenarios Pre‐post test qualitative questions Facilitator notes/observations

Emerging: Identify personal values Developed: Explain intersection of personal values with organization’s values; contrast personal values with organization’s values Advanced: Align actions/behavior with personal values and values of their organization

    

Values clarification exercise Small and large group discussions Role play scenarios Pre‐post test qualitative questions Facilitator notes/observations

Emerging: Become aware of current and future challenges Developed: Brainstorm and examine potential solutions (on an individual level) Advanced: Create an action plan the addresses the challenges and solutions (on a small group level)

   

Small and large group discussions Role play scenarios Pre‐post test qualitative questions Facilitator notes/observations

Assess the challenges facing the CalGreeks community

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP SYMPOSIUM PLANNING TEAM, 2009‐10 Framework Logic for Program Specific Learning Outcomes Social Change Model of Leadership1

Program Specific Learning Outcomes Leadership Symposium Student Planners will:

Consciousness of Self

Synthesize one’s personal values with their leadership strengths and limitations

Common Purpose

Include multiple perspectives to create shared values and work toward a common goal

Controversy with Civility

Practice effective feedback skills, conflict resolution and peer accountability

Rubric

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

Emerging: Reflect on their personal values and beliefs, leadership strengths and limitations Developed: Share how their personal background, values and beliefs inform their behavior when working with others Advanced: Articulate how their personal background, values and beliefs synthesize with their leadership strengths Emerging: Identify the multiple values and perspectives of others Developed: Practice effective communication strategies to engage multiple perspectives in the development of a team project Advanced: Respectfully engage team members’ varied perspectives to create shared values and aims of the team’s project Emerging: Explore their personal conflict style when giving and receiving feedback Developed: Identify contributing factors and roots causes of conflict in a team setting Advanced: Utilize effective feedback skills toward conflict resolution and peer accountability while working on a team project

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Indaba leadership retreat Leadership colors activity Weekly planning meetings Advisor meetings Ropes course activity Closing report

Feedback training Weekly planning meetings Advisor meetings Leadership Symposium Conference implementation

1. 2. 3.

Advisor feedback Pre‐and‐post SRLS End‐of‐program survey

1. 2. 3. 4.

Advisor feedback Pre‐and‐post SRLS End‐of‐program survey Closing report

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Advisor observations Large group observations Conference observations Pre‐and‐Post SRLS End‐of‐program survey Closing report

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 5

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS STUDENT CONDUCT PROCESS PARTICIPANTS, 2009‐10 Framework Logic for Program Specific Learning Outcomes Social Change Model of Leadership1 Consciousness of Self Congruence Citizenship Consciousness of Self

Citizenship Consciousness of Self

Program‐Specific Learning Outcomes After working with Student Conduct in all conduct cases (not including consultations and/or informal “Dean’s Letter” cases), students will be able to: Demonstrate an awareness of their responsibilities as members of the campus community.

Rubric

Measurement

As demonstrated by the following behaviors:

And measured using the following tools:

Emerging: Identify their personal values around community. Developed: Identify and explain the standards and expectations for their behavior in the community. Advanced: Synthesize an approach that balances their personal values with an awareness and understanding of community standards and behavioral expectations. Emerging: Identify and explain the impacts that resulted from their personal conduct (decisions, behaviors, and actions) on themselves and their friends. Demonstrate insight into how Developed: Identify and explain the impacts their personal their personal conduct (their decisions, behaviors, and actions) conduct (decisions, behaviors, and actions) had on the community. impact themselves, others, and Advanced: Articulate the range of alternate decisions, their communities behaviors, and actions available to them; Explain the potential impacts of these alternate decisions, behaviors, and actions on themselves, others, and their communities. Emerging: Identify their actions that were and/or were not in‐ line with the expectations of the Code of Student Conduct; Developed: Explain how their actions were not in‐line with the Engage in behaviors that align with Code of Student Conduct; Identify and explain a range of alternate choices available to them. community standards and Advanced: Engage in different behavior or engage in similar expectations behavior with some modification so that their actions are in‐ line with community standards and expectations.

Emerging, Developed, and Advanced:  1:1 conversation with students  Likert scale questions  SRLS  Individual student reflective essays/self‐ biographies Emerging, Developed, and Advanced:  1:1 conversation with students  Likert scale questions  SRLS  Individual student reflective essays/self‐ biographies

Emerging, Developed, and Advanced:  1:1 conversation with students  Likert scale questions  SRLS  Individual student reflective essays/self‐ biographies  Review student conduct records for recidivist activity

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 6

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER ALTERNATIVE BREAKS LEADERS, 2009‐10 Framework Logic Social Change Model of Leadership1

Citizenship

Controversy with Civility

Student Learning Outcomes

Objectives

Rubric Stages

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

Lead their peers in a memorable, safe, and fun service‐learning trip

 Practice risk management techniques  Cultivate relationships and leadership within a group  Apply reflection techniques

Emerging: Recruit a Break team; Awareness of risk management techniques; Knowledge of group dynamics; Identify elements of quality service‐ learning Developed: Keep Break team energized during pre‐ trip DECals; Articulate RM techniques with Break team; Facilitate teambuilders in intentional manner; facilitate pre‐trip reflections and integrate education sessions into trip plan Advanced: Proactively address conflicts in course of trip; Practice RM during trip; Share/cultivate leadership on trip by modeling and making room for new leadership

 Recruitment workshop (BLR)  Participate in risk management training (SLSO)  Participate in staff‐led icebreakers and teambuilders (BLR)  Attend YSCal workshop (BLR)  Participate in staff‐modeled BLR  Develop scrapbook with reflection elements

 Participant evaluations  Leader pre‐ and post‐surveys  Break Director feedback

Create a learning environment in which break participants can examine their beliefs and assumptions

 Create sense of collective responsibility to success of group  Facilitate dialogue/reflection sessions  Challenge self and others appropriately

Emerging: Explore democratic facilitation and decision making models; Identify own personal beliefs and assumptions Developed: Successfully facilitate dialogues during DECals; Analyze and share personal assumptions of “other” identities and impact on communication Advanced: Act as an ally to underrepresented (student and community) voices; share knowledge with participants how to create similar environments

 Participate in staff‐led pre‐trip BLR DECal model  Attend facilitation workshop with staff  Attend Ally workshop with Gen Eq staff  Create Johari Window, take MBTI, and craft Diversity Mosaic on staff‐modeled BLR

 Participant evaluations  Leader pre‐ and post‐surveys  Break Director feedback

After participating Each over‐arching goal in this program can be broken down students will (be into the following, able to; know; more specific (1‐3) understand): objectives:

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 7

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER BONNER LEADERS, 2009‐10 Framework Logic

Social Change Model of Leadership1

Consciousness of Self Congruence

Collaboration Common Purpose Consciousness of Self

Student Learning Outcomes After participating in this program students will (be able to; know; understand):

Objectives

Rubric Stages

Each over‐arching goal can be broken down The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three into the following, development stages: more specific (1‐3) objectives:

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

 Understand importance of leaders cultivating new leadership  Acknowledge different goals of different social action programs/orgs  Recognize multiplicity of definitions of justice

Emerging: Leadership as a position/role; Service as volunteerism, charity, doing for; Justice as a relationship to an objective norm Developed: Leadership as process/influence potential; Service as culturally and locally defined “usefulness”; Awareness of how personal definitions align (or not) with day to day work in community Advanced: Cultivation of new leadership for community self‐ sustainability; Holds tension between complexity of transformative v. reformist service; Acknowledgment of multiplicity of definitions of justice

 Reflection papers (2)  Advising sessions with Cal Corps staff (3)

 Seek to understand and work with people from diverse backgrounds Lead diverse  Flex leadership style groups of people as needed  Keep group members engaged over course of project

Emerging: Identify personal identities; Inventory individual strengths and weaknesses; Recruit a working group/Describes individual vision/purpose of group; Explore democratic facilitation and decision making models Developed: Analyze personal assumptions of “other” identities and impact on communication; Understand one’s preferred leadership style; Integrate individual visions into group/program vision; Application of core management skills, including delegation, time management, and event planning Advanced: Act as an ally to underrepresented (student and community) voices; Flex leadership style when appropriate/necessary; Keep group members engaged over course of project; Share leadership by modeling and making room for new leadership

 Johari Window and Individual development Plan (Orientation)  Supervisory  Mid‐year Retreat appraisals (2)  Healthy Communities  Self‐report from Project Sequence, pre‐ and post‐ including journal surveys (SRLS prompts (All‐Bonner) and qualitative)  Brief workshops on identity, facilitation, Sit‐ Lead

Detail personal definitions of leadership, service, and justice

 Scoring rubric from End of year reflection paper  Self‐report from pre‐ and post‐ surveys (SRLS and qualitative)

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 8

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

BONNER LEADERS, 2009‐10 (CONTINUED) Framework Logic Social Change Model of Leadership1

Citizenship Commitment

Student Learning Outcomes

Objectives

After participating Each over‐arching goal in this program can be broken down students will (be into the following, able to; know; more specific (1‐3) understand): objectives:

Rubric Stages

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

 Program management experience  Healthy Communities Project  Journal prompts (All‐Bonner)  “Speedbumps” and optional workshop  Advising sessions with Cal Corps staff (3)

  Scoring rubric from reflection papers  Self‐report from pre‐ and post‐ surveys (SRLS and qualitative)

Emerging: Define one’s own communities; Identify barriers to healthy communities; Understand the need for self‐care; Identify different approaches to  Enact a social community engagement; Articulate benefits of change theory collaboration/groups  Create personal Developed: List specific assets and needs within strategies for a those communities; Formulate a social change healthy, long‐term theory; Practice self‐care sporadically; Locate approach to engagement best aligned with personal beliefs; community Aware of need to model desired engagement outcomes/standards in working group  Consistently model Advanced: Articulate vision for healthy community; desired Implement a social change theory; Practice self‐care outcomes/standards consistently; Articulate personal, long‐term in working group approach to community engagement; Consistently model desired outcomes/standards in working group

Build healthy communities

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 9

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER CHAN FELOWS, 2009‐10 Framework Logic

Social Change Model of Leadership1

Consciousness of Self Controversy with Civility Change

Commitment Change

Student Learning Outcomes After participating in this program students will (be able to; know; understand):

Increase multicultural competence

Understand NGOs within a cultural context

Objectives

Rubric Stages

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

Each over‐arching goal can be broken down into the following, more specific (1‐3) objectives:

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

 Navigate living & working in the United States  Understand how culture affects perceptions and interactions

 Understand the role of NGOs in the United States  Analyze the work of NGOs in the US and China

Emerging: Communicate effectively in English. Define “culture” and identify different aspects of culture. Developed: Identify relationship and communication patterns at internship, homestay & on campus. Understand own cultural background and the role of experience. Advanced: Adapt behavior to fit relationship and communication patterns / norms. Apply understanding of culture to cross‐cultural interactions Emerging: Understand the role of NGOs in the United States. Identify similarities and differences between the NGO sectors in US and China. Developed: Identify NGO funding, models, & structures in the United States. Evaluate practices of NGOs in US and China. Advanced: Analyze strengths and challenges of NGOs in the United States and China. Propose ways to improve effectiveness of NGOs in US and China.

   

IDI Friday Seminar Sessions Homestays

 Self‐report from post‐surveys  Final Presentation

Internship experience

 Friday Seminar Sessions  Internship experience

 Self‐report from post‐surveys  Final Presentation

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 10

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER CAL IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, 2009‐10 Framework Logic

Social Change Model of Leadership1

Commitment, Common Purpose, Citizenship

Consciousness of Self, Commitment, Citizenship

Student Learning Outcomes After participating in this program students will (be able to; know; understand):

Be able to explain the process for creating change at a local level

Apply professional skills in an internship setting

Objectives

Rubric Stages

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

Each over‐arching goal can be broken down into the following, more specific (1‐3) objectives:

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

 Analyze how policy affects local issues  Understand how to create change through the legislative process

Emerging: Identify issues and the main policies in place to address those issues. Identify the different types of local government and their structures. Developed: Understand and critique the effects of current/past policy on local issues. Identify the role of key stakeholders in major local issues. Advanced: Propose ways that host sites or policy makers can approach the issues. Understand the process through which new policies get passed and implemented.

Emerging: Clearly communicate basic ideas in writing and conversation. Follow direction and act appropriately in a professional environment. Identify constituents of host site.  Communicate Developed: Clearly communicate complex ideas and effectively in verbal demonstrate some analysis. Work independently and written form with minimum supervision. Match host site  Work independently resources with constituent needs.  Work effectively in Advanced: Demonstrate understanding of complex the community ideas and present thoughtful analysis of issues. Provide new ideas, skills & knowledge to site. Propose ways for host site to meet constituent needs.

 DECal Policy Project  Internship experience

 State of the City Poster Session Scoring  Self‐report from pre‐ and post‐ surveys (SRLS and qualitative)

 DECal Sessions  Internship experience

 Internship Supervisor Evaluation  Self‐report from pre‐ and post‐ surveys (SRLS and qualitative)

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 11

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2009‐10 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER CAL IN THE CAPITAL, 2009‐10 Framework Logic

Social Change Model of Leadership1

Consciousness of Self, Commitment, Citizenship

Consciousness of Self, Commitment, Collaboration

Student Learning Outcomes After participating in this program students will (be able to; know; understand):

Examine the process for creating change at the national level

Apply professional skills in an internship setting

Objectives

Rubric Stages

Instructional Strategies

Measurement

Each over‐arching goal can be broken down into the following, more specific (1‐3) objectives:

The learning outcome can be further specified into one of three development stages:

Students will journey through these stages by way of

The learning outcome will be measured by:

 Analyze how policy affects national issues  Analyze changes made on a national level

Emerging: Identify issues and the main policies in place to address those issues. Identify key stakeholders and their role in major issues Developed: Understand and critique the effects of current/past policy on national issues. Understand the process through which new policies get passed and implemented. Advanced: Propose ways that host sites or policy makers can approach the issues. Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken to resolve issues.

Emerging: Clearly communicate basic ideas in writing and conversation. Follow direction and act appropriately in a professional environment.  Communicate Developed: Clearly communicate complex ideas and effectively in verbal demonstrate some analysis. Work independently and written form with minimum supervision.  Work independently Advanced: Demonstrate understanding of complex ideas and present thoughtful analysis of issues. Provide new ideas, skills & knowledge to site.

 DECal sessions  Internship experience

 Policy Project  End of DECal survey  Self‐report from pre‐ and post‐ surveys (SRLS and qualitative)

 Internship experience

 Internship Supervisor Evaluation  Self‐report from pre‐ and post‐ surveys (SRLS and qualitative)

Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1995). Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles: Higher Education Leadership Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. 12

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

APPENDIX B OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS AREA‐WIDE LEARNING OUTCOMES

Students who participate in programs within the Office of the Dean of Students will:

1. Demonstrate increased personal awareness of their values, identities, beliefs, attitudes, and motivations to action. FOR EXAMPLE:  In the Blueprint Leadership Development Program – a yearlong leadership experience that pairs a small group of diverse students with leadership coaches – students will be able to accurately perceive and respond to their personal values, beliefs, attitudes, and emotions by participating in a large‐group leadership retreat at the start of the year, attending large‐group trainings and small‐group discussions throughout the academic year, meeting one‐on‐ one with a leadership coach throughout the year, completing self‐assessment exercises (such as Leadership Colors and StrengthsFinder), writing reflection papers describing their leadership philosophy, and completing a spring social justice project that they conceive and implement.  Students participating in the student conduct process will demonstrate insight into how their personal conduct (their decisions, behaviors, and actions) impact themselves, others, and their communities by engaging in one‐on‐one conversations with conduct officers about their actions, writing reflective essays and self‐biographies with the guidance of conduct officers, and (in some cases) participating in “restorative justice” activities that serve the community and help redress the community impact of their actions.

2. Improve their ability to collaborate with and motivate others, including those with backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints different from their own. FOR EXAMPLE:  Students in the Bonner Leaders Program will be able to lead diverse groups of people after completing a 300‐hour commitment over the academic year to either coordinate internship programs or serve as volunteer managers at schools and nonprofits. Bonner Leaders receive 60 hours of intensive leadership training, including an orientation and mid‐year retreat, weekly workshops, and at least three 1:1 advising sessions, while also writing two reflection papers, creating an individual development plan, and completing a Healthy Communities Project.  Students on the Leadership Symposium Planning Team will be able to include multiple perspectives to create shared values and work toward a common goal by participating in a guided full‐year experience working closely

with staff advisors to develop and implement a large student leadership conference while undergoing extensive training on personal leadership skills, event planning, workshop development, budget planning, and group facilitation.

3. Identify and engage in the communities and/or social issues that they care about the most. FOR EXAMPLE:  Student leaders in the Alternative Breaks Program will lead their peers in a memorable, safe, and fun service‐ learning trip during the academically scheduled Spring Break that they plan and implement after choosing a specific community and related social issue that interests them the most. To accomplish this, students schedule service

projects with nonprofit organizations, fundraise, secure lodging, recruit participants, handle risk management, and plan and facilitate a spring DeCal course which pertains to the issue being addressed by the trip. 

Participants in the Future Leaders Program will be able to articulate how their values and talents can positively impact their communities by engaging in an extensive mentoring program over two years that includes a large‐group retreat, small group dialogues and seminars, numerous guided self‐assessments, several reflection papers, a leadership autobiography, development of a spring service project, presentation at the Leadership Symposium of a workshop, and the analysis and presentation of a case study that applies learned principles to a specific community group or issue.

Appendix B

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

4. Develop and apply practical/technical skills that increase their capacity to create change for themselves or within the communities and/or social issues that they care about the most. FOR EXAMPLE:  Students in numerous CLL programs will have the opportunity to attend trainings that help them develop and practice skills in the areas of event planning, budgeting and financial management, writing grant proposals, time and

project management, data collection and analysis, risk management and planning, group dialogue facilitation, teambuilding, mediation and conflict resolution, strategic planning, and public speaking. 

Students who participate in Cal in Local Government will apply professional skills in an internship setting after attending a semester‐long, student‐facilitated DECal course once each week for two hours that offers skill‐

building workshops and a forum with community speakers to discuss local policy issues, and then applying this learning to a local government internship where they work on a community‐based research project and make policy presentations for a “State of the City” conference.

Appendix B

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

APPENDIX C

“WORD CLOUD” COMPILATIONS FROM QUALITATIVE RESPONSES IN POST‐ASSESSMENTS

(ATTACHED)

Appendix C

Alternative Breaks: "Word Cloud" of Qualitative Responses to Post-Assessment Survey

Blueprint Leadership Development Program: "Word Cloud" of Qualitative Responses to Post-Assessment Survey

Bonner Leaders Program: "Word Cloud" of Qualitative Responses to Post-Assessment Survey

CalGreeks Councils: "Word Cloud" of Qualitative Responses to Post-Assessment Survey

Cal in Local Government: "Word Cloud" of Qualitative Responses to Post-Assessment Survey

Future Leaders Program: "Word Cloud" of Qualitative Responses to Post-Assessment Survey

Leadership Symposium: "Word Cloud" of Qualitative Responses to Post-Assessment Survey

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

APPENDIX D

COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO LIKERT‐SCALE QUESTIONS IN POST‐ASSESSMENTS

(ATTACHED)

Appendix D

Alternative Break Leaders Assessment Survey Results 2009-10 n=13 Skills Self-Assessment How would you rate your ability/understanding in the areas of: Very Little

None Resolving conflicts effectively Acting as ally to underrepresented (student and commty) voices Cultivate leadership by modeling and making room for new leadership Helping participants create similar environments Practicing risk management techniques Cultivating relationships and leadership within a group Creating a sense of collective responsibility within group Challenge self and others appropriately Facilitating reflection Articulate personal beliefs, values, and identities Understand one's preferred leadership style Working with groups of diverse people Finding a healthy balance of activities through the practice of self-care Understanding local pressing issues/challenges and strengths/indigenous solutions Awareness of the range of ways of making social change Taking intentional action to change an unjust situation Communication skills Delegation Time management Event planning Incorporating the needs and strengths of constituents and members into program/projec Creating SMART goals Developing and maintaining strong community partnerships. Forming and sustaining healthy groups across the SPIES dimensions Engaging in self-reflection

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Very Much

Some 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 4 1 1 4 1 1 2 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 4 2 2 3 1 3 4 2 7 2

A Great Deal 8 6 7 8 4 7 6 9 7 5 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 8 4 3 6 7 3 3 3

3 3 5 4 5 5 6 2 2 7 7 9 2 4 5 3 5 2 5 8 3 1 7 2 7

AVERAGE (1-5) Pre-Assess Score (n=14) 4.08 3.43 3.92 3.57 4.31 3.43 4.23 3.29 4.08 3.00 4.31 3.93 4.38 3.86 4.00 3.79 3.85 3.36 4.46 3.71 4.54 3.29 4.69 4.07 3.67 3.54 4.08 3.15 4.25 3.23 3.92 3.38 4.25 3.62 4.00 3.31 4.17 3.92 4.58 3.54 4.00 3.38 3.75 3.00 4.42 2.92 3.58 2.23 4.42 3.46

SRLS Questions

SRLS Competency Area Campus

I am open to othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ideas. Creativity can come from conflict. I value differences in others. Hearing differences in opinions enriches my thinking. I struggle when group members have ideas that are different from mine.* Greater harmony can come out of disagreement. I respect opinions other than my own. I am uncomfortable when someone disagrees with me.* When there is a conflict between two people, one will win and the other will lose.* I am comfortable with conflict. I share my ideas with others. I believe I have responsibilities to my community. I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better places. I have the power to make a difference in my community. I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common good. I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my community.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 6 1 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Strongly Agree 7 7 5 3 3 6 3 2 1 5 7 3 6 4 5 5 6 5 4

5 3 6 9 0 1 9 1 1 1 3 9 6 8 7 7 5 7 8

AVERAGE (1-5) 4.42 4.08 4.42 4.75 3.50 3.50 4.75 3.17 3.75 3.50 4.08 4.75 4.50 4.67 4.58 4.58 4.33 4.58 4.67

09-10 Pre-Assess Average, 2009 MSL Competency Average Average (n=13) (n=14) (n=769)

Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship

08-09 Competency Average (n=8)

3.99

4.06

3.78

4.48

4.58

4.46

3.83

4.61

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

What is most memorable about your Alt Break Leaders experience? (11 short-answer responses) How did you create a learning environment in which break participants could examine their beliefs and assumptions? (11 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 1 of 16

Alternative Break Participants Assessment Survey Results 2009-10 n=60 SRLS Questions

SRLS Competency Area

Strongly Disagree I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better places. I have the power to make a difference in my community. I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common good. I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my

Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Neutral 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Agree 5 6 5 6 3 3 1

28 27 20 17 24 18 16

AVERAGE Strongly Agree (1-5) 27 4.37 27 4.35 34 4.45 37 4.52 33 4.50 39 4.60 43 4.70

Pre09-10 Assess Competency Average Average (n=60) (n=63)

Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship

4.50

4.45

Campus Average, 2009 MSL (n=769)

3.83

08-09 Competency Average (n=8)

4.61

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

What could the Break Leaders have done do to improve the break? Please be specific! (60 short-answer responses) How will you apply the service trip social issues to a local (Bay Area) context? (At least 3-5 sentences please!) (60 short-answer responses) Other Comments (12 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 2 of 16

Blueprint Assessment Survey Results 2009-10 n=18 Blueprint Curriculum Questions Through your participation in the Blueprint Leadership Development Program this year, HOW MUCH DID YOU LEARN in the areas of: 09-10 Very Very A Great AVERAGE (08-09 Average) Little Some Much Deal (1-5) Nothing Social Change Model of Leadership 3.78 4.05 0 1 7 5 5 Power and Privilege 3.93 3.67 0 0 5 6 4 0 0 1 5 12 Understanding that people have perspectives that are different from ours and that their perspective is important and valid 4.61 4.48 0 0 Gained a greater appreciation for the experiences of people who are different from me 1 7 10 4.50 4.38 Giving feedback 0 0 12 6 4.33 4.29 0 0 2 8 8 Holding oneself accountable 4.33 4.38 0 1 3 11 3 Holding others accountable 3.89 4.29 Resolving Conflict Constructively 4.11 3.81 0 1 2 9 6 Strategies for effective communication 4.33 3.81 0 0 1 10 7 4.56 4.52 Different leadership styles 0 0 0 8 10 4.56 4.38 Your own leadership style 0 0 0 8 10 Strategies for working with others toward a common 0 1 0 7 10 goal 4.44 4.40

(07-08 (06-07 Average) Average) 4.44 4.17 3.33 3.78

3.78

4.11

NA 4.06 3.50 NA NA

NA 3.39 3.48 NA NA

4.06

Participation in the Blueprint Leadership Program has helped me:

Incorporate the social change model into my own leadership style Incorporate values of social justice into my own leadership style Reflect on how my personal background influences my leadership style Clarify my belief and value systems Make choices based on what I value Explore where I am inconsistent with my values Work with others toward a common goal Manage conflict constructively

Strongly Disagree Disagree 0 1

Neutral 5

Agree 9

Strongly Agree 3

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1

5 9 8 4 9

13 9 8 13 8

SRLS Questions

Strongly Disagree Disagree 0 1 I am able to articulate my priorities. 7 9 I have a low self esteem.* 0 0 I am usually self confident. 0 0 The things about which I feel passionate have priority 0 0 I know myself pretty well. 0 0 I could describe my personality. 0 1 I can describe how I am similar to other people. 5 9 Self-reflection is difficult for me.* 0 0 I am comfortable expressing myself. 0 0 My behaviors are congruent with my beliefs. 0 0 It is important to me to act on my beliefs. 0 0 My actions are consistent with my values. 0 0 Being seen as a person of integrity is important to me. 0 0 My behaviors reflect my beliefs.

09-10 AVERAGE (1-5)

(08-09 Average)

3.78

4.10

4.11

4.00

4.33

4.29

4.22

4.04

4.50 4.72 4.50 4.28 4.67 4.39

4.33 4.33 4.10 4.05 4.52 3.95

4.22 4.56 4.41 4.33 4.22 4.17

NA NA NA NA NA NA

(07-08 (06-07 Average) Average)

SRLS Competency Area

Neutral 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0

Agree 9 1 11 5 13 14 8 2 12 12 5 11 7 11

Strongly Agree 5 0 6 11 4 1 8 0 5 6 13 6 10 7

09-10 AVERAGE (1-5) 4.00 Consciousness of Self 4.22 Consciousness of Self 4.28 Consciousness of Self 4.59 Consciousness of Self 4.17 Consciousness of Self 3.89 Consciousness of Self 4.28 Consciousness of Self 3.94 Consciousness of Self 4.22 Consciousness of Self 4.33 Congruence 4.72 Congruence 4.28 Congruence 4.50 Congruence 4.39 Congruence

PREAssess Competency Average Average (n=18) (n=16)

4.18

3.88

Campus Average, 2009 MSL (n=769)

3.87

08-09 Blueprint Average (n=21)

4.06

06-07 07-08 Blueprint Blueprint Avg Avg (n=18) (n=23)

3.98

4.11

Appendix D Page 3 of 16

I am genuine. It is easy for me to be truthful. I am willing to devote time and energy to things that I stick with others through the difficult times. I am focused on my responsibilities. I can be counted on to do my part. I follow through on my promises. I hold myself accountable for responsibilities I agree I am seen as someone who works well with others. I can make a difference when I work with others on a I actively listen to what others have to say. I enjoy working with others toward common goals. Others would describe me as a cooperative group Collaboration produces better results. My contributions are recognized by others in the I am able to trust the people with whom I work. I am committed to a collective purpose in those It is important to develop a common direction in a I contribute to the goals of the group. I think it is important to know other people's priorities. I have helped to shape the mission of the group. Common values drive an organization. I know the purpose of the groups to which I belong. I work well when I know the collective values of a I support what the group is trying to accomplish I am open to others' ideas. Creativity can come from conflict. I value differences in others. Hearing differences in opinions enriches my thinking. I struggle when group members have ideas that are Greater harmony can come out of disagreement. I respect opinions other than my own. I am uncomfortable when someone disagrees with When there is a conflict between two people, one will I am comfortable with conflict. I share my ideas with others. I believe I have responsibilities to my community. I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better I have the power to make a difference in my I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my Transition makes me uncomfortable.* I am comfortable initiating new ways of looking at Change brings new life to an organization. There is energy in doing something a new way. Change makes me uncomfortable.* New ways of doing things frustrate me.* I work well in changing environments. I am open to new ideas. I look for new ways to do something. I can identify the differences between positive and

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 1

1 3 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 1

7 8 5 7 10 10 7 9 12 5 7 4 11 4 10 10 5 3 9 6 9 6 13 9 6 8 9 10 7 1 8 10 4 0 11 6 5 8 7 4 9 11 4 6 0 8 12 6 1 0 10 6 5 9

9 7 13 9 6 7 9 8 4 11 11 13 7 13 6 6 12 14 8 12 8 11 5 8 11 9 6 7 11 0 7 8 1 0 5 11 12 9 10 13 8 6 13 12 2 8 4 10 0 0 7 12 11 7

4.47 4.22 4.72 4.39 4.22 4.41 4.33 4.47 4.18 4.50 4.61 4.67 4.39 4.67 4.22 4.22 4.61 4.72 4.47 4.67 4.47 4.56 4.28 4.47 4.65 4.53 4.17 4.33 4.61 4.06 4.22 4.44 3.44 4.33 4.24 4.56 4.61 4.44 4.50 4.67 4.47 4.28 4.67 4.67 3.44 4.41 4.11 4.44 4.11 4.06 4.41 4.67 4.50 4.22

Congruence Congruence Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility

Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change

4.42

4.23

4.06

4.34

4.29

4.38

4.42

4.40

4.20

4.30

4.31

4.43

4.27

3.99

4.31

4.22

4.23

4.54

4.33

3.97

4.46

4.32

4.16

4.24

3.96

3.78

4.05

4.09

4.00

4.54

4.14

3.83

4.40

4.34

4.24

4.03

3.76

3.98

4.02

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

Blueprint Evaluation How would you rate the following aspects of the Blueprint Program:

The Indaba Leadership Retreat StrengthsQuest Text The Five Dysfunctions of a Team Text

Poor 0 0 0

Fair 0 0 0

Avg. 0 1 0

Good 0 7 5

Excellent 18 10 13

09-10 AVERAGE (1-5) 5.00 4.50 4.72

(08-09 Average) 4.71

(07-08 (06-07 Average) Average) 3.11 NA

Appendix D Page 4 of 16

The whole class fall meetings/large group workshops The whole class spring meetings/large group workshop The small group cohort meetings Individual meetings/1:1s with your Blueprint Mentor Meetings with Cynthia Meetings with Whitney Leadership Symposium The 360 Evaluation Support of Blueprint Mentors for your Social Justice Pro The Social Justice Project Presentations The Social Justice Project overall Frequency and content of Blueprint-related emails The educational value of your experience The overall Blueprint experience

0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 3 2 6 3 4 1 3 2 1 1 4 0 0

13 5 8 4 8 5 11 7 8 10 7 11 14 16

4.67 3.50 4.22 3.61 4.28 4.06 4.56 4.11 4.00 4.50 4.33 4.28 4.78 4.89

4.05 4.05 3.57 4.45

3.72 3.72 4.28 NA

NA NA 4.09 NA

4.40 4.43

NA NA

4.57 4.48 4.00 4.57 4.62

3.94 3.89 3.70 4.13 4.22

NA NA NA NA NA

09-10 AVERAGE (1-4) 15 3.78

(08-09 Average) 3.62

(07-08 Average)

(06-07 Average) 3.09

09-10 AVERAGE (1-4) 10 3.22

(08-09 Average) 3.43

(07-08 Average)

09-10 AVERAGE Positive (1-4) 17 3.94

(08-09 Average) 3.71

(07-08 Average)

4 6 7 6 7 9 6 7 6 7 10 2 4 2

How comfortable were you with the other students in your cohort?

Somewhat Not at All Comfortable

Very Comfortab Comfortable le

3.22

How comfortable were you with your cohort mentor?

Somewhat Not at All Comfortable

Very Comfortab Comfortable le

Negative

Somewhat Negative

Somewhat Positive

3.67

(06-07 Average) 3.39

Overall, how would you describe your cohort experience?

3.61

(06-07 Average) 3.74

Would you recommend the Blueprint Program to other students? Yes

No 16

What was the most meaningful aspect of the Blueprint Leadership Program for you as a participant? (16 short-answer responses) In what ways has your self-confidence improved as a result of the Blueprint Leadership Program? (16 short-answer responses) To what extent have you become more aware of the impact that your emotional state, behavior, and perceptual lenses affect group members? (16 short-answer responses) How has your motivation to be a leader and serve your community changed or been enhanced as a result of the Blueprint Leadership Program? (16 short-answer responses) What have you learned about working with others who are different from you this past year as a result of the Blueprint Leadership Program? (16 short-answer responses) How has your ability to give feedback improved in the past year as a result of the Blueprint Leadership Program? (16 short-answer responses) Do you have any additional comments to share? (13 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 5 of 16

Bonner Leaders Assessment Survey Results 2009-10 n=27 Part 1: Bonner SLO Self-Assessment How would you rate your ability/understanding in the areas of: None Resolving conflicts effectively Acting as ally to underrepresented (student and commty) voices Cultivating leadership by modeling and making room for new leader Helping participants create similar environments Practicing risk management techniques Cultivating relationships and leadership within a group Creating a sense of collective responsibility within group Challenging self and others appropriately Facilitating reflection Articulating personal beliefs, values, and identities Understanding your preferred leadership style Finding a healthy balance of activities through the practice of self-ca Understanding local pressing issues/challenges and strengths/indig Awareness of the range of ways of making social change Taking intentional action to change an unjust situation Communication skills Delegation Time management Event planning Incorporating the needs and strengths of constituents and members Creating SMART goals Developing and maintaining strong community partnerships. Forming and sustaining healthy groups across the SPIES dimension Engaging in self-reflection

Very Little 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Some 1 1 0 4 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1

4 5 4 6 12 3 7 5 4 3 1 10 7 7 5 2 4 5 3 7 7 2 10 3

Very Much A Great Deal 18 15 16 14 8 15 12 13 16 15 17 13 14 11 13 13 12 12 13 14 16 17 9 14

4 6 7 3 5 8 6 9 7 9 9 4 6 9 8 12 10 10 11 6 3 8 4 9

AVERAGE Pre-Assess Average (1-5) Fall 2009 (n=33) 3.93 3.48 3.96 3.55 4.11 3.67 3.59 3.39 3.59 3.21 4.11 3.85 3.81 3.64 4.15 3.61 4.11 3.45 4.22 3.76 4.30 3.52 3.78 3.24 3.96 3.39 4.07 3.55 4.04 3.61 4.37 3.79 4.15 3.73 4.19 3.61 4.30 3.79 3.96 3.42 3.78 3.18 4.22 3.30 3.44 2.64 4.15 3.67

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following items by choosing the position that most closely represents your opinion about that statement. AVERAGE Pre-Assess Average Strongly Fall 2009 Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (1-5) I have a detailed personal definition of leadership 0 1 1 18 6 4.12 3.91 I can articulate vision for healthy community 0 0 3 14 9 4.23 3.94 I have a detailed personal definition of service 0 1 1 13 11 4.31 4.24 I have a detailed personal definition of justice 0 1 1 18 6 4.12 3.88 I can enact my personal theory of social change 0 0 2 17 7 4.19 3.45 I learn and practice self-care consistently 0 2 7 13 4 3.73 3.55 0 0 4 18 4 4.00 3.55 I can articulate personal, long-term approach to community engagem Consistently model desired outcomes/standards in working group 0 2 3 15 6 3.96 3.55 Leadership requires cultivation of new leadership 0 0 1 13 12 4.42 4.24 I see the importance of both transformative and reformist service 0 0 4 14 8 4.15 3.97 There are multiple definitions of justice 0 0 2 8 16 4.54 4.39 Part 2: General Self-Assessment Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following items by choosing the position that most closely represents your opinion about that statement. SRLS Competency Area SRLS Questions Campus

Disagree 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Neutral 0 14 1 1 0 1 0 13 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Agree 0 2 3 0 2 2 3 5 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0

13 2 17 9 18 17 16 3 11 15 14 14 6 14 14 17 4

Strongly Agree 13 1 5 16 6 6 7 0 13 9 12 10 19 11 12 7 22

AVERAGE (1-5) 4.50 3.92 4.00 4.54 4.15 4.08 4.15 3.77 4.38 4.23 4.46 4.31 4.69 4.35 4.46 4.15 4.85

Pre-Assess Average, 09-10 2009 MSL Average Competency (n=769) Average (n=27) (n=33)

Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Congruence Congruence Congruence Congruence Congruence Congruence Congruence Commitment

06-07 07-08 08-09 Bonner Avg Bonner Avg Bonner Avg (n=55) (n=57) (n=31)

4.17

4.06

3.87

3.98

3.97

3.98

4.38

4.27

4.06

4.28

4.23

4.28

Appendix D Page 6 of 16

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I stick with others through the difficult times. I am focused on my responsibilities. I can be counted on to do my part. I follow through on my promises. I hold myself accountable for responsibilities I agree to. I am seen as someone who works well with others. I can make a difference when I work with others on a task. I actively listen to what others have to say. I enjoy working with others toward common goals. Others would describe me as a cooperative group member. Collaboration produces better results. My contributions are recognized by others in the groups I belong I am able to trust the people with whom I work. I am committed to a collective purpose in those groups to which I It is important to develop a common direction in a group in order to I contribute to the goals of the group. I think it is important to know other people's priorities. I have helped to shape the mission of the group. Common values drive an organization. I know the purpose of the groups to which I belong. I work well when I know the collective values of a group. I support what the group is trying to accomplish I believe I have responsibilities to my community. I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better places. I have the power to make a difference in my community. I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common good. I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my community.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 5 3 2 1 1 1 4 2 0 1 5 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0

11 12 10 15 10 18 17 18 12 14 11 13 14 10 11 18 11 13 9 16 16 12 11 13 15 11 13 13 9 11

15 12 16 9 16 6 8 8 12 11 14 8 9 13 13 7 14 9 14 10 9 9 15 11 10 13 12 12 17 15

4.58 4.38 4.62 4.27 4.62 4.15 4.27 4.31 4.38 4.35 4.50 4.12 4.23 4.35 4.38 4.23 4.50 4.19 4.38 4.38 4.31 4.15 4.58 4.35 4.35 4.38 4.42 4.42 4.65 4.58

Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship

4.55

4.53

4.20

4.44

4.30

4.36

4.29

4.28

3.99

4.27

4.24

4.28

4.32

3.97

4.30

4.22

4.24

4.47

3.83

4.35

4.39

4.28

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

Part 3: Bonner Leaders Program Assessment How well did the Bonner Leaders Program overall help you meet the personal goals you outlined in your Individual Develop Plan (IDP)? AVERAGE (5) Extremely (1-5) (1) Poorly Well 0 2 5 16 3 3.77

(07-08 (06-07 (08-09 Average) Average) Average) 3.90 3.70 3.91 *Note: Question was phrased slightly differently in 06-07,07-08,08-09, which may be a factor in changed score

How well did the Bonner Leaders Program overall help you meet the leadership goals you outlined in your IDP?

AVERAGE (1-5) 3.73

(07-08 (06-07 (08-09 Average) Average) Average) 4.23 4.02 4.22 *Note: Question was phrased slightly differently in 06-07,07-08,08-09, which may be a factor in changed score

AVERAGE (1-5) 3.42

(07-08 (06-07 (08-09 Average) Average) Average) 4.00 4.00 3.78 *Note: Question was phrased slightly differently in 06-07,07-08,08-09, which may be a factor in changed score

(5) Extremely Well

(1) Poorly 0

How well did the Bonner Leaders Program overall help you meet the professional goals you outlined in your IDP? (5) Extremely Well

(1) Poorly 0

1 0

2 2

3 4

4 3

0-5 0

5-10 1

10-15 9

15-18 16

2 1

3 2

4 9

5 14

How many times did you meet with your Cal Corps staff advisor? 5+ AVERAGE 17 5.00

(08-09 Average) 2.55

(07-08 (06-07 Average) Average) 3.39 2.88

Out of 18 All-Bonner Wednesdays, how many did you attend?

Out of 5 track sessions, how many did you attend? 1 0 What did you learn through your Healthy Communities Project? (26 short-answer responses) What was your favorite part of the Bonner Leaders program as a whole? (26 short-answer responses) What should we change about the Bonner Leaders program as a whole? (26 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 7 of 16

CalGreeks Councils Assessment Survey Results 2009 Part I: Short Answer Questions Reflect on the past year, and when you learned about a fraternity/sorority council different than yours. Describe your thoughts, feelings, and reactions then and now. (18 short-answer responses) Define the fraternity and sorority (â&#x20AC;&#x153;CalGreeksâ&#x20AC;?) community as you see on campus. (18 short-answer responses) What about the CalGreeks' fraternity and sorority community do you value? (18 short-answer responses) Following on from the previous question, in what ways this year have you exemplified and acted on these values as a member of the CalGreeks community? (18 short-answer responses) Are there values that are meaningful to you that you did not experience in your role as a council officer this year? (18 short-answer responses) Over the past year as a council officer, what did you learn? (18 short-answer responses) What does this experience, as a council officer, mean for you personally? (18 short-answer responses) What does this experience mean for you in the context of your life experience? (18 short-answer responses) SRLS Competency Area

Part II: SRLS Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree I am seen as someone who works well with others. I can make a difference when I work with others on a task. I actively listen to what others have to say. I enjoy working with others toward common goals. Others would describe me as a cooperative group member. Collaboration produces better results. My contributions are recognized by others in the groups I belong to. I am able to trust the people with whom I work. I am committed to a collective purpose in those groups to which I belong.

1 2 2

1 1 4 3 5 2

Agree 12 9 12 8 8 8 7 6 9

Strongly Agree 5 8 6 9 8 6 5 5 5

7 11 8 6 9 9 7

9 7 5 9 7 6 6

Neutral 1 1

1 2

PreCompetency Assess Average, Average Post (n=18) (n=19)

POST AVERAGE (1-5) 4.22 Collaboration 4.39 Collaboration 4.33 Collaboration 4.44 Collaboration 4.28 Collaboration 4.11 Collaboration 3.67 Collaboration 3.78 Collaboration

Campus Average, 2009 MSL (n=769)

4.15

4.13

3.99

4.20

4.17

3.97

3.94 Common Purpose It is important to develop a common direction in a group in order to get anything done. I contribute to the goals of the group. I think it is important to know other people's priorities. I have helped to shape the mission of the group. Common values drive an organization. I know the purpose of the groups to which I belong. I work well when I know the collective values of a group. I support what the group is trying to accomplish

4 3 2 3 5

4.33 4.39 4.39 3.94 4.33 4.28 4.17 4.06

Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose Common Purpose

Part III: CalGreeks Community Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree

Agree

Strongly Post Agree Average (14) Pre-Assess Average (1-4)

3 I feel that I am part of a campus-wide fraternity and sorority community. As a council officer, I have a responsibility to the larger fraternity and sorority community.

I think there is value in a unified fraternity and sorority community.

2.94

2.79

3.50

3.68

3.53

3.68

Appendix D Page 8 of 16

CITC Survey Results 2009-10 n=37 Self-Assessment Please indicate your agreement: As a result of my CITC Strongly experience... Disagree Disagree I am more aware of my career goals and interests. I am better able to work in diverse environments. I have a greater understanding of the different ways to serve the public. I can analyze how policy affects national issues. I can evaluate the effectiveness of proposals to address national issues. I can communicate more effectively in spoken form. I can communicate more effectively in written form. I am better able to work independently in a professional environment. I can accurately represent myself through a cover letter and resume. I was able to bring valuable skills and knowledge to my internship position. I am more confident in my professional skills. I am more civic-minded. I feel more prepared for involvement in the community in my career and/or pe

Neutral

Agree 3 8 10 13 14 12 12 3 5 9 4 14 8

2 1 1 3 1 1 1

2 1

Strongly Agree 21 15 15 14 14 13 15 19 16 19 19 13 17

9 8 7 5 2 7 5 11 10 5 10 4 7

AVERAGE (1-5) Pre-Assess Score (n=56) 4.18 4.27 3.88 4.50 3.85 3.88 3.70 3.71 3.45 3.46 3.79 4.18 3.73 4.43 4.24 4.41 4.09 3.79 3.88 4.30 4.18 4.07 3.58 4.23 3.91 4.30 SRLS Competency Area

SRLS Questions

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

I believe I have responsibilities to my community. I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better places. I have the power to make a difference in my community. I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common good. I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my

Neutral

Agree 2 4 3 2 1 3 1 1

13 11 15 14 13 14 12 14

AVERAGE Strongly Agree (1-5) 4.48 18 4.42 18 4.36 15 4.36 16 4.55 19 4.38 15 4.58 20 4.52 18

Pre09-10 Assess Competency Average Average (n=37) (n=56)

Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship

4.46

4.50

Campus Average, 2009 MSL (n=769)

3.83

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

How did you benefit from your internship experience? What skills, knowledge or other understanding did you gain? (23 short-answer responses) In what ways did the Spring DECal improve your contributions as an intern? (24 short-answer responses) How did the assignments and the final project contribute to your learning? Please tell us what you found most helpful AND what you would change. (25 short-answer responses) In what ways could CITC better prepare you for your summer in DC? (22 short-answer responses) Do you have any other comments that will help us to strengthen the program in the future? (18 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 9 of 16

Cal in Local Government Survey Results 2009-10 n=12 Please list the name of the ORGANIZATION for which you interned: Berkeley City Council District 8 City of Berkeley Housing and Community Services Department Mayor's Office - Berkeley Berkeley City Manager's Office Emeryville City Clerk Government and Community Relations Office Cal in the Local Government Berkeley City Council, District 4 City of Oakland - Department of Human Services Problem Properties Team City of Berkeley Youth Service Police Review Commission Please list the name of your SUPERVISOR and his/her email: Gordon Wozniak gwozniak@ci.berkeley.ca.us A. Davidsion Sbeydeh Viveros-Banderas Jim Hynes Karen Hemphill: Khemphill@ci.emeryville.ca.us Caleb Dardick (cdardick@berkeley.edu) Lillian Mayers LMayers@ci.berkeley.ca.us Councilmember Arreguin and Anthony Sanchez, ASanchez@ci.berkeley.ca.us Priya Jagannathan (PJagannathan@oaklandnet.com) Shallon Allen SLAllen@ci.berkeley.ca.us Angela Gallegos-Castillo agallegos-castillo@ci.berkeley.ca.us Victoria Urbi, vurbi@ci.berkeley.ca.us What percentage of your work was substantive (as opposed to administrative)? 0% 0

25% 3

50% 2

75% 4

100% 3

AVG % 64.58%

Please indicate your level of agreement: I was given more opportunities and greater responsibility as my internship progressed. Strongly AVERAGE Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (1-5) 3.83 1 1 1 5 4 Would you recommend an internship at your organization to a future CLG intern? Yes 10 Why or why not? (8 short-answer responses)

No 2

Please list any information specific to your internship that you think would be relevant for a future intern to know. (i.e. skills, knowledge that would be helpful, transportation tips, tips for succeeding at work, etc) (9 short-answer responses) How did you benefit from your internship experience? What skills, knowledge or other understanding did you gain? (8 short-answer responses) Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following items by choosing the position that most closely represents your opinion about that statement. As a result of my CLG experienceâ&#x20AC;Ś Strongly AVERAGE Pre-Assess Average Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (1-5) (n=19) I am better able to work in diverse environments. 4.08 4.47 2 7 3 I can communicate more effectively in spoken form. 3.92 NA 3 7 2 I am more aware of my own career goals and interests. 3.83 4.00 4 6 2 1 1 7 3 I was able to bring valuble skills and knowledge to my internship position. 4.00 4.16 I can communicate more effectively in written form. 3.67 NA 5 6 1 I am more confident in my professional skills 4.25 4.00 1 7 4 I am better able to work independently in a professional environment. 4.08 NA 1 9 2 I am more civic-minded 4.25 4.17 1 7 4 I feel more prepared for involvement in the pcommunity in my career 2 6 4 and/or personal life. 4.17 4.26

Appendix D Page 10 of 16

I can analyze how policy affects local issues. I better understand how to create change through the legislative process. I have a greater understanding of the different ways to serve the public. I can work more effectively in the community.

3 5 1 4

7 4 8 5

2 2 3 3

3.92 3.73 4.17 3.92

3.42 *Pre-question phrased slightly differntly: "I understand how local gover NA NA NA

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following items by choosing the position that most closely represents your opinion about that statement. SRLS Questions SRLS Competency Area

Strongly Disagree I am able to articulate my priorities. I have a low self esteem.* I am usually self confident. The things about which I feel passionate have priority in my life. I know myself pretty well. I could describe my personality. I can describe how I am similar to other people. Self-reflection is difficult for me.* I am comfortable expressing myself. I am willing to devote time and energy to things that are important to me. I stick with others through the difficult times. I am focused on my responsibilities. I can be counted on to do my part. I follow through on my promises. I hold myself accountable for responsibilities I agree to. I believe I have responsibilities to my community. I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better places. I have the power to make a difference in my community. I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common good. I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my community.

Disagree 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Neutral 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agree 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

8 2 7 7 8 8 11 2 10 4 6 5 5 6 4 3 5 5 7 7 6 3 4

Strongly Agree 4 0 3 5 4 3 1 0 2 8 6 7 7 6 8 8 6 6 5 5 5 8 7

AVERAGE (1-5) 4.33 3.92 4.00 4.42 4.33 4.17 4.08 4.00 4.17 4.67 4.50 4.58 4.58 4.50 4.67 4.58 4.42 4.42 4.42 4.42 4.33 4.58 4.50

PreAssess Competency Average Average (n=12) (n=19)

Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Consciousness of Self Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship

Campus

08-09 Competenc Average, y Average 2009 MSL (n=11) (n=769)

4.16

4.01

4.16

3.87

4.58

4.71

4.50

4.20

4.46

4.30

4.44

3.83

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

In what ways did the DeCal improve your contributions as an intern? (11 short-answer responses) How did the assignments and the final project contribute to your learning? Please tell us what you found most helpful AND what you would change. (11 short-answer responses) In what ways could CLG better prepare you for your internship? (11 short-answer responses) Do you have any other comments that will help us to strengthen the program in the future? (7 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 11 of 16

Student Conduct Assessment Survey Results (SRLS only) 2009-10 n=116 SRLS Questions

I am able to articulate my priorities. I have a low self esteem.* I am usually self confident. The things about which I feel passionate have priority in my life. I know myself pretty well. I could describe my personality. I can describe how I am similar to other people. Self-reflection is difficult for me.* I am comfortable expressing myself. My behaviors are congruent with my beliefs. It is important to me to act on my beliefs. My actions are consistent with my values. Being seen as a person of integrity is important to me. My behaviors reflect my beliefs. I am genuine. It is easy for me to be truthful. I believe I have responsibilities to my community. I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better places. I have the power to make a difference in my community. I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common good. I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my community.

SRLS Competency Area

Strongly Strongly AVERAGE Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree (1-5) 0 1 51 62 4.53 39 63 10 4 4.06 0 7 57 52 4.33 0 1 44 67 4.58 0 1 57 54 4.46 0 7 51 60 4.39 0 3 57 53 4.42 27 68 8 8 3.88 0 6 53 53 4.37 1 9 58 44 4.21 0 2 52 57 4.48 1 9 55 47 4.23 1 4 44 65 4.47 1 10 62 41 4.16 0 3 41 66 4.55 0 0 48 74 4.61 0 3 49 65 4.50 0 7 51 53 4.35 0 6 54 56 4.38 0 8 55 46 4.28 0 1 52 59 4.51 1 7 63 38 4.19 0 9 53 51 4.29 1 3 49 63 4.47

09-10 Competency Average (n=116)

Campus Average, 2009 MSL (n=769)

08-09 Conduct Average (n=79)

06-07 07-08 Conduct Conduct Avg Avg (n=48) (n=100)

4.33

3.87

3.90

4.17

4.24

4.39

4.06

3.98

4.24

4.35

4.37

3.83

4.26

4.05

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

Appendix D Page 12 of 16

Future Leaders Year 2 Assessment Survey Results 2009-10 n=5 Part 1: Future Leaders Program Curriculum 1. Through your participation in FLP over the past two years, HOW MUCH DID YOU LEARN in the areas of: Nothing

Very Little Some

Understanding that people have unique perspectives from our own and that they are as important as our own Gaining a greater appreciation for the experiences of people who are different from ourselves Giving feedback Holding oneself accountable Holding others accountable Resolving conflict constructively Strategies for effective communication Different leadership styles Your own leadership style Strategies for working with others toward a common goal

Very Much 1

A Great Deal 3

1 3 2 3 2 2 1 2

3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3

Agree 1

Strongly Agree 4

1 1 1 2 3

3 4 4 3 2

4.40

2. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. Participation in FLP has helped me: Strongly Disagree Disagree Reflect on how my personal background influences my leadership style Clarify my belief and value systems Make choices based on what I value Explore where I am inconsistent with my values Work with others toward a common goal Manage conflict constructively

Neutral

08-09 Average (FLP Y2 Students) 4.17 4.33

4.40 4.40 4.40 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.60 4.80 4.60

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.17 4.00 4.33 4.17 4.33

AVERAGE (1-5)

08-09 Average (FLP Y2 Students)

4.80 4.40 4.80 4.80 4.60 4.40

Part 2: General Self-Assessment SRLS Questions

I am able to articulate my priorities. I have a low self esteem.* I am usually self confident. The things about which I feel passionate have priority in my I know myself pretty well. I could describe my personality. I can describe how I am similar to other people. Self-reflection is difficult for me.* I am comfortable expressing myself. My behaviors are congruent with my beliefs. It is important to me to act on my beliefs. My actions are consistent with my values. Being seen as a person of integrity is important to me. My behaviors reflect my beliefs. I am genuine. It is easy for me to be truthful. I am willing to devote time and energy to things that are I stick with others through the difficult times. I am focused on my responsibilities. I can be counted on to do my part. I follow through on my promises. I hold myself accountable for responsibilities I agree to. I am seen as someone who works well with others. I can make a difference when I work with others on a task. I actively listen to what others have to say. I enjoy working with others toward common goals. Others would describe me as a cooperative group member. Collaboration produces better results. My contributions are recognized by others in the groups I I am able to trust the people with whom I work. I am committed to a collective purpose in those groups to It is important to develop a common direction in a group in I contribute to the goals of the group. I think it is important to know other people's priorities. I have helped to shape the mission of the group. Common values drive an organization. I know the purpose of the groups to which I belong. I work well when I know the collective values of a group. I support what the group is trying to accomplish I am open to others' ideas.

AVERAGE (1-5)

4.17 4.33 4.17 3.83 4.17 4.33

SRLS Competency Area

Strongly Disagree 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Neutral 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Agree 2 0 1 1 2 3 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 2

Strongly Agree 3 0 3 3 3 1 3 0 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 4 1 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 4 2 3

AVERAGE (1-5) 4.60 Consciousness of Self 4.00 Consciousness of Self 4.40 Consciousness of Self 4.40 Consciousness of Self 4.60 Consciousness of Self 4.00 Consciousness of Self 4.60 Consciousness of Self 4.00 Consciousness of Self 4.60 Consciousness of Self 4.20 Congruence 4.20 Congruence 4.60 Congruence 4.60 Congruence 4.20 Congruence 4.00 Congruence 4.60 Congruence 4.80 Commitment 4.20 Commitment 4.60 Commitment 4.80 Commitment 4.60 Commitment 4.80 Commitment 4.40 Collaboration 4.60 Collaboration 4.40 Collaboration 4.80 Collaboration 4.20 Collaboration 4.40 Collaboration 4.20 Collaboration 4.60 Collaboration 4.20 Common Purpose 4.60 Common Purpose 4.60 Common Purpose 4.40 Common Purpose 4.60 Common Purpose 4.80 Common Purpose 4.40 Common Purpose 4.80 Common Purpose 4.20 Common Purpose 4.60 Controversy with Civility

Competency Pre-Assess Average Average Fall (n=5) 2008 (n=7)

Campus Average, 2009 MSL (n=769)

4.36

3.94

3.87

4.34

4.18

4.06

4.63

4.71

4.20

4.45

4.27

3.99

4.51

4.40

3.97

Appendix D Page 13 of 16

0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Creativity can come from conflict. I value differences in others. Hearing differences in opinions enriches my thinking. I struggle when group members have ideas that are different Greater harmony can come out of disagreement. I respect opinions other than my own. I am uncomfortable when someone disagrees with me.* When there is a conflict between two people, one will win I am comfortable with conflict. I share my ideas with others. I believe I have responsibilities to my community. I give time to making a difference for someone else. I work with others to make my communities better places. I have the power to make a difference in my community. I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the common good. I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater public. I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my Transition makes me uncomfortable.* I am comfortable initiating new ways of looking at things. Change brings new life to an organization. There is energy in doing something a new way. Change makes me uncomfortable.* New ways of doing things frustrate me.* I work well in changing environments. I am open to new ideas. I look for new ways to do something. I can identify the differences between positive and negative

0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1

3 4 2 0 2 2 1 1 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 0 0 2 2 4 3

2 1 3 0 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 0 2 2 3 0 0 2 3 1 1

4.40 4.20 4.60 3.80 4.20 4.60 3.40 3.60 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.00 4.40 4.20 4.60 3.20 4.40 4.40 4.60 4.00 3.80 4.20 4.60 4.20 4.00

Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Controversy with Civility Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change

4.16

4.12

3.78

4.38

4.50

3.83

4.14

4.01

3.76

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency. Part 3: Evaluating Your FLP Year 2 Experience How would you rate the following aspects of the Future Leaders Program for the 09-10 academic year:

Poor Community sessions Your FLP cohort (year 2) Dinner FLP instructors Assigned books (The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team, Squirrel Assignments and reflections Assessments (SkillScan, IDI, etc.) FLP time commitment and frequency of meetings The Indaba Leadership Retreat Presenting at Leadership Symposium Individual meetings with FLP instructors Frequency and content of FLP related emails The educational value of your experience The overall FLP experience

Fair

Average

Good

Excellent

1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

3 3 1 4 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 4

1 1

1 0

0 1 1 1 1

0 1

AVERAGE (1-5) 4.40 4.60 4.00 4.80 4.20 4.40 3.80 3.60 4.40 4.80 4.60 4.20 4.40 4.80

08-09 Average (FLP Y2 Students) 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.60 4.67 4.67 5.00

4.17 4.83 4.83 4.83 4.33 4.67 4.83

Short-Answer Questions What was the most meaningful aspect of the Future Leaders Program for you as a participant in your second year? (5 short-answer responses) How did the second year in FLP build upon your first year experience in the program? (5 short-answer responses) How has your motivation to be a leader and serve your community changed or been enhanced as a result of FLP? (5 short-answer responses) What have you learned about mediating individual and group conflict when working on a group project like the Leadership Symposium presentation? (5 short-answer responses) How has your ability to give feedback improved in the past year as a result of FLP? (5 short-answer responses) Would you recommend the Future Leaders Program to other students? No

Yes 0

Any additional comments? (4 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 14 of 16

Symposium Assessment Survey Results 2009-10 n=14 SRLS Questions

Strongly Disagree Disagree 0 0 I am able to articulate my priorities. I have a low self esteem.* 2 7 0 0 I am usually self confident. 0 0 The things about which I feel passionate have 0 0 I know myself pretty well. 0 0 I could describe my personality. 0 0 I can describe how I am similar to other people. Self-reflection is difficult for me.* 4 6 0 0 I am comfortable expressing myself. 0 0 My behaviors are congruent with my beliefs. 0 0 It is important to me to act on my beliefs. 0 1 My actions are consistent with my values. 0 0 Being seen as a person of integrity is important to 0 0 My behaviors reflect my beliefs. 0 0 I am genuine. 0 0 It is easy for me to be truthful. 0 0 I am willing to devote time and energy to things that 0 0 I stick with others through the difficult times. 0 0 I am focused on my responsibilities. 0 0 I can be counted on to do my part. 0 0 I follow through on my promises. 0 0 I hold myself accountable for responsibilities I agree 0 0 I am seen as someone who works well with others. 0 0 I can make a difference when I work with others on 0 0 I actively listen to what others have to say. 0 0 I enjoy working with others toward common goals. 0 0 Others would describe me as a cooperative group 0 0 Collaboration produces better results. 0 0 My contributions are recognized by others in the 0 0 I am able to trust the people with whom I work. 0 0 I am committed to a collective purpose in those 0 0 It is important to develop a common direction in a 0 0 I contribute to the goals of the group. 0 0 I think it is important to know other people's 0 0 I have helped to shape the mission of the group. 0 0 Common values drive an organization. 0 0 I know the purpose of the groups to which I belong. 0 0 I work well when I know the collective values of a 0 0 I support what the group is trying to accomplish 0 0 I am open to others' ideas. 0 0 Creativity can come from conflict. 1 0 I value differences in others. 0 0 Hearing differences in opinions enriches my I struggle when group members have ideas that are 1 9 0 0 Greater harmony can come out of disagreement. 0 0 I respect opinions other than my own. I am uncomfortable when someone disagrees with 1 5 When there is a conflict between two people, one 4 5 0 1 I am comfortable with conflict. 0 0 I share my ideas with others. 0 0 I believe I have responsibilities to my community. 0 0 I give time to making a difference for someone else. 0 0 I work with others to make my communities better 0 0 I have the power to make a difference in my

SRLS Competency Area

Neutral 2 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 3 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 4 2 1 1 0 1 0 2

Agree 8 1 6 5 9 10 9 2 7 8 7 9 9 8 8 9 4 8 7 6 8 5 8 8 10 6 9 6 8 10 8 3 8 4 7 6 10 7 7 8 6 8 8 1 9 5 4 2 10 10 10 9 8 7

Strongly AVERAGE Agree (1-5) 4 4.14 Consciousness of Self 0 3.77 Consciousness of Self 4 4.08 Consciousness of Self 8 4.50 Consciousness of Self 3 4.15 Consciousness of Self 3 4.23 Consciousness of Self 2 4.08 Consciousness of Self 0 3.92 Consciousness of Self 5 4.21 Consciousness of Self 3 4.00 Congruence 4 4.07 Congruence 2 3.92 Congruence 4 4.31 Congruence 4 4.14 Congruence 5 4.29 Congruence 4 4.21 Congruence 9 4.69 Commitment 5 4.29 Commitment 5 4.21 Commitment 7 4.54 Commitment 4 4.23 Commitment 7 4.46 Commitment 4 4.23 Collaboration 5 4.29 Collaboration 4 4.29 Collaboration 7 4.54 Collaboration 2 4.00 Collaboration 7 4.54 Collaboration 3 4.08 Collaboration 2 4.08 Collaboration 5 4.38 Common Purpose 10 4.77 Common Purpose 5 4.38 Common Purpose 8 4.54 Common Purpose 3 4.00 Common Purpose 7 4.54 Common Purpose 3 4.23 Common Purpose 6 4.46 Common Purpose 5 4.31 Common Purpose 5 4.38 Controversy with Civility 5 4.14 Controversy with Civility 4 4.08 Controversy with Civility 5 4.38 Controversy with Civility 0 3.77 Controversy with Civility 2 4.00 Controversy with Civility 9 4.64 Controversy with Civility 0 3.21 Controversy with Civility 0 3.85 Controversy with Civility 1 3.85 Controversy with Civility 2 4.08 Controversy with Civility 4 4.29 Citizenship 3 4.15 Citizenship 6 4.43 Citizenship 4 4.15 Citizenship

PreAssess Competency Average Average (n=14) (n=15)

Campus Average, 2009 MSL (n=769)

4.12

4.02

3.87

4.14

4.13

4.06

4.40

4.41

4.20

4.25

4.23

3.99

4.40

4.32

3.97

4.03

3.99

3.78

Appendix D Page 15 of 16

I am willing to act for the rights of others. I participate in activities that contribute to the I believe I have a civic responsibility to the greater I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to Transition makes me uncomfortable.* I am comfortable initiating new ways of looking at Change brings new life to an organization. There is energy in doing something a new way. Change makes me uncomfortable.* New ways of doing things frustrate me.* I work well in changing environments. I am open to new ideas. I look for new ways to do something. I can identify the differences between positive and

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0

8 8 11 9 4 10 10 8 1 2 9 9 8 8

3 4 3 5 0 3 3 4 0 0 1 4 4 6

4.08 4.23 4.21 4.36 3.15 4.23 4.23 4.23 4.00 3.77 3.85 4.31 4.23 4.43

Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change

4.24

4.23

3.83

4.04

4.07

3.76

* Consistent with the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, questions framed in the negative are "reverse-scored" so that higher levels of disagreement reflect a higher degree of competency.

Evaluation How would you rate the following aspects of the Symposium Program:

Weekly meetings Overall chairs Frequency and content of Leadership Symposium planning team emails Leadership Symposium advisors Leadership Symposium planning team time commitment and frequency of meetings The Indaba Multicultural Leadership Retreat Workshop: “Leadership Colors” Workshop: “Accountability” Book: “Now, Discover Your Strengths” Workshop: “Now, Discover Your Strengths” Workshop: “Feedback” Execution of Leadership Symposium Post-Leadership Symposium follow-up meetings By-laws Discussion and amendments Leadership Symposium Day-O-Fun The educational value of your experience The overall Leadership Symposium planning experien

Poor 0 0 0

Fair 1 1 0

Avg. 5 1 5

Good 7 5 4

Excellent 0 6 4

0 0

0 1

0 3

2 7

11 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 3 2 3 3 3 2 7 3 4 2 2

3 5 9 4 7 6 7 3 3 4 3 4

7 5 2 6 3 4 4 3 3 5 8 7

AVERAGE (1-5) 3.46 4.23

08-09 Average 3.44 4.13

3.92 4.85

3.94 4.53

3.77 4.31 4.15 4.00 4.23 4.00 4.08 4.15 3.69 3.31 4.08 4.46 4.38

4.13 4.23 NA NA NA NA NA 4.31 3.44 NA 4.56 4.13 4.38

Short-Answer Questions As a chair, what was the most meaningful aspect of the Leadership Symposium planning team for you? (12 short-answer responses) How has your leadership style changed in the past year as a result of the Leadership Symposium planning team? (12 short-answer responses) How did serving on the Leadership Symposium Planning Team help you identify your personal values, strengths and limitations? (12 short-answer responses) What have you learned about mediating individual and group conflict while planning Leadership Symposium? (12 short-answer responses) What specific suggestions would you give to enhance the Leadership Symposium Planning Team experience? (12 short-answer responses) Would you recommend the Leadership Symposium planning team experience to other students? Why or why not? (12 short-answer responses) Do you have any additional comments to share? (6 short-answer responses)

Appendix D Page 16 of 16

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

APPENDIX E

BLOOM'S TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES (COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS), WITH RELATED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME LANGUAGE COGNITIVE DOMAIN The cognitive domain relates to knowledge and the development of intellectual skills, such as the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that support the development of intellectual abilities. The six major categories, listed below from the simplest behavior to the most complex, are: KNOWLEDGE: OBSERVE AND RECALL INFORMATION. Student Learning Outcome language – students will be able to: acquire identify collect label define list distinguish name examine quote

recall recognize show tabulate tell

COMPREHENSION: UNDERSTAND THE MEANING, TRANSLATION, INTERPOLATION, AND INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION. COMPARE INFORMATION AND PREDICT OUTCOMES; STATE A PROBLEM IN ONE'S OWN WORDS. Student Learning Outcome language – students will be able to: predict associate estimate prepare change explain read conclude extend rearrange contrast extrapolate reorder demonstrate fill in give in own words rephrase describe illustrate represent determine infer restate differentiate interpolate summarize discuss interpret transform distinguish make translate draw APPLICATION: USE A CONCEPT IN A NEW SITUATION. TRANSLATE AND APPLY WHAT WAS LEARNED IN A PROGRAM/CLASSROOM TO NOVEL EXPERIENCES IN THE WORLD. Student Learning Outcome language – students will be able to: apply develop modify calculate discover organize change employ relate choose examine restructure classify experiment show complete generalize use demonstrate illustrate ANALYSIS: RECOGNIZE PATTERNS, ORGANIZE CONCEPTS INTO COMPONENT PARTS, AND DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FACTS AND INFERENCES. Student Learning Outcome language – students will be able to: analyze categorize compare arrange classify connect

Appendix E

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 200910

contrast deduce detect discriminate distinguish

divide explain identify infer order

recognize select separate

SYNTHESIS: PUT PARTS TOGETHER TO FORM A WHOLE, OR CONNECT INFORMATION FROM SEVERAL AREAS, TO CREATE A NEW MEANING OR STRUCTURE AND INFER CONCLUSIONS. Student Learning Outcome language – students will be able to: classify formulate propose combine generalize rearrange compose integrate relate constitute invent rewrite create modify specify deduce organize substitute derive originate synthesize design plan tell develop prepare transmit document produce write EVALUATION: COMPARE AND DISCRIMINATE AMONG IDEAS. MAKE SELECTIONS BASED ON REASONED ARGUMENT AND PERSONAL VALUES/OPINIONS. CONFIRM THE VALUE OF EVIDENCE, WHILE RECOGNIZING SUBJECTIVITY. Student Learning Outcome language – students will be able to: appraise defend rank argue discriminate rate assess estimate recommend choose evaluate select compare explain summarize conclude grade support consider interpret test contrast judge validate convince measure value critique predict AFFECTIVE DOMAIN The affective domain relates to emotional development, including feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasms, motivations, and attitudes. The five major categories, from simplest behavior to the most complex, are: RECEIVING PHENOMENA: DEMONSTRATE AWARENESS, WILLINGNESS TO HEAR, AND FOCUSED ATTENTION. Student Learning Outcome language – students will choose to: accept differentiate separate set apart accumulate listen (for) combine posturally respond to share control select RESPONDING TO PHENOMENA: ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE, ATTEND AND REACT TO NEW LEARNING. QUESTION NEW CONCEPTS IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THEM.

Appendix E

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 200910

Student Learning Outcome language – students will choose to: acclaim discuss applaud follow approve play augment practice commend present comply (with) select

spend leisure time in volunteer

VALUING: ATTACH VALUE OR WORTH TO PARTICULAR OBJECTS, PHENOMENA, OR BEHAVIORS, RANGING FROM BASIC ACCEPTANCE TO COMMITMENT. Student Learning Outcome language – students will choose to: assist help relinquish complete increase specify debate increase numbers of subsidize deny initiate support differentiate protest argue ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZE VALUES INTO PRIORITIES BY CONTRASTING DIFFERENT VALUES, RESOLVING CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEM, AND CREATING A UNIQUE VALUE SYSTEM. COMPARE, RELATE, AND SYNTHESIZE VALUES. Student Learning Outcome language – students will choose to: abstract define organize adhere discuss prepare arrange formulate synthesize balance generalize theorize (on) combine integrate compare modify CHARACTERIZATION BY/INTERNALIZATION OF VALUES: DEVELOP A VALUE SYSTEM THAT CONTROLS BEHAVIOR. DEMONSTRATE PERVASIVE, CONSISTENT, AND PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR THAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF ONESELF. Student Learning Outcome language – students will choose to: avoid influence resist be rated high by peers in manage resolve be rated high by superiors modify revise in perform serve change practice verify complete require (Adapted from Bloom, Benjamin S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longmans, Green.)

Appendix E

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

APPENDIX F

OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT GOALS OF THE SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL The Social Change Model of leadership development, developed specifically for college students by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, has two primary goals: 1. To enhance student learning and development; more specifically, to develop in each student participant greater:  Self Knowledge: Understanding of one’s talents, values, and interests, especially as these relate to the student’s capacity to provide effective leadership.  Leadership Competence: The capacity to mobilize oneself and others to serve and to work collaboratively. 2. To facilitate positive social change at the institution or in the community. That is, to undertake actions which will help the institution/community to function more effectively and humanely.

THREE LEVELS OF THE SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL Since the Social Change Model approach to leadership development is embedded in collaboration and concerned with fostering positive social change, the model examines leadership development from three different perspectives or levels:  The Individual: What personal qualities are we attempting to foster and develop in those who participate in a leadership development program? What personal qualities are most supportive of group functioning and positive social change?  The Group: How can the collaborative leadership development process be designed not only to facilitate the development of the desired individual qualities (above) but also to effect positive social change?  The Community/Society: Toward what social ends is the leadership development activity directed? What kinds of service activities are most effective in energizing the group and in developing desired personal qualities in the individual? The three different levels each interact with one another, as illustrated below:

GROUP

SOCIETY/

INDIVIDUAL

COMMUNITY

THE “7 C’S” During development of the Social Change Model, the Higher Education Research Institute’s “Working Ensemble” (consisting of professors at more than a dozen universities across the country) decided that values were at the core of what it considered to be the critical elements in its leadership development model. In addition to Change, the hub around which its model was created, there were seven other critical values about which the group agreed, which were logically grouped within the three levels of the model: INDIVIDUAL VALUES

GROUP PROCESS VALUES

COMMUNITY/SOCIETAL VALUES

Consciousness of Self Congruence Commitment

Collaboration Common Purpose Controversy with Civility

Citizenship [CHANGE]

Appendix F

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

The seven values were dubbed the “7 C’s” of leadership development for social change. CHANGE is the value hub that gives meaning and purpose to the 7 C’s. Change, in other words, is the ultimate goal of the creative process of leadership – to make a better world and a better society for self and others. Following are brief definitions of each of the 7 C’s:  Consciousness of Self means being aware of beliefs, values, attitudes, and emotions that motivate one to take action.  Congruence refers to thinking, feeling, and behaving with consistency, genuineness, authenticity, and honesty toward others. Congruent persons are those whose actions are consistent with their most deeply held beliefs and convictions. Personal congruence and consciousness of self are interdependent.  Commitment is the psychic energy that motivates the individual to serve and that drives the collective effort. Commitment implies passion, intensity, and duration. It is directed toward both the group activity as well as its intended outcomes. Without commitment, knowledge of self is of little value. And without adequate knowledge of self, commitment is easily misdirected. Congruence, in turn, is most readily achieved when the person acts with commitment and knowledge of self.  Collaboration is to work with others in a common effort. It constitutes the cornerstone value of the group leadership effort because it empowers self and others through trust. Collaboration multiplies group effectiveness by capitalizing on the multiple talents and perspectives of each group member and on the power of that diversity to generate creative solutions and actions. Collaboration empowers each individual best when there is a clear‐cut “division of labor.”  Common Purpose means to work with shared aims and values. It facilitates the group’s ability to engage in collective analysis of the issues at hand and the task to be undertaken. Common purpose is best achieved when all members of the group share in the vision and participate actively in articulating the purpose and goals of the leadership development activity. Recognizing the common purpose and mission of the group helps to generate the high level of trust that any successful collaboration requires.  Controversy with Civility recognizes two fundamental realities of any creative group effort: that differences in viewpoint are inevitable, and that such differences must be aired openly but with civility. Civility implies respect for others, a willingness to hear each other’s views, and the exercise of restraint in criticizing the views and actions of others. This is best achieved in a collaborative framework and when a common purpose has been identified. Controversy (conflict, confrontation) can often lead to new, creative solutions to problems, especially when it occurs ion an atmosphere of civility, collaboration, and common purpose.  Citizenship is the process whereby the individual and the collaborative group become responsibly connected to the community and the society through the leadership development activity. To be a good citizen is to work for positive change on behalf of others and the community. Citizenship thus acknowledges the interdependence of all who are involved in or affected by these efforts. It recognizes that the common purpose of the group must incorporate a sense of concern for the rights and welfare of all those who might be affected by the group’s efforts. Good citizenship thus recognizes that effective democracy involves individual responsibility as well as individual rights. (Adapted from Astin, Helen S., Astin, Alexander W., et al. (1996) A Social Change Model of Leadership Development: Guidebook Version III (1996) Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.)

Appendix F

Office of the Dean of Students Annual Report 2009‐10

APPENDIX G

EXCERPTS FROM MULTI‐INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP (MSL) 2009 FINAL REPORT FOR UC BERKELEY

(ATTACHED)

Appendix G

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF

LEADERSHIP

MSL 2009 School Report University of California, Berkeley

2009 A project of the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs in conjunction with the Center for Student Studies

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Using this Report This section of the final report provides tools that will assist with reading and interpreting results from MSL data collection on your campus. This includes an overview of what is included in your results, useful terminology to help understand the nature of your data and statistical analyses employed, and sample tables with instructions on how to read and interpret them.

What’s Inside Due to the length of the MSL instrument, it is not feasible to provide tables for all variables. The reports do, however, provide substantive results from the data collection at your campus and plenty of information that is immediately useful for shaping educational practice. Should you wish to do more with your data, the full data file can be downloaded from your www.mymsl.net site. Schools are encouraged to mine this data in whatever way makes most sense to institutional goals. Should you have any questions about the information presented here or possible interpretations of this material, please do not hesitate to contact your MSL liaison. Your MSL report is divided into several key sections exploring your data and results from a variety of perspectives: •

The Response Rate Table and Respondent Characteristics Table provide key information regarding who responded to the survey. These data are helpful for understanding the degree to which your sample mirrors both your institutions full undergraduate population as well as the samples against which you are comparing data (i.e., the comparison groups that you selected to appear in the report).

•

The General Outcomes Table provides key information on your students’ reported achievement across learning outcomes that appear in the study. This table also provides statistical tests to determine the extent to which your students score significant differently than their peers in the comparison groups that you’ve selected.

•

The Change Over Time Table provides you with an analysis of outcome achievement for seniors in your sample Statistical difference tests are then calculated on these data to determine if their perceived capacity across outcomes measures prior to college is significantly different than capacity during the spring semester of their senior year. These data provided critical information on how your students are different and the ways that you institution might be contributing to those differences. Similar statistics are calculated for each of your comparison groups so that you can benchmark your rates of change with those in peer groups of interest.

•

The Inputs by Outcome Measures Table and Environments by Outcome Measures Table provide examinations of the relationships that exist between key demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender) and outcomes measures as well as student experiences during college (e.g., student organization involvement, mentoring relationships, leadership training programs) and outcome measures. These results point to critical differences in outcome achievement among student sub-populations as well as the experiences during college that seem to have the greatest influences on your students’ outcomes.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Terminology The results are presented in various tables using descriptive and inferential statistical terms. What follows are definitions for common terms that will help explain the information found in the tables in the results section of this report. Population The population is the total group we would like to study for a research project. Undergraduate students are the target population for this study. Sample A sample is a part of the population for which data are collected. The sample is used since it is not possible to collect data from the entire population (note that some smaller institutions did sample their entire undergraduate population). Using randomly selected participants allows us to generalize the results to the population. Mean The mean summarizes the responses for each item, and is the arithmetic average of the respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; individual scores. The mean is calculated by adding all the scores for a given item and dividing the sum by the total number of scores. Standard Deviation Standard deviation measures how much scores vary from the mean. A small standard deviation means that most of the individual scores are close to the mean and that the scores do not vary far from the mean. A high standard deviation indicates scores are far from the mean and that there is wide variability among respondents on that item. Generally, 99% of all scores fall within three standard deviations from the mean. Significance Significance means that there is a relationship between two or more variables that is not simply due to chance. For example, while the mean scores for a particular item may be higher for one group (e.g., by class or gender), that relationship is said to be significant if statistical analysis indicates that such a relationship is not likely a chance occurrence. Significance is typically assessed using a p-value with smaller values relating to decreasing likelihood that the differences are a function of chance. Researchers traditionally assess significance by looking for p-values that are less than .05, which indicates a 5% chance of error. This study assesses the relative significance using a more conservative .01 level, indicating only a 1% chance of error. This is done to due to the large sample sizes employed in the study as well as assumptions associated with statistical techniques. Effect Size Effect size offers an estimate of the magnitude of statistical differences. This is a useful tool for interpreting just how meaningful statistically significant differences might be in an analysis, particularly when sample sizes are large. When a sample size is large, it is likely that even small differences will emerge as statistically significant. However, these differences may not be practically important, and it becomes critical to also assess the magnitude of the statistical difference. In other words, how practically meaningful is the finding? This study relies on Cohenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1988) effect size measure (referred to as Cohenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s d), which examines differences using standard deviation units. Cohen suggested that trivial effect sizes were associated with scores less than .2, small effects were at least .2, moderate effects were at least .5, and large effects were at least .8. Another way of understanding this is to suggest that large effects represent differences that could be seen with the naked eye. << BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Moderate effects could also be seen with the naked eye, but one might need to examine the differences for a bit. Small effects are typically not visible to the naked eye, while trivial effects offer little to no practical meaning. Cohen’s classification system was not designed specifically for the social sciences, and he warned against a rigid application across disciplines. This sentiment has been echoed along with suggestions that Cohen’s labels may be misleading in educational research or research using less potent variables where small effect sizes could potentially be practically meaningful (Trusty, Thompson, & Pertocelli, 2004; Valentine & Cooper, 2003). Leadership, by nature, is a fuzzy and multifaceted concept that is difficult to measure, and so even small effect sizes may provide beneficial insights into an otherwise under-studied, atheoretical knowledge base. Thus, we recommend consumers of this report focus on those statistical differences with effect sizes that are small or higher.

Reading the Tables This section begins with a brief tutorial on how to read results tables as well as sample tables with detailed notes on the meaning of various elements. The tables can be classified into three groups. First, descriptive statistics about your sample respondents, the MSL National Sample, and your pre-selected comparison groups (e.g., Carnegie class) is presented. The second group of tables present results of statistical tests on the outcome measures comparing your institutional sample to the MSL National Sample and the pre-selected comparison groups. The third class of tables presents the results of statistical tests seeking to identify differences within your sample on several input and environmental characteristics. Please remember the following when reviewing tables: •

Please note that only a portion of a table and sample data is presented here. The numbers within each table are not your institution’s results. Please refer to your actual report tables for findings.

•

The social change model outcomes are measured on a 5-point scale. Leadership efficacy and complex cognitive skills are measured on 4-point scales. Additional sub-study outcome scales range from 4- to 7-points. You will want to consult the header for each major variable to determine the scaling. This information is also provided in the MSL codebook, which can be downloaded from your www.mymsl.net site.

•

The blue column in each table represents the results for your institutional sample respondents. This is either your random or full population sample and does not contain any comparative sample data if you collected it.

•

In tests of significance, a boxed ‘S’ indicates the result is statistically significant at the .01 level.

•

For statistically significant results, effect sizes are calculated and reported as ‘trivial,’ ‘small,’ ‘moderate,’ or ‘large.’ We recommend that you examine closely any results with effect sizes of small or greater.

•

The data presented in these tables include respondents who answered at least 90% of items associated with the core outcome measures.

•

Cells populated with a period indicate an insufficient number, less than 15, of respondents answered that particular question for analyses to be conducted.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Response Rate Table This table describes the response rates for your general population sample, the MSL national sample, and other comparison groups pre-selected by your institution for inclusion in this report. These are the data that you provided to us along with student contact information prior to data collection; these are not studentreported data. Data in the blue columns represent your institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s general population sample. This column does not include comparative sample data. The percentages are based on all those invited to complete the survey, and include only complete and partial surveys. The table breaks out response rates by gender, race, and class standing. No statistical testing is included in this table.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Respondent Characteristics Table This table describes the characteristics of the students at your institution who completed the MSL survey. This is their self-reported demographic information as indicated in the survey questionnaire. Data represent your general population sample, the MSL National Sample, and other comparison groups pre-selected by your institution for inclusion in this report. Data in the blue columns represent your institution’s general population sample. This column does not include comparative sample data. No statistical testing is included in this table. These data are useful for: •

Understanding who responded to the survey and is represented in the findings, and

•

How your respondents compare compositionally with your comparison groups.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

General Outcome Measure Scores & Sub-Study Outcome Measure Scores Tables This table describes students’ capacities across core outcomes in the MSL. Data represent your general population sample, the MSL National Sample, and other comparison groups pre-selected by your institution for inclusion in this report. Data in the blue columns represent your institution’s general population sample. This column does not include comparative sample data. Statistical tests of differences are provided comparing your general population data with data from each of your comparison groups using independent samples t-tests. The presence of an ‘S’ symbol indicates the differences are significant. Effect size measures are also presented to assist you in determining the practical significance of any significant differences. Effect sizes are represented by a circle with different degrees of shading. Results in this section are useful for: •

Benchmarking student capacity from your general population sample with that of students in selected comparison groups, and

•

Determining potential outcome areas that should be targeted for further development.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Outcome Measures Change Over Time Table This table describes changes in students’ perceived capacities across core outcomes in the MSL. Participants are asked to retrospectively report on their capacities prior to college as well as present capacities. This table uses only data provided by students that indicate they are in their senior year. Data represent seniors in your general population sample, the MSL National Sample, and other comparison groups pre-selected by your institution for inclusion in this report. Data in the blue columns represent seniors from your institution’s general population sample. This column does not include comparative sample data. Statistical tests in this table examine differences in the reported capacities of seniors prior to the start of college and currently. This is done using paired samples t-tests. Similar tests are provided for seniors in each of your comparison groups. The presence of an ‘S’ symbol indicates the differences are significant; the rate of change in students’ capacities is above and beyond simple chance. Effect size measures are also presented to assist you in determining the practical significance of any significant differences. Effect sizes are represented by a circle with different degrees of shading. Results in this section are useful for: •

Determining the degree to which students change in their capacity across key outcomes while in college,

•

Identifying the extent to which outcomes of focus for your institution reflect developmental gains, and

•

Benchmarking against comparison groups to see where your students are either mirroring patterns of significant difference or demonstrating unique patterns.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Inputs by Outcome Measures & Environments by Outcome Measures Tables These tables describe significant relationships between input and environmental variables and core outcomes in the MSL. Data represent your institution’s general population sample and do not include comparative sample data. Statistical tests in this table examine significant differences between categories of input and environmental variables across core MSL outcomes. Note that no mean scores or significance tests are provided for variables with less than 15 participants. If a variable is significant, the ‘SIG’ column will indicate the category number with which the significant difference exists. Results in this section are useful for: •

Identifying student populations with differential rates of outcome achievement, and

•

Identifying collegiate experiences related to changes in scores across outcome measures.

Where to Get More Beyond participating in the MSL and receiving this report, the Center for Student Studies and the MSL research team is providing a variety of additional services. These range from printing and binding copies of your custom report to special analyses that allow for more detailed comparisons between your students and possibly those attending other institutions. More detailed information can be found here: www.mymsl.net/ msldata/yourcustomreport.html

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Study Overview Purpose The purpose of the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL) is to examine influences of higher education on college student leadership development. The study also directs significant attention to the examination of college experiences and their influences on leadership-related outcomes (e.g., complex cognitive skills, social perspective-taking, leadership efficacy). The study design supports institutional efforts to engage in data-driven decision-making informed by empirical evidence regarding students’ experiences, needs, and educational outcomes. The goal of this research program is to advance institutional efforts as well as the broader knowledgebase regarding college student leadership.

History The first iteration of the MSL study was administered in the spring of 2006 and included more than 60,000 participants across 52 institutions of higher education. MSL is one of the largest studies of college student leadership to date and is further significant for its use of theoretically grounded measures. A number of organizations have contributed to the development of the study. The National Clearinghouse of Leadership Programs plays a central role as the sponsor of the MSL. The Center for Student Studies, a division of Survey Sciences Group, continues to partner with this project as the primary coordinators of the research. Further support for the 2006 MSL was provided by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation, ACPA: College Educators International Educational Leadership Foundation, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, University of Maryland, and LeaderShape, Inc. The current 2009 MSL is supported in part by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation and the National Association of Campus Activities.

Rationale The education and development of students as leaders has long served as a central purpose for institutions of higher education as evidenced in mission statements and the increased presence of both curricular and co-curricular leadership development programs on college and university campuses (Astin & Astin, 2000; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 1999). Astin and Astin go as far as to suggest that, “higher education plays a major part in shaping the quality of leadership in modern society” (p. 1) and a growing number of scholars and professional associations have identified socially responsible leadership as a core college outcome (Association of American Colleges & Universities, 2007; Astin & Astin; Hoy & Meisel, 2008; National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association, 2004). Yet, research on the topic continues to reflect an incomplete picture suffering from a lack of theoretical grounding consistent with contemporary conceptualizations (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Posner, 2004) as well as a lack of clarity regarding individual and institutional factors influencing leadership development (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006). If higher education institutions could begin to address these issues, the ability to enhance leadership development and the preparation of civically engaged citizens would increase dramatically.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Theoretical Frame The social change model of leadership development (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996) provides the theoretical frame for this study as it was created specifically for college students, is typically cited as one of the most influential leadership models used in practice with college students (Kezar et al., 2006), and is consistent with the emerging leadership paradigm. This perspective, also referred to as the post-industrial paradigm, suggests that leadership is a relational, transformative, process-oriented, learned, and changedirected phenomenon (Rost, 1991). Similarly, the central principles associated with the social change model involve social responsibility and change for the common good. These are achieved through the development of eight core values targeted at enhancing students’ levels of self-awareness and abilities to work with others. The values include: consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, common purpose, collaboration, controversy with civility, and citizenship. These values function at the individual (i.e., consciousness of self, congruence commitment), group (i.e., common purpose, collaboration, and controversy with civility), and societal (i.e., citizenship) levels. The dynamic interaction across levels and between values contributes to social change for the common good, the eighth critical value associated with this model. Definitions for each of the core values are provided in Table 1. For more information on the social change model consult: A Social Change Model of Leadership Development: Guidebook Version III (HERI, 1996) or Leadership for a Better World: Understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (Komives, Wagner, & Associates, 2009). Table 1. Value definitions for the Social Change Model of Leadership Development Value

Definition

Consciousness of self

Awareness of the beliefs, values, attitudes, and emotions that motivate one to take action.

Congruence

Thinking, feeling, and behaving with consistency, genuineness, authenticity, and honesty towards others; actions are consistent with most deeply-held beliefs and convictions.

Commitment

The psychic energy that motivates the individual to serve and that drives the collective effort; implies passion, intensity, and duration, and is directed toward both the group activity as well as its intended outcomes.

Collaboration

To work with others in a common effort; constitutes the cornerstone value of the group leadership effort because it empowers self and others through trust.

Common purpose

To work with shared aims and values; facilitates the group’s ability to engage in collective analysis of issues at hand and the task to be undertaken.

Controversy with civility

Recognizes two fundamental realities of any creative group effort: that differences in viewpoint are inevitable, and that such differences must be aired openly, but with civility. Civility implies respect for others, a willingness to hear each others’ views, and the exercise of restraint in criticizing the views and actions of others.

Citizenship

The process whereby an individual and the collaborative group become responsibly connected to the community and the society through the leadership development activity. To be a good citizen is to work for positive change on the behalf of others and the community.

Change

The ability to adapt to environments and situations that are constantly evolving, while maintaining the core functions of the group.

Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Conceptual Frame The conceptual framework for the MSL is an adapted version of Astin’s (1993) inputs-environments-outcomes (I-E-O) college impact model. This model permits the researcher to “assess the impact of various environmental experiences by determining whether students grow or change differently under varying environmental conditions” (p. 7). The model was adapted in two ways. First, a cross-sectional design with retrospective questions was employed instead of the traditional time-elapsed pretest and posttest to address issues of response shift bias. Second, the influences of non-college reference groups (e.g., employers, community organizations) posited in Weidman’s (1989) model of student socialization were integrated, which extended variable measurement beyond just elements of the collegiate environment and included aspects of the external environment as well (e.g., mentoring from community members, participation in community organizations). Weidman suggested that reference groups from outside the college environment exert influence throughout the college years and should be controlled for in college impact research.

Sample A total of 101 U.S. colleges and universities participated in the 2009 MSL. Institutions from Canada and Mexico participated as well, although their data is not included in the U.S. national data set. Following study protocols, participating schools were asked to draw a random sample of 4,000 undergraduate students from the general student population at their institution. This size was determined based on a desired 95% confidence interval with a margin of error of +3. Institutions with undergraduate enrollments of less than 4,000 students conducted full population samples. The total sample size for the study was over 338,732 cases. Schools were also invited to submit comparison samples of up to 500 cases to examine relationships between this data and the school’s general population data. Data collected as part of comparison samples are not included in the national data reported here.

Instrument The MSL survey questionnaire was designed specifically for this research. It is adapted from the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) (Tyree, 1998), which measures the eight core values of the social change model (HERI, 1996). The 2006 questionnaire was updated for use in 2009 based on findings from the original research as well as feedback from institutions that previously participated. The MSL is comprised of over 400 variables, scales, and composite measures representing students’ demographics and pre-college experiences, experiences during college, and key outcome measures. The MSL survey instrument also relies on “sub-studies.” These are sets of questions that are randomly administered to 50% of the student sample at each institution. The use of sub-studies allows for the inclusion of a larger number of questions on the survey instrument without significantly increasing completion times. The MSL Codebook provides information on scaling and value labels for all variables in the study. The section on psychometrics provides an overview of the reliability and validity of key outcome variables.

Data Collection The MSL was administered entirely via the internet with data management services provided by The Center for Student Studies (www.leadershipstudy.net). Student participants received a series of emails asking them to participate. The emails were derived from templates that schools were able to individually alter based on unique institutional requirements and specific incentive programs offered. Each student received an invitation email and then a series of up to three reminder emails. Reminder emails were only sent to those students who << BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

had not started the survey. Once a student completed the survey they no longer received email reminders. The emails directed students to a website and provided a unique, randomly assigned identification number. When students entered the web site, they were prompted to provide their ID number. It is this ID number that then separated from their email in order to protect confidentiality. The first question asked for student consent to participate. Information provided in the sections that follow provide information regarding data collection on your campus. The results represent your general population sample and do not include information about comparative sample data. The following terminology may be helpful in interpreting the content of these tables: Table 1: Definitions of Terms Term

Definition

Sample Size (N)

The count of students who were selected by each school to participate in the study.

Eligible Sample (E)

The count of students who were eligible to take the survey. This number in most cases is the number of sample lines provided from the school to the study staff. In some cases students were removed from the sample during or after data collection if they were deemed to be ineligible for the study (i.e., they were no longer a student, they were not 18 years of age).

Completed Surveys (C)

The count of students who reached the last question in the base questionnaire and submitted it. This count does not take into account any missing data.

Partial Surveys (P)

The count of students who started the survey, and consented, but did not finish the instrument.

Response Rate

The number of completed surveys plus the number of partially completed surveys divided by the eligible sample size. The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) accepts this rate as a standard rate for report response rates. This is AAPOR response rate calculation #2. ((C+P)/E).

Completion Rate

The number of completed surveys divided by the number of completed surveys plus partially completed surveys. (C/(C+P))

Ineligible (I)

Count of respondents who indicated that they were under the age of 18 or no longer a student.

Ineligible %

Count of respondents who indicated that they were under the age of 18 or no longer a student divided by the total sample size. (I/N)

Refusals (R)

Count of students who indicated that they did not want to participate in the survey.

Refusal %

Count of students who expressed that they did not want to participate in the survey divided by the total sample. (R/N)

Table 2 shows the counts of emails at each stage of the data collection process that were successfully sent as well as the count that did not get delivered, otherwise known as “bounced” emails. If a respondent’s email invitation bounced, reminders were still sent to this respondent in case the cause of the bounce was a temporary situation. Emails used a subject line that identified the study and the email appeared to be coming from the primary investigator. The subject lines for each email varied in intensity as the survey progressed in an effort to gain the attention of potential respondents.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Table 2: Email Counts Date Sent

Successful

Bounced

4/13/2009

Invitation

4391

4/17/2009

Reminder 1

4013

4/23/2009

Reminder 2

3834

4/28/2009

Reminder 3

3655

It should be noted that counts of bounced emails are often inaccurate. Email systems have many different ways of reporting bounced email back to the sender, and frequently, even if one is warranted, no bounce message is created. Similarly, bounces may be sent in some cases where the emails were successfully delivered. Any evaluation of the sample quality using bounces should be done keeping these facts in mind.

Responses Overall, the response rate for all schools combined in this study was 30.07% and the total number of completed cases was 92,573. The response and completion rates for the overall study and University of California, Berkeley are shown in Table 3. Chart 1 and Chart 2 show how your institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rates compare to the entire MSL. The numbers shown in Table 3, Chart 1 and Chart 2 represent those who completed 90% of the questions related to the core outcome measures and do not include information about comparative sample data. Table 3: Responses School

Partials

Completes

Response Rate %

Completion Rate %

University of California, Berkeley

748

19.23%

97.27%

Total Sample

2,875

92,573

30.07%

97.01%

Chart 1

Response Rate: University of California, Berkeley

MAX

19.23%

63.3%

4.4%

MIN

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEAN

30.07 %

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Chart 2

Completion Rate: University of California, Berkeley 100%

97.27%

MAX

99.0%

94.55%

MIN

90%

MEAN

97.01%

Students sometimes informed study staff, or even local school contacts that they did not wish to participate in the study. These types of requests were received via email and phone calls. Such requests not to participate were noted in the sample database and further contacts with the refusing respondent were cancelled. The counts of refusals are provided in Table 4. Table 4: Refusals Sample

Sample Size

Refusals

Refusal %

University of California, Berkeley

4000

0.43%

Total

338,732

1,681

0.50%

Nationally, the average completion time for surveys was 28.39 minutes and the median was 24.4 minutes. Students at University of California, Berkeley took an average of 26.84 minutes and a median of 22 minutes to complete the survey. Because respondents were able to leave the survey and return later (possibly several hours or days later), we have excluded as an outlier any survey duration over 120 minutes from these calculations.

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Psychometrics & Design Considerations Validity and Reliability The MSL survey includes more than 400 variables, scales, and composite measures. As such, it would be impossible to detail full information related to the validity and reliability of measures. Much of this information can be found in academic articles published using the various scales. These are listed in the MSL web library accessible via the following web address: www.leadershipstudy.net/le-library-reports-publications.html. The Socially Responsible Leadership Scales (SRLS), which comprise the core of the MSL survey instrument, have undergone extensive psychometric work. Rigorous methods were used in the creation of the original SRLS to establish content validity of the measures. This process is explained in detail in the original dissertation from which the instrument is derived (Tyree, 1998). Construct validity was examined for the SRLS in early pilot studies of the MSL instrument as well as with the 2006 iteration of the study and demonstrated appropriate and consistent relationships amongst outcomes variables and other theoretically supported measures. Reliability levels across all eight scales in the original version, revised form, MSL pilot studies, MSL 2006 study, and current form demonstrate consistent performance levels. Given reliability is a function of using an instrument with a specific population and not the instrument itself (Mertens, 2005), Chronbach alphas were calculated for each institution in the 2006 study as well as by categories in each major student sub-population (i.e., race, gender, sexual orientation). Reliabilities across all of these were consistent across all scales and did not deviate by more than .12. Reliability levels for these scales and all other composite measures for the 2009 MSL are available in the appendices to your institutional report.

Accuracy of Self-Report Data The MSL instrument relies largely on student self-report data. Student self-reports have received considerable attention with regard to their accuracy and ability to adequately measure educational gains, despite the fact that researchers suggest that they can produce accurate results under specific conditions (Anaya, 1999; Astin, 1993; Bauer, 1992; Gonyea, 2005; Pace, Barahona, & Kaplan, 1985; Pike, 1995). These conditions include rigorous methodological standards as well as ease of participant use (Gonyea). The participant component is characterized by the ability to comprehend questions, the ability to retrieve necessary information, perceived value of the questions being asked, and clarity of response options (Gonyea). When the above is in place, self-reports can generally be considered appropriate. This study was consistent with these considerations given the primary outcome measures have undergone field-testing in a variety of studies (Dugan, 2006a, 2006b; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Gehrke, 2008; Humphreys, 2007; Meixner, 2000; Morrison, 2001; Rickets, Bruce, & Ewing, 2008; Rubin, 2000) as well as multiple pilot studies. Additionally, the Crown-Marlowe measure of social desirability was employed as a means to remove items in which the responses appeared to be biased. Furthermore, a study of self and peer-reported leadership behaviors and the quality of those behaviors found self-reports of leadership to be generally accurate (Turrentine, 2001).

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES

Cross-Sectional Designs This study employs a cross-sectional research design in which students were asked to reflect retrospectively on past knowledge and experiences as a means to capture input data. Researchers indicate that when measuring leadership development as an educational outcome, retrospective questions may provide a stronger indication of student gains due to concerns associated with response-shift bias that emerge in traditional time elapsed studies (Howard, 1980; Howard & Dailey, 1979; Rohs, 1999, 2002; Rohs & Langone, 1997). The inherent assumption in measurement of change is a common metric at each point in time and that: A person’s standard for measurement of the dimension being assessed will not change from pretest to posttest. If the standard of measurement were to change, the posttest ratings would reflect this shift in addition to the actual changes in the person’s level of functioning. Consequently, comparisons of pretest with posttest ratings would be confounded by this distortion of the internalized scale. (Rohs & Langone, p. 51) Researchers suggest cognitive dimensions associated with understanding leadership may cause a shift in the standards of measurement and as such cross-sectional designs offer an appropriate approach in addressing the effect (Howard; Howard & Dailey; Rohs, 1999, 2002; Rohs & Langone).

Weighting of Data When surveying any population it is not uncommon to have a less than a perfect response rate. As with most surveys, the MSL 2009 survey was no exception. A given response rate value is not in itself a concern. Rather, it is the situation where respondents differ systematically in one way or another from non-respondents which poses a risk. When such differences occur, biases may result when drawing conclusions from the data. Non-Response Weights To minimize this potential for bias, a non-response weight was constructed; labeled FINAL_NRWEIGHT in your analytic data file. Weighting for non-response involves applying a weight to each individual respondent so that he or she represents a certain number of non-respondents that are similar in terms of selected demographic characteristics. The size of the weights depends on the level of under- or over-representation of the respondents in predetermined groups known as ‘weighting classes’. Post-Stratification Weights Each school was asked to provide a random sample of 4000 students from their undergraduate population. With smaller schools this sample may have been their entire population and only a proportion of the population for larger schools. This type of sampling allows for a bias – where smaller schools are over-represented and larger schools under-represented in the total sample. To account for this over- and under-representation bias, a post-stratification adjustment was calculated. A post-stratification adjustment causes the sum of the weighted survey respondents to equal the number of cases in the sampling frame. This adjustment is to be used for specific data tables that compare each institution’s responses against the entire sample. You can find the weight labeled FINAL_PSWEIGHT in your analytic data file. A detailed description of the weighting classes and the construction of non-response & post-stratification weights for your institution are provided in separate documentation on the MSL Exchange: www.mymsl.net

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

Data Tables

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Response Rates MSL National Sample

University of California, Berkeley %

Size Peers: Large

Control Peers: Public

Carnegie Peers: Very High Research %

Selectivity Peers: Most Competitive %

Response Rate by Demographics Gender Male

14.85

276

22.95

29410

18.48

10725

18.45

13476

19.6

9529

31.35

3841

Female

23.03

493

32.93

52083

26.31

16699

27.15

23289

27.41

14467

43.83

5676

Race Hispanic/Latino

15.67

24.18

4320

20.23

1604

18.37

1819

21.92

1297

37.45

464

White

20.9

255

29.72

55619

23.35

19280

24.61

24744

24.67

16251

38.57

6170

African American/Black

14.79

19.62

5106

18.58

1854

15.49

2889

14.85

1604

32.54

549

24.59

729

20.59

204

23.21

548

21.02

128

36.84

19.96

316

28.8

5142

22.94

2305

22.52

2131

26.98

2602

38.48

1112

37.4

411

21.05

21.92

17.69

101

27.99

24001

20.19

9594

21.76

12044

25.33

11786

38.57

2803

First-Year

24.74

167

28.03

21959

21.92

7093

22.02

9428

25.86

7224

38.93

3087

Sophomore

20.72

166

29.46

20283

23.52

7003

24.34

9006

26.45

6914

37.44

2697

Junior

19.37

208

29.65

21481

23.93

7988

24.67

10198

25.39

7682

37.71

2635

Senior

15.72

228

29.34

23972

23.02

8408

23.51

11066

24.64

8707

38.88

2710

Graduate Student

19.82

1063

16.84

488

15.56

624

18.96

593

13.76

Unclassified

20.52

6570

16.05

3885

16.05

3885

15.36

2552

American Indian or Alaskan Asian Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other/Missing

Class Standing

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Characteristics MSL National Sample

University of California, Berkeley

Size Peers: Large

Control Peers: Public

Carnegie Peers: Very High Research

Selectivity Peers: Most Competitive

Male

36.16

269

35.45

32853

37.77

12773

36.02

15456

39.19

12815

40.33

4379

Female

63.84

475

64.55

59824

62.23

21042

63.98

27448

60.81

19886

59.67

6479

White

32.62

243

72.7

67353

69.66

23548

71.08

30480

70.1

22919

68.69

7456

Middle Eastern

3.36

0.64

590

0.77

260

0.64

273

0.72

235

0.48

African American/Black

2.15

5.38

4988

6.05

2044

6.9

2957

5.24

1712

4.36

473

American Indian

0.43

401

0.35

117

0.78

335

0.21

0.18

Asian American

42.68

318

7.72

7153

9.31

3148

7.59

3255

11.16

3650

13.86

1504

Latino

6.44

4.13

3824

4.91

1661

4.33

1858

3.98

1300

3.22

350

Multiracial

10.87

7.61

7051

7.71

2607

7.46

3200

7.45

2436

8.15

885

1.38

1279

1.24

419

1.22

521

1.14

373

1.07

116

22.03

167

22.66

21419

19.36

6665

19.64

8580

21.93

7329

27.77

3091

Sophomore

21.77

165

21.99

20794

21.47

7391

21.07

9207

21.52

7193

23.97

2668

Junior

27.84

211

25.36

23972

26.4

9090

26.35

11513

25.59

8550

2671

Senior +

28.36

215

29.99

28357

32.77

11282

32.93

14387

30.96

10346

24.27

2701

Heterosexual

86.6

646

92.98

86263

92.95

31472

92.78

39840

93.09

30482

93.11

10124

Bisexual, Gay/Lesbian,Questioning

9.52

4.63

4299

4.51

1526

4.65

1996

4.79

1568

5.36

583

Rather Not Say

3.89

2.39

2217

2.54

860

2.58

1106

2.12

693

1.53

166

Student Characteristics Gender

Race

Not Included

Class Standing First-Year

Sexual Orientation

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Characteristics MSL National Sample

University of California, Berkeley

Size Peers: Large

Control Peers: Public

Carnegie Peers: Very High Research

Selectivity Peers: Most Competitive

Traditional (Under 24)

91.15

680

88.66

82234

83.28

28184

82.61

35461

90.76

29708

98.8

10741

Non-Traditional (24 or Older)

8.85

11.34

10523

16.72

5657

17.39

7463

9.24

3026

1.2

130

On Campus

35.48

265

49.46

45816

29.48

9962

32.09

13755

45.05

14727

80.2

8710

Off Campus

64.52

482

50.54

46811

70.52

23829

67.91

29106

54.95

17961

19.8

2150

First Generation

16.01

118

14.89

13621

16.81

5604

18.96

8010

12.16

3937

5.86

632

Non-First Generation

83.99

619

85.11

77854

83.19

27742

81.04

34230

87.84

28437

94.14

10158

Part Time

2.08

4.48

4274

7.32

2553

6.89

3044

4.23

1425

0.82

Full Time

97.92

753

95.52

91049

92.68

32309

93.11

41160

95.77

32246

99.18

11053

Transfer Student

21.07

162

21.19

20198

28.62

9979

29.53

13052

20.01

6739

4.8

535

Non-Transfer Student

78.93

607

78.81

75127

71.38

24883

70.47

31153

79.99

26933

95.2

10609

Age

Residence

Educational Generation Status

Enrollment Status

Transfer Status

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

General Outcome Measure Scores and Comparisons MSL National Sample

University of California, Berkeley M

Sig

Size Peers: Large

Effect

Sig

Effect

Control Peers: Public M

Sig

Effect

Carnegie Peers: Very High Research M

Sig Effect

Selectivity Peers: Most Competitive M

Sig Effect

Social Change Model Leadership Outcomes Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) Consciousness of Self

3.87

0.87

3.98

0.85

3.98

0.85

3.97

0.85

3.98

0.85

3.98

0.85

Congruence

4.06

0.85

4.15

0.85

4.14

0.84

4.13

0.85

4.15

0.84

4.16

0.84

Commitment

4.20

0.81

4.30

0.80

4.28

0.79

4.28

0.80

4.29

0.79

4.31

0.79

Collaboration

3.99

0.76

4.04

0.78

4.03

0.78

4.03

0.78

4.04

0.77

4.04

0.75

Common Purpose

3.97

0.78

4.00

0.76

3.99

0.76

3.98

0.77

4.00

0.75

4.02

0.74

Controversy with Civility

3.78

0.73

3.81

0.71

3.81

0.71

3.81

0.71

3.82

0.71

3.83

0.69

Citizenship

3.83

0.99

3.82

0.97

3.77

0.98

3.77

0.98

3.81

0.98

3.86

0.96

Change

3.76

0.81

3.81

0.81

3.82

0.81

3.82

0.82

3.82

0.81

3.80

0.80

Omnibus SRLS

3.91

0.66

3.96

0.66

3.95

0.66

3.94

0.67

3.96

0.66

3.97

0.63

3.08

1.04

3.08

1.01

Scored on a 4-point scale ranging from Not At All Confident (1) to Very Confident (4)

Leadership Efficacy

2.97

1.08

3.08

1.05

3.08

1.05

3.07

1.06

3.09

1.04

Scored on a 4-point scale ranging from Not Grown At All (1) to Grown Very Much (4)

Complex Cognitive Skills

3.05

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.04

3.10

1.00

3.11

0.99

3.10

1.01

3.10

1.00

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

General Outcome Measure Scores and Comparisons - Change Over Time MSL National Sample

University of California, Berkeley M

Sig

Effect

Social Change Model Leadership Outcomes

Sig Effect

Size Peers: Large M

Sig Effect

Control Peers: Public M

Sig

Effect

Carnegie Peers: Very High Research M

Sig Effect

Selectivity Peers: Most Competitive M

Sig Effect

Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Consciousness of Self Prior to College

3.29

2.21

3.49

1.97

3.51

1.96

3.48

2.01

3.55

1.97

3.60

1.89

Senior Year

3.96

0.90

4.04

0.83

4.03

0.84

4.03

0.84

4.04

0.84

4.05

0.83

Prior to College

3.88

1.40

3.99

1.38

3.97

1.40

3.98

1.40

3.99

1.40

4.03

1.35

Senior Year

4.14

0.84

4.19

0.83

4.19

0.83

4.18

0.84

4.19

0.84

4.20

0.82

Prior to College

4.20

1.34

4.22

1.28

4.20

1.31

4.21

1.31

4.24

1.32

4.33

1.22

Senior Year

4.27

0.84

4.33

0.78

4.32

0.78

4.32

0.78

4.33

0.79

4.34

0.78

Prior to College

3.92

1.41

3.91

1.33

3.90

1.34

3.89

1.36

3.92

1.34

3.97

1.29

Senior Year

4.07

0.80

4.08

0.76

4.07

0.77

4.07

0.77

4.08

0.77

4.09

0.75

Prior to College

3.93

1.32

3.97

1.19

3.96

1.19

3.96

1.21

3.99

1.19

4.00

1.17

Senior Year

4.04

0.86

4.04

0.75

4.03

0.75

4.02

0.76

4.04

0.75

4.06

0.75

Prior to College

3.94

1.42

3.89

1.37

3.89

1.39

3.87

1.39

3.93

1.38

4.02

1.32

Senior Year

3.87

0.80

3.85

0.70

3.86

0.71

3.85

0.71

3.86

0.72

3.88

0.69

Prior to College

3.77

1.51

3.76

1.43

3.72

1.45

3.71

1.46

3.77

1.46

3.86

1.41

Senior Year

3.90

1.04

3.86

0.98

3.81

0.99

3.82

0.99

3.84

1.01

3.90

0.99

Congruence

Commitment .

Collaboration

Common Purpose .

Controversy with Civility .

Citizenship

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

General Outcome Measure Scores and Comparisons - Change Over Time MSL National Sample

University of California, Berkeley M

Sig

Effect

Sig Effect

Size Peers: Large M

Sig Effect

Control Peers: Public M

Sig

Effect

Carnegie Peers: Very High Research M

Sig Effect

Selectivity Peers: Most Competitive M

Sig Effect

Change Prior to College

3.52

1.59

3.61

1.50

3.64

1.49

3.62

1.50

3.65

1.51

3.65

1.52

Senior Year

3.83

0.88

3.86

0.81

3.88

0.81

3.87

0.82

3.87

0.81

3.85

0.80

Prior to College

3.81

0.92

3.86

0.86

3.85

0.87

3.84

0.89

3.88

0.86

3.93

0.81

Senior Year

3.98

0.72

4.00

0.65

3.99

0.65

3.99

0.66

4.00

0.66

4.02

0.62

Omnibus SRLS

Leadership Efficacy

Scored on a 4-point scale ranging from Not At All Confident (1) to Very Confident (4)

Prior to College

2.67

1.47

2.85

1.22

2.85

1.24

2.83

1.24

2.87

1.23

2.89

1.18

Senior Year

3.15

1.13

3.21

1.01

3.20

1.01

3.19

1.03

3.22

1.01

3.24

1.00

Complex Cognitive Skills

Scored on a 4-point scale ranging from Not Grown At All (1) to Grown Very Much (4)

Prior to College

2.91

1.10

3.05

0.99

3.06

1.01

3.04

1.01

3.09

1.00

3.12

0.93

Senior Year

3.24

0.98

3.27

0.94

3.26

0.94

3.26

0.95

3.27

0.94

3.28

0.95

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Inputs by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Student Characteristics

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Gender (1) Female

3.88

0.47

4.08

0.44

4.23

0.44

4.01

0.42

3.97

0.44

3.79

0.38

3.89

0.54

3.74

0.45

3.92

0.36

(2) Male

3.86

0.58

4.05

0.59

4.19

0.54

3.98

0.50

3.98

0.50

3.78

0.51

3.77

0.65

3.79

0.54

3.90

0.44

(1) White

4.02

0.47

4.15

0.45

4.30

0.44

4.04

0.43

3.98

0.46

3.87

0.42

3.85

0.55

3.81

0.47

3.98

0.36

(2) Middle Eastern

3.87

0.74

4.24

0.57

4.32

0.63

4.09

0.61

4.09

0.62

3.97

0.60

3.97

0.69

3.81

0.71

4.02

0.57

(3) African American/Black

4.03

0.61

4.17

0.54

4.34

0.55

3.96

0.43

4.06

0.42

3.90

0.40

4.08

0.49

3.79

0.52

4.02

0.35

Race

(4) American Indian

(5) Asian American

3.75

0.47

(6) Latino

3.86

(7) Multiracial (8) Not Included

3.96

0.48

0.56

4.05

0.61

3.88

0.57

4.14

0.53

1,2,7

4.11

0.48

4.24

3.94

0.43

3.94

0.44

3.67

0.40

1,2,6,7

3.76

0.59

3.65

0.47

1,6,7

3.82

0.38

0.52

4.04

0.56

3.96

0.56

3.85

0.50

3.94

0.69

3.88

0.54

3.96

0.49

4.25

0.45

4.03

0.45

4.02

0.44

3.83

0.40

3.90

0.56

3.85

0.42

3.96

0.37

1,7

Class Standing (1) First-Year

3.76

0.50

3.99

0.45

4.20

0.42

3.94

0.40

(2) Sophomore

3.79

0.48

4.01

0.50

4.17

0.49

3.97

0.43

(3) Junior

3.86

0.52

4.05

0.53

4.17

0.50

3.96

0.45

(4) Senior +

3.96

0.53

4.14

0.49

4.27

0.49

4.07

0.47

(1) Heterosexual

3.89

0.51

4.07

0.49

4.22

0.47

4.01

(2) Bisexual, Gay/ Lesbian, Questioning

3.79

0.51

4.00

0.56

4.14

0.48

(3) Rather Not Say

3.72

0.50

4.08

0.55

4.08

0.59

1,2

3.91

0.38

3.72

0.38

3.77

0.47

3.69

0.46

3.84

0.35

3.95

0.44

3.72

0.41

3.79

0.61

3.70

0.45

3.86

0.37

3.94

0.47

3.75

0.41

3.81

0.62

3.75

0.47

3.89

0.39

1,3

4.04

0.51

3.87

0.47

1,2,3

3.90

0.61

3.84

0.52

3.99

0.42

1,2,3

0.44

3.98

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.85

0.58

3.77

0.49

3.92

0.39

3.94

0.46

3.96

0.44

3.79

0.46

3.75

0.63

3.65

0.43

3.85

0.39

3.93

0.50

3.90

0.51

3.71

0.46

3.88

0.61

3.77

0.50

3.86

0.43

1,2

Sexual Orientation

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Inputs by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Student Characteristics

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change

Omnibus SRLS

Sig

Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Age (1) Traditional (Under 24)

3.85

0.51

4.05

0.49

4.19

0.48

3.99

0.45

3.97

0.45

3.76

0.42

3.83

0.58

3.74

0.48

3.90

0.39

(2) Non-Traditional (24 or Older)

4.01

0.57

4.20

0.57

4.34

0.54

4.05

0.47

4.02

0.54

3.99

0.46

3.89

0.66

3.94

0.52

4.03

0.44

(1) Non-Transfer Student

3.85

0.50

4.04

0.48

4.19

0.47

3.99

0.44

3.96

0.44

3.74

0.42

3.82

0.56

3.73

0.47

3.89

0.38

(2) Transfer Student

3.93

0.55

4.13

0.56

4.24

0.52

4.01

0.50

3.98

0.54

3.89

0.46

3.85

0.66

3.85

0.51

3.96

0.43

(1) Full-Time

3.86

0.51

4.06

0.50

4.20

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.83

0.59

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.39

(2) Part-Time

4.08

0.51

4.06

0.41

4.29

0.42

3.82

0.57

3.93

0.55

3.70

0.44

3.67

0.56

3.80

0.48

3.89

0.40

(1) Very Liberal

3.97

0.52

4.24

0.53

2,3

4.27

0.52

4.08

0.51

4.04

0.50

3.90

0.53

3.92

0.63

3.85

0.55

4.01

0.45

(2) Liberal

3.88

0.49

4.07

0.46

4.24

0.45

4.03

0.42

3.99

0.42

3.80

0.39

3.87

0.60

3.77

0.45

3.93

0.37

(3) Moderate

3.82

0.53

4.01

0.50

4.14

0.49

3.94

0.45

3.93

0.48

3.75

0.44

3.79

0.55

3.72

0.48

3.86

0.39

(4) Conservative

3.91

0.57

4.08

0.58

4.27

0.51

3.96

0.50

4.00

0.50

3.69

0.44

3.78

0.57

3.75

0.53

3.90

0.42

(1) 3.50 - 4.00

3.94

0.49

2,5

4.07

0.47

4.27

0.46

4.01

0.42

4.00

0.43

3.81

0.42

3.85

0.58

3.76

0.49

3.94

0.38

(2) 3.00 - 3.49

3.81

0.54

4.10

0.52

4.20

0.49

4.00

0.47

3.96

0.48

3.78

0.45

3.86

0.60

3.78

0.48

3.91

0.41

(3) 2.50 - 2.99

3.81

0.49

3.97

0.53

4.10

0.46

3.96

0.48

3.94

0.46

3.78

0.39

3.74

0.53

3.73

0.49

3.86

0.38

(4) 2.00 - 2.49

(5) 1.99 or less

(6) No college GPA

Transfer Status

Enrollment Status

Political Views

(5) Very Conservative

3,4

GPA Estimate

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Inputs by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Student Characteristics

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Educational Generation Status (1) First Generation

3.78

0.57

4.03

0.55

4.19

0.53

3.98

0.48

3.99

0.51

3.77

0.45

3.87

0.63

3.75

0.52

3.90

0.46

(2) Non-First Generation

3.89

0.50

4.07

0.49

4.21

0.47

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.45

3.79

0.43

3.83

0.58

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.38

(1) Reported Disability

3.80

0.55

4.09

0.52

4.19

0.50

3.90

0.47

3.86

0.50

3.80

0.45

3.75

0.66

3.72

0.48

3.86

0.40

(2) No Reported Disability

3.88

0.51

4.06

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.01

0.45

3.99

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.85

0.58

3.76

0.49

3.92

0.39

Disability Status

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Student Characteristics

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Off-Campus Job (1) Yes

3.98

0.53

4.09

0.52

4.21

0.51

3.99

0.49

4.00

0.51

3.82

0.47

3.89

0.63

3.79

0.50

3.95

0.43

(2) No

3.84

0.51

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.47

3.99

0.44

3.96

0.45

3.77

0.42

3.81

0.57

3.75

0.48

3.90

0.38

(1) Yes

3.88

0.51

4.09

0.50

4.22

0.48

4.04

0.46

4.00

0.46

3.78

0.42

3.86

0.62

3.77

0.49

3.93

0.40

(2) No

3.86

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.48

3.98

0.44

3.95

0.46

3.78

0.44

3.82

0.57

3.75

0.48

3.90

0.39

(1) Yes

3.93

0.51

4.14

0.51

4.27

0.46

4.10

0.42

4.06

0.43

3.84

0.42

4.10

0.48

3.82

0.48

4.01

0.38

(2) No

3.82

0.51

4.00

0.49

4.15

0.49

3.91

0.46

3.89

0.47

3.73

0.44

3.60

0.57

3.70

0.48

3.82

0.39

(1) Off-Campus

3.89

0.53

4.08

0.50

4.21

0.50

4.00

0.46

3.99

0.49

3.80

0.45

3.84

0.61

3.77

0.50

3.92

0.41

(2) On-Campus

3.83

0.49

4.03

0.49

4.21

0.46

3.98

0.44

3.93

0.40

3.76

0.40

3.82

0.54

3.72

0.46

3.88

0.37

On Campus Job

Community Service

Residential Setting

Involvement in College Organizations (1) Never

3.70

0.57

4,5

3.89

0.54

4,5

4.06

0.50

4,5

3.76

0.49

3,4,5

3.66

0.47

2,3,4,5

3.65

0.47

4,5

3.49

0.53

3,4,5

3.59

0.53

4,5

3.69

0.41

3,4,5

(2) Once

3.74

0.51

4,5

4.04

0.50

4.10

0.51

3.87

0.45

4,5

3.85

0.49

1,4,5

3.69

0.43

3.59

0.56

4,5

3.63

0.43

4,5

3.78

0.38

4,5

(3) Sometimes

3.78

0.51

4,5

3.96

0.51

4,5

4.14

0.47

3.93

0.41

1,4,5

3.90

0.41

1,4,5

3.72

0.42

3.73

0.54

1,4,5

3.71

0.47

3.83

0.37

1,4,5

(4) Many times

3.92

0.43

1,2,3

4.10

0.43

1,3

4.23

0.44

1,5

4.06

0.39

1,2,3

4.02

0.39

1,2,3,5

3.83

0.40

3.99

0.49

1,2,3

3.82

0.45

1,2

3.98

0.33

1,2,3

(5) Much of the time

4.03

0.50

1,2,3

4.23

0.47

1,2,3

4.36

0.46

1,2,3,4

4.17

0.44

1,2,3

4.18

0.44

1,2,3,4

3.89

0.41

1,2,3

4.05

0.60

1,2,3

3.88

0.48

1,2,3

4.07

0.37

1,2,3

Leadership Positions in College Organizations (1) Never

3.76

0.52

4,5

3.99

0.50

4.14

0.46

3.89

0.44

4,5

3.83

0.43

3,4,5

3.73

0.43

3.64

0.54

3,4,5

3.66

0.48

4,5

3.80

0.37

4,5

(2) Once

3.86

0.45

4.05

0.49

4.15

0.51

3.92

0.46

3.92

0.46

3.73

0.45

3.74

0.57

4,5

3.76

0.47

3.86

0.39

(3) Sometimes

3.81

0.53

3.99

0.49

4.16

0.49

3.97

0.42

3.96

0.44

1,5

3.74

0.42

3.84

0.55

1,5

3.75

0.47

3.88

0.38

(4) Many times

3.94

0.39

1,5

4.05

0.44

4.19

0.42

4.06

0.36

1,5

4.06

0.37

1,5

3.82

0.38

4.03

0.52

1,2,5

3.82

0.44

3.98

0.32

1,5

(5) Much of the time

4.14

0.51

1,2,3,4

4.32

0.49

1,2,3,4

4.45

0.47

1,2,3,4

4.28

0.44

1,2,3,4

4.29

0.45

1,2,3,4

3.95

0.41

4.22

0.57

1,2,3,4

3.97

0.48

1,2,3

4.18

0.38

1,2,3,4

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

1,2,3

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

4,5

Citizenship

Sig

4,5

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

3,4,5

Involvement in Off-Campus Organizations (1) Never

3.82

0.52

4.02

0.50

4.18

0.47

3.94

0.45

3.91

0.45

3.73

0.43

3.69

0.57

2,3,4,5

3.72

0.48

3.85

0.38

(2) Once

3.91

0.48

4.07

0.47

4.27

0.52

4.02

0.45

4.02

0.46

3.84

0.40

3.94

0.48

3.79

0.41

3.96

0.35

(3) Sometimes

3.92

0.46

4.10

0.49

4.22

0.47

4.04

0.42

3.98

0.44

3.82

0.43

3.94

0.55

1,5

3.82

0.47

3.96

0.38

(4) Many times

3.97

0.51

4.12

0.53

4.28

0.48

4.11

0.46

(5) Much of the time

3.94

0.61

4.17

0.52

4.21

0.55

4.10

0.48

4.14

0.46

3.91

0.40

4.10

0.54

3.86

0.41

4.04

0.39

4.15

0.48

3.88

0.44

4.17

0.62

1,3

3.77

0.61

4.03

0.44

Leadership Positions in Off-Campus Organizations (1) Never

3.83

0.50

4.03

0.50

4.19

0.47

3.96

0.44

3.92

0.45

3.75

0.42

3.76

0.57

2,3,4,5

3.73

0.47

3.87

0.38

(2) Once

4.01

0.48

4.13

0.54

4.26

0.53

4.07

0.43

4.09

0.47

3.82

0.41

3.97

0.55

3.87

0.43

4.00

0.39

(3) Sometimes

3.94

0.56

4.08

0.50

4.20

0.56

4.03

0.51

4.04

0.49

3.87

0.49

3.95

0.61

3.81

0.57

3.97

0.46

(4) Many times

3.90

0.55

4.09

0.46

(5) Much of the time

4.07

0.52

4.22

0.46

4.17

0.50

4.26

0.46

4.21

0.47

4.15

0.43

4.39

0.45

4.20

0.46

3.86

0.39

3.97

0.44

4.17

0.57

3.75

0.42

4.02

0.39

4.23

0.60

3.94

0.58

4.14

0.40

Participation in Student Groups Academic/Professional (1) Yes

3.88

0.49

4.09

0.51

4.20

0.50

4.04

0.45

4.02

0.46

3.80

0.42

3.89

0.58

3.82

0.47

3.95

0.40

(2) No

3.85

0.53

4.04

0.49

4.21

0.47

3.96

0.45

3.93

0.46

3.76

0.44

3.79

0.59

3.72

0.49

3.88

0.39

(1) Yes

3.91

0.50

4.06

0.50

4.18

0.47

3.97

0.44

3.99

0.45

3.81

0.41

3.81

0.56

3.81

0.46

3.92

0.37

(2) No

3.86

0.52

4.06

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.96

0.46

3.77

0.44

3.83

0.59

3.74

0.49

3.90

0.40

(1) Yes

3.92

0.49

4.13

0.50

4.23

0.50

4.07

0.44

4.07

0.42

3.83

0.45

4.09

0.51

3.87

0.46

4.01

0.39

(2) No

3.86

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.48

3.98

0.45

3.95

0.47

3.77

0.43

3.79

0.59

3.74

0.49

3.89

0.39

Art/Theatre/Music

Campus-Wide Programming

Identity Based (1) Yes

3.83

0.51

4.09

0.50

4.22

0.47

4.04

0.44

4.03

0.43

3.79

0.42

3.93

0.57

3.76

0.47

3.94

0.38

(2) No

3.88

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.48

3.97

0.46

3.94

0.47

3.77

0.44

3.78

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.89

0.40

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship

Change

Sig

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Participation in Student Groups (continued) International Interest (1) Yes

3.88

0.50

4.13

0.50

4.24

0.48

4.07

0.46

4.05

0.42

3.82

0.43

3.98

0.55

3.83

0.48

3.98

0.39

(2) No

3.86

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.48

3.98

0.45

3.95

0.47

3.77

0.43

3.80

0.59

3.74

0.48

3.89

0.39

(1) Yes

4.00

0.49

4.13

0.51

4.30

0.52

4.07

0.45

4.03

0.50

3.87

0.44

3.91

0.60

3.81

0.49

3.99

0.41

(2) No

3.84

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.18

0.47

3.98

0.45

3.96

0.45

3.76

0.43

3.81

0.58

3.75

0.48

3.89

0.39

(1) Yes

3.87

0.53

4.02

0.55

4.16

0.56

4.02

0.48

3.97

0.49

3.76

0.45

3.87

0.61

3.78

0.49

3.91

0.41

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.47

3.99

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.82

0.58

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.73

0.64

3.81

0.57

3.97

0.72

3.88

0.48

3.83

0.48

3.67

0.43

3.75

0.54

3.71

0.52

3.78

0.46

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.47

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.83

0.59

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.92

0.53

4.07

0.54

4.26

0.54

4.11

0.48

4.07

0.48

3.79

0.40

4.01

0.63

3.79

0.51

3.98

0.43

(2) No

3.86

0.51

4.06

0.50

4.20

0.47

3.98

0.44

3.95

0.46

3.78

0.44

3.80

0.57

3.75

0.48

3.90

0.39

(1) Yes

3.99

0.53

4.09

0.63

4.26

0.56

4.06

0.51

4.06

0.50

3.83

0.45

4.08

0.55

3.76

0.52

3.99

0.45

(2) No

3.86

0.51

4.06

0.49

4.20

0.48

3.99

0.45

3.96

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.82

0.58

3.76

0.48

3.90

0.39

(1) Yes

4.00

0.46

4.20

0.52

4.30

0.52

4.10

0.46

4.12

0.50

3.85

0.43

4.02

0.63

3.89

0.47

4.04

0.41

(2) No

3.84

0.52

4.03

0.49

4.18

0.47

3.97

0.45

3.93

0.45

3.76

0.43

3.79

0.57

3.73

0.48

3.88

0.39

(1) Yes

4.02

0.51

4.20

0.47

4.34

0.44

4.19

0.39

4.17

0.42

3.95

0.38

4.24

0.48

3.96

0.43

4.12

0.35

(2) No

3.84

0.51

4.04

0.50

4.18

0.48

3.97

0.45

3.94

0.46

3.75

0.43

3.77

0.58

3.73

0.48

3.88

0.39

Honor Societies

Media

Military

New Student Transition

Resident Assistants

Peer Helper

Advocacy

Political (1) Yes

3.93

0.51

4.12

0.50

4.23

0.51

4.09

0.47

4.04

0.50

3.93

0.45

4.05

0.61

3.89

0.49

4.02

0.41

(2) No

3.86

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.48

3.98

0.45

3.96

0.46

3.76

0.42

3.80

0.58

3.74

0.48

3.89

0.39

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship

Change

Sig

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Participation in Student Groups (continued) Religious (1) Yes

3.85

0.47

4.14

0.46

4.21

0.42

4.04

0.39

4.07

0.40

3.83

0.39

4.03

0.55

3.75

0.42

3.97

0.33

(2) No

3.87

0.53

4.04

0.51

4.20

0.49

3.98

0.46

3.94

0.47

3.77

0.44

3.78

0.58

3.76

0.50

3.89

0.40

(1) Yes

3.89

0.49

4.14

0.47

4.32

0.41

4.12

0.40

4.08

0.41

3.85

0.40

4.11

0.50

3.81

0.47

4.02

0.35

(2) No

3.86

0.52

4.03

0.51

4.16

0.50

3.95

0.46

3.93

0.47

3.75

0.44

3.73

0.58

3.74

0.49

3.87

0.40

Service

Multi-Cultural Fraternities and Sororities (1) Yes

3.77

0.55

3.98

0.54

4.08

0.58

3.98

0.44

3.95

0.47

3.74

0.38

3.90

0.59

3.71

0.46

3.87

0.42

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.47

3.99

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.82

0.59

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.39

Social Fraternities or Sororities (1) Yes

3.93

0.52

4.06

0.47

4.22

0.52

3.99

0.42

3.94

0.43

3.78

0.40

3.80

0.53

3.79

0.43

3.91

0.37

(2) No

3.86

0.51

4.06

0.51

4.20

0.47

3.99

0.46

3.97

0.47

3.78

0.44

3.83

0.59

3.75

0.49

3.91

0.40

Sports-Intercollegiate or Varsity (1) Yes

3.88

0.50

4.02

0.53

4.11

0.60

3.93

0.50

4.00

0.49

3.62

0.40

3.75

0.54

3.80

0.46

3.86

0.40

(2) No

3.87

0.52

4.06

0.50

4.21

0.47

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.83

0.59

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.91

0.49

4.13

0.49

4.21

0.53

4.00

0.45

3.99

0.43

3.78

0.45

3.79

0.58

3.81

0.41

3.93

0.38

(2) No

3.86

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.47

3.99

0.45

3.96

0.47

3.78

0.43

3.83

0.59

3.75

0.49

3.90

0.40

(1) Yes

3.95

0.52

4.11

0.51

4.27

0.49

4.03

0.46

4.02

0.46

3.82

0.45

3.88

0.58

3.82

0.50

3.96

0.40

(2) No

3.84

0.51

4.04

0.50

4.18

0.48

3.98

0.45

3.95

0.46

3.76

0.43

3.81

0.59

3.74

0.48

3.89

0.39

(1) Yes

3.94

0.52

4.14

0.48

4.28

0.45

4.04

0.44

4.07

0.44

3.84

0.42

3.99

0.53

3.86

0.47

4.00

0.38

(2) No

3.84

0.51

4.04

0.51

4.18

0.49

3.98

0.45

3.94

0.46

3.76

0.43

3.79

0.59

3.73

0.48

3.88

0.39

(1) Yes

3.84

0.46

4.02

0.51

4.19

0.48

4.00

0.46

4.02

0.45

3.80

0.42

3.90

0.58

3.82

0.47

3.93

0.39

(2) No

3.87

0.53

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

3.99

0.45

3.96

0.46

3.77

0.43

3.81

0.59

3.75

0.49

3.90

0.39

Sports-Club

Sports-Intramural

Recreational

Social/Special Interest

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship

Change

Sig

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Participation in Student Groups (continued) Student Governance (1) Yes

3.95

0.58

4.14

0.54

4.25

0.57

4.06

0.47

4.06

0.46

3.85

0.42

4.02

0.58

3.84

0.50

4.00

0.43

(2) No

3.85

0.50

4.05

0.49

4.20

0.47

3.98

0.45

3.95

0.46

3.77

0.43

3.80

0.58

3.74

0.48

3.89

0.39

(1) Never

3.53

0.54

2,3,4

3.73

0.50

2,3,4

3.96

0.48

3,4

3.67

0.42

2,3,4

3.61

0.39

2,3,4

3.52

0.47

2,3,4

3.15

0.50

2,3,4

3.48

0.48

2,3,4

3.54

0.37

2,3,4

(2) Once

3.80

0.50

1,4

3.98

0.48

1,4

4.13

0.48

3.88

0.45

1,3,4

3.86

0.46

1,3,4

3.71

0.43

1,4

3.57

0.51

1,3,4

3.68

0.49

1,4

3.80

0.37

1,3,4

(3) Sometimes

3.87

0.49

1,4

4.05

0.49

1,4

4.20

0.47

1,4

4.03

0.40

1,2,4

3.99

0.41

1,2,4

3.79

0.40

1,4

3.91

0.47

1,2,4

3.76

0.45

1,4

3.93

0.35

1,2,4

(4) Often

4.11

0.48

1,2,3

4.37

0.44

1,2,3

4.45

0.41

1,2,3

4.29

0.40

1,2,3

4.27

0.41

1,2,3

4.01

0.38

1,2,3

4.45

0.38

1,2,3

4.01

0.45

1,2,3

4.23

0.32

1,2,3

Social Change Behaviors

Social-Cultural Discussions (1) Never

(2) Sometimes

3.62

0.48

3,4

3.86

0.48

3,4

4.02

0.49

3,4

3.75

0.45

3,4

3.75

0.45

3,4

3.55

0.39

3,4

3.51

0.56

3,4

3.51

0.44

3,4

3.67

0.36

3,4

(3) Often

3.84

0.46

2,4

4.04

0.46

2,4

4.16

0.42

2,4

3.97

0.39

2,4

3.97

0.42

2,4

3.75

0.39

2,4

3.80

0.54

2,4

3.73

0.45

2,4

3.88

0.33

2,4

(4) Very Often

4.09

0.51

2,3

4.25

0.51

2,3

4.42

0.48

2,3

4.22

0.43

2,3

4.13

0.47

2,3

4.01

0.41

2,3

4.13

0.54

2,3

3.99

0.47

2,3

4.13

0.38

2,3

Campus Climate Belonging Climate (1) Strongly Disagree

(2) Disagree

3.51

0.56

4,5

3.93

0.53

4.10

0.52

3.71

0.52

4,5

3.74

0.49

4,5

3.58

0.55

4,5

3.45

0.68

4,5

3.46

0.50

4,5

3.65

0.44

4,5

(3) Neutral

3.65

0.51

4,5

3.88

0.55

4,5

4.03

0.56

4,5

3.80

0.49

4,5

3.78

0.51

4,5

3.63

0.46

4,5

3.61

0.62

4,5

3.56

0.47

4,5

3.72

0.43

4,5

(4) Agree

3.89

0.45

2,3,5

4.07

0.45

3,5

4.19

0.41

3,5

4.02

0.38

2,3,5

3.99

0.39

2,3,5

3.82

0.39

2,3,5

3.87

0.51

2,3,5

3.79

0.44

2,3,5

3.93

0.33

2,3,5

(5) Strongly Agree

4.22

0.45

2,3,4

4.32

0.47

2,3,4

4.52

0.41

2,3,4

4.29

0.37

2,3,4

4.24

0.42

2,3,4

3.98

0.39

2,3,4

4.17

0.54

2,3,4

4.03

0.46

2,3,4

4.19

0.32

2,3,4

4.29

0.68

4.25

0.70

4.03

0.63

4.09

0.62

3.83

0.52

4.01

0.67

3.76

0.64

3.99

0.55

3.97

0.52

4.09

0.52

4,5

3.88

0.48

4,5

3.85

0.49

2,4,5

3.70

0.45

3.74

0.59

3.65

0.49

4,5

3.81

0.41

4,5

4.07

0.47

4.21

0.44

4.03

0.41

4.00

0.43

3.78

0.40

3.89

0.57

3.77

0.44

3.93

0.37

4.09

0.49

4.30

0.46

4.03

0.43

3.99

0.44

3.86

0.44

3.76

0.59

3.83

0.51

3.95

0.37

Discriminatory Climate (1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree

3.86

0.72

(3) Neutral

3.76

0.48

(4) Agree

3.88

0.50

(5) Strongly Agree

3.95

0.52

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

(1) Never

(2) Once

3.87

0.46

(3) Sometimes

3.89

0.50

(4) Often

4.09

0.52

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

4.06

0.49

4.17

0.49

4.07

0.50

4.23

2,3

4.26

0.52

4.47

Sig

Collaboration M

4.02

0.48

0.45

4.02

0.45

2,3

4.21

Sig

Common Purpose M

3.95

0.45

0.44

3.99

0.42

2,3

4.16

Controversy with Civility

Sig

3.78

0.46

0.44

3.78

0.45

2,3

3.97

Sig

Citizenship Sig

Change

3.76

0.66

3.79

0.49

0.41

3.88

0.55

3.79

0.47

2,3

4.12

0.53

2,3

3.99

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

3.90

0.40

0.47

3.93

0.38

0.44

2,3

4.13

0.37

2,3

Mentor Relationships Faculty/Instructor 4

Student Affairs Professional Staff (1) Never

(2) Once

3.90

0.49

4.11

0.45

4.27

0.47

4.06

0.42

4.10

0.41

3.74

0.37

3.96

0.56

3.77

0.46

3.96

0.35

(3) Sometimes

3.86

0.51

4.08

0.51

4.20

0.49

4.01

0.41

3.98

0.46

3.79

0.45

3.93

0.57

3.76

0.45

3.93

0.40

(4) Often

4.10

0.64

4.35

0.53

4.49

0.38

4.31

0.48

2,3

4.30

0.46

4.05

0.50

2,3

4.32

0.58

2,3

4.05

0.48

2,3

4.22

0.41

2,3

(1) Never

(2) Once

3.90

0.37

4.01

0.42

4.24

0.39

4.09

0.40

3.99

0.44

3.81

0.42

3.93

0.50

3.83

0.47

3.95

0.33

Employer 4

(3) Sometimes

3.93

0.50

4.07

0.49

4.17

0.50

4.00

0.42

3.97

0.47

3.78

0.40

3.90

0.55

3.77

0.47

3.93

0.40

(4) Often

4.00

0.58

4.31

0.47

2,3

4.42

0.41

4.32

0.46

2,3

4.29

0.44

2,3

3.92

0.55

4.18

0.67

3.97

0.49

4.15

0.43

Community Member (1) Never

(2) Once

4.04

0.36

4.17

0.37

4.27

0.40

4.12

0.36

4.03

0.41

3.93

0.38

4.07

0.45

3.93

0.42

4.05

0.32

(3) Sometimes

3.83

0.57

4.05

0.54

4.23

0.51

3.99

0.40

4.02

0.47

3.82

0.41

4.01

0.52

3.85

0.48

3.96

0.39

(4) Often

3.98

0.55

4.29

0.52

4.38

0.42

4.28

0.43

4.25

0.44

3.99

0.41

4.29

0.49

3.95

0.48

4.16

0.35

Parent/Guardian (1) Never (2) Once

3.71

0.46

3.92

0.38

4.07

0.38

3.89

0.45

3.85

0.42

3.80

0.51

3.74

0.65

3.71

0.55

3.82

0.42

(3) Sometimes

3.81

0.48

4.00

0.47

4.13

0.45

4.00

0.42

3.95

0.44

3.73

0.38

3.81

0.57

3.70

0.41

3.87

0.36

(4) Often

3.98

0.51

4.16

0.47

4.29

0.47

4.07

0.44

4.05

0.46

3.81

0.43

3.93

0.56

3.82

0.48

3.99

0.39

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

3.91

0.44

Sig

Commitment M

. 4

4.13

Sig

Collaboration M

0.48

Sig

Common Purpose M

4.01

0.39

Controversy with Civility

Sig

3.93

0.38

3.81

Sig

Citizenship M

0.45

Sig

Change M

3.89

0.49

3.68

Omnibus SRLS Sig

0.48

3.87

0.34

Sig

Mentor Relationships (continued) Other Student (1) Never

(2) Once

3.72

0.39

(3) Sometimes

3.82

0.50

4.06

0.51

4.20

0.47

4.01

0.42

3.96

0.42

3.77

0.41

3.85

0.57

3.75

0.46

3.90

0.38

(4) Often

4.01

0.53

2,3

4.19

0.47

2,3

4.33

0.46

4.11

0.43

4.13

0.43

3.88

0.43

4.02

0.53

3.88

0.48

4.04

0.37

4.04

0.40

3.89

0.38

4.04

0.52

3.81

0.42

3.98

0.34

3.97

0.52

3.71

0.40

4.00

0.59

3.75

0.53

3.92

0.44

4.14

0.39

3.86

0.39

4.10

0.51

3.91

0.44

4.26

0.57

3.99

0.53

4.33

0.63

4.11

0.42

3.84

0.39

3.77

0.34

Formal Leadership Training Experience Leadership Conference (1) Never

3.91

0.49

4.00

0.48

4.17

0.46

4.07

0.35

(2) Once

3.96

0.45

4.04

0.50

4.14

0.52

3.96

0.51

(3) Sometimes

3.97

0.47

4.20

0.53

4.32

0.47

4.13

0.40

(4) Often

4.13

0.49

4.44

0.41

1,2

4.50

0.44

1,2

4.34

0.59

(1) Never

3.92

0.45

4.03

0.47

4.22

0.45

4.04

0.40

4.03

0.41

(2) Once

3.97

0.47

4.07

0.51

4.17

0.47

4.06

0.41

4.07

0.44

(3) Sometimes

3.92

0.49

4.08

0.54

4.21

0.53

4.03

0.53

4.00

0.53

3.82

0.44

(4) Often

4.12

0.52

4.39

0.45

1,2,3

4.41

0.49

4.36

0.35

1,2,3

4.33

0.33

1,3

4.03

0.49

3.76

0.38

3.82

0.36

4.06

0.35

4.24

0.42

1,2

Leadership Retreat 4

4.04

0.51

3.79

0.46

3.97

0.34

4.03

0.50

3.82

0.45

3.98

0.37

4.00

0.63

3.81

0.49

3.96

0.43

4.39

0.45

1,2,3

4.10

0.41

1,2,3

4.25

0.35

1,2,3

3.92

0.55

3.78

0.47

3.92

0.34

4.12

0.47

3.79

0.44

3.99

0.34

3.97

0.42

1,2

4.29

0.36

1,2,3

Leadership Lecture/Workshop Series (1) Never

3.89

0.44

4.03

0.45

4.15

0.47

4.01

0.43

3.99

0.44

(2) Once

3.94

0.46

4.04

0.50

4.22

0.40

4.08

0.36

4.07

0.36

(3) Sometimes

3.90

0.47

4.06

0.55

4.18

0.55

4.00

0.50

4.04

0.53

(4) Often

4.29

0.50

1,2,3

4.49

0.38

1,2,3

4.54

0.43

1,2,3

4.41

0.38

1,2,3

4.28

0.41

3.84

0.42

4.05

0.49

4.02

0.58

3.85

0.48

4.41

0.49

1,3

4.07

0.44

Positional Leader Training (1) Never

3.93

0.45

4.00

0.47

4.19

0.42

4.03

0.44

4.04

0.43

3.85

0.36

4.02

0.48

3.81

0.42

3.97

0.34

(2) Once

3.88

0.42

4.07

0.47

4.14

0.41

3.93

0.32

3,4

4.01

0.40

3.75

0.38

3.97

0.51

3.76

0.48

3.92

0.33

(3) Sometimes

3.99

0.49

4.20

0.54

4.30

0.56

4.19

0.47

4.11

0.50

3.86

0.40

4.12

0.62

3.90

0.47

4.06

0.41

(4) Often

4.10

0.57

4.24

0.56

4.32

0.60

4.24

0.50

4.16

0.54

3.92

0.57

4.25

0.65

3.96

0.55

4.13

0.49

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Formal Leadership Training Experience (continued) Leadership Course (1) Never

3.98

0.46

4.09

0.52

4.25

0.48

4.09

0.46

4.07

0.47

3.89

0.42

4.09

0.57

3.86

0.45

4.02

0.38

(2) Once

3.89

0.48

4.06

0.49

4.15

0.48

3.96

0.33

4.03

0.39

3.74

0.35

3.95

0.50

3.77

0.45

3.92

0.36

(3) Sometimes

3.97

0.52

4.14

0.55

4.26

0.54

4.17

0.53

4.09

0.52

3.87

0.44

4.15

0.58

3.85

0.52

4.04

0.43

4.08

0.49

4.25

0.44

4.09

0.43

4.08

0.42

3.86

0.41

4.06

0.54

3.86

0.45

4.02

0.36

4.24

0.39

4.26

0.49

4.17

0.40

4.12

0.37

3.87

0.29

4.18

0.46

3.83

0.46

4.06

0.32

3.97

0.69

3.95

0.68

3.85

0.61

3.86

0.64

3.65

0.43

3.89

0.68

3.70

0.49

3.80

0.54

(4) Often Short-Term Service Immersion (1) Never

4.01

0.47

(2) Once

3.97

0.40

(3) Sometimes

3.64

0.51

(4) Often

Emerging or New leaders Program (1) Never

3.98

0.47

4.09

0.49

4.24

0.45

4.08

0.44

4.07

0.44

3.85

0.41

4.06

0.55

3.85

0.46

4.01

0.38

(2) Once

3.95

0.44

4.21

0.46

4.26

0.47

4.05

0.38

4.10

0.34

3.95

0.36

4.18

0.42

3.84

0.45

4.05

0.29

(3) Sometimes

3.79

0.57

3.93

0.61

4.09

0.67

4.03

0.54

3.94

0.62

3.67

0.39

3.93

0.63

3.81

0.52

3.88

0.50

(4) Often

Living-Learning Leadership Program (1) Never

3.99

0.46

4.12

0.48

4.26

0.45

4.11

0.42

4.09

0.43

3.87

0.39

4.08

0.52

3.86

0.45

4.03

0.36

(2) Once

3.73

0.48

4.05

0.67

4.20

0.59

3.97

0.47

4.03

0.53

3.76

0.46

4.07

0.63

3.71

0.54

3.92

0.45

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

3.97

0.45

4.07

0.48

4.24

0.45

4.08

0.43

4.07

0.43

3.86

0.39

4.06

0.51

3.84

0.44

4.01

0.35

(2) Once

3.91

0.59

4.29

0.56

4.31

0.49

4.06

0.38

4.07

0.47

3.78

0.41

4.14

0.50

3.85

0.61

4.03

0.40

(3) Sometimes

3.89

0.63

4.11

0.64

4.05

0.63

4.06

0.59

3.95

0.55

3.78

0.46

4.04

0.75

3.86

0.52

3.95

0.55

Peer Leadership Educator Program (1) Never

(4) Often

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes Consciousness of Self

University of California, Berkeley

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Formal Leadership Training Experience (continued) Outdoor Leadership Program (1) Never

4.01

0.45

4.13

0.48

4.28

0.44

4.11

0.43

4.10

0.42

3.88

0.39

4.11

0.52

3.87

0.43

4.04

0.35

(2) Once

3.66

0.58

4.02

0.64

4.03

0.59

4.04

0.44

3.97

0.58

3.71

0.40

3.95

0.64

3.64

0.60

3.86

0.47

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

(1) Never

3.98

0.46

4.10

0.49

4.24

0.44

4.09

0.43

4.08

0.42

3.86

0.38

4.08

0.52

3.85

0.45

4.02

0.35

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Leadership Program

Multicultural Leadership Program (1) Never

3.96

0.45

4.10

0.48

4.24

0.43

4.09

0.41

4.08

0.43

3.85

0.37

4.08

0.53

3.86

0.46

4.01

0.35

(2) Once

3.94

0.51

3.97

0.59

4.17

0.57

3.94

0.48

3.95

0.45

3.81

0.52

3.93

0.45

3.70

0.52

3.91

0.44

(3) Sometimes

4.00

0.70

4.25

0.61

4.19

0.76

4.11

0.65

4.09

0.58

3.89

0.53

4.15

0.75

3.86

0.42

4.05

0.56

(4) Often

Formal Leadership Training Education Leadership Certificate Program (1) Yes

3.92

0.58

4.13

0.58

4.26

0.61

4.08

0.58

4.04

0.62

3.80

0.49

4.11

0.67

3.91

0.55

4.01

0.49

(2) No

3.97

0.46

4.10

0.49

4.23

0.45

4.09

0.42

4.08

0.41

3.86

0.38

4.07

0.52

3.84

0.44

4.01

0.36

Leadership Capstone Experience (1) Yes

3.89

0.52

3.96

0.59

4.22

0.65

3.95

0.69

3.87

0.71

3.79

0.57

3.96

0.79

3.81

0.59

3.91

0.56

(2) No

3.97

0.47

4.11

0.49

4.23

0.46

4.09

0.42

4.09

0.42

3.85

0.38

4.09

0.52

3.85

0.45

4.02

0.36

(1) Yes

3.80

0.46

3.86

0.54

4.07

0.57

3.90

0.61

3.77

0.57

3.66

0.49

3.86

0.66

3.67

0.58

3.80

0.47

(2) No

3.98

0.48

4.13

0.49

4.25

0.46

4.10

0.42

4.10

0.42

3.87

0.38

4.10

0.52

3.86

0.44

4.03

0.36

Leadership Minor

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Formal Leadership Training Education (continued) Leadership Major (1) Yes

3.80

0.52

3.80

0.53

4.05

0.61

3.78

0.62

3.67

0.60

3.65

0.55

3.75

0.69

3.69

0.54

3.76

0.49

(2) No

3.97

0.47

4.12

0.50

4.24

0.48

4.10

0.43

4.09

0.43

3.85

0.40

4.09

0.53

3.85

0.46

4.02

0.37

Academic College Experiences Study Abroad (1) Yes

3.98

0.52

4.15

0.45

4.28

0.45

4.09

0.46

4.01

0.46

3.88

0.44

3.98

0.53

3.80

0.48

4.00

0.39

(2) No

3.85

0.51

4.05

0.51

4.19

0.48

3.98

0.45

3.96

0.46

3.76

0.43

3.81

0.59

3.75

0.48

3.89

0.39

(1) Yes

3.92

0.50

4.08

0.49

4.24

0.49

4.05

0.45

4.03

0.46

3.82

0.43

3.94

0.58

3.80

0.47

3.96

0.39

(2) No

3.81

0.53

4.04

0.51

4.17

0.47

3.94

0.45

3.91

0.45

3.74

0.43

3.72

0.57

3.71

0.49

3.85

0.39

Experienced Internship

Learning Community Participant (1) Yes

3.86

0.50

4.12

0.54

4.21

0.43

4.09

0.48

4.10

0.50

3.80

0.39

4.02

0.57

3.82

0.51

3.98

0.40

(2) No

3.87

0.52

4.05

0.50

4.20

0.49

3.98

0.45

3.95

0.45

3.78

0.44

3.80

0.58

3.75

0.48

3.90

0.39

(1) Yes

3.72

0.54

4.05

0.51

4.14

0.46

3.98

0.39

3.98

0.42

3.87

0.42

3.95

0.56

3.73

0.48

3.91

0.36

(2) No

3.88

0.51

4.06

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.77

0.43

3.82

0.59

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.39

Living-Learning Program

Research with a Faculty Member (1) Yes

3.90

0.52

4.09

0.53

4.22

0.53

4.05

0.47

4.01

0.50

3.84

0.48

3.94

0.59

3.81

0.50

3.96

0.44

(2) No

3.85

0.51

4.05

0.49

4.20

0.46

3.98

0.44

3.95

0.45

3.76

0.41

3.79

0.58

3.74

0.48

3.89

0.38

First-Year or Freshman Seminar Course (1) Yes

3.84

0.51

4.06

0.47

4.21

0.44

4.00

0.42

3.97

0.42

3.75

0.40

3.84

0.57

3.73

0.48

3.90

0.37

(2) No

3.89

0.52

4.06

0.53

4.20

0.51

3.99

0.47

3.96

0.49

3.80

0.46

3.82

0.60

3.78

0.48

3.91

0.41

(1) Yes

4.04

0.53

4.22

0.49

4.38

0.48

4.13

0.45

4.09

0.51

4.01

0.49

3.94

0.68

3.91

0.52

4.06

0.43

(2) No

3.84

0.51

4.04

0.50

4.18

0.47

3.97

0.45

3.95

0.45

3.75

0.41

3.81

0.57

3.73

0.47

3.88

0.38

Senior Capstone Participant

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

(1) Yes

(2) No

Sig

Congruence M

3.87

0.51

(1) Yes

3.89

(2) No

Sig

Commitment M

4.07

0.50

0.61

3.81

3.87

0.51

(1) Yes

3.83

(2) No

Sig

Collaboration M

4.21

0.48

0.57

4.12

4.07

0.49

0.46

4.07

3.88

0.52

(1) Yes

3.84

(2) No

Sig

Common Purpose M

4.00

0.45

0.62

3.89

4.21

0.48

0.49

4.20

4.07

0.50

0.51

4.09

3.87

0.51

(1) Yes

4.24

0.48

(2) No

3.86

0.51

Controversy with Civility

Sig

3.97

0.46

0.54

3.91

4.00

0.45

0.44

4.05

4.21

0.49

0.59

4.22

4.07

0.49

4.21

4.31

0.44

4.34

4.06

0.50

4.20

Sig

Citizenship M

3.79

0.43

0.53

3.93

3.97

0.46

0.43

4.01

3.99

0.45

0.55

3.87

0.48

Sig

Change M

3.83

0.58

0.42

3.88

3.78

0.43

0.44

3.76

3.97

0.46

0.43

3.97

4.01

0.45

3.97

0.46

4.03

0.60

0.48

4.00

0.45

Omnibus SRLS Sig

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

0.66

3.95

0.54

3.92

0.50

3.84

0.58

3.75

0.48

3.91

0.39

0.40

3.88

0.57

3.68

0.44

3.91

0.37

3.79

0.44

3.83

0.59

3.77

0.49

3.91

0.40

0.47

3.66

0.49

3.76

0.58

3.71

0.47

3.86

0.41

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.92

0.39

4.15

0.57

3.76

0.44

3.98

0.65

3.89

0.41

4.05

0.41

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.83

0.58

3.75

0.49

3.91

0.39

Sig

Academic Major Agriculture

Architecture/Urban Planning

Biological/Life Sciences

Business

Communication

Computer and Information Sciences (1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

Education (1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.76

0.49

4.05

0.46

4.13

0.47

3.96

0.41

3.96

0.46

3.69

0.44

3.67

0.55

3.71

0.47

3.84

0.38

(2) No

3.89

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.22

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.98

0.46

3.80

0.43

3.86

0.59

3.77

0.49

3.92

0.39

Engineering

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship M

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Academic Major (continued) Ethnics, Cultural Studies, and Area Studies (1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.83

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

Foreign Languages and Literature (1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.58

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.78

0.41

3.90

0.48

3.97

0.54

3.86

0.51

3.83

0.50

3.61

0.37

3.82

0.60

3.45

0.42

3.76

0.41

(2) No

3.87

0.52

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.98

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.77

0.49

3.92

0.39

(1) Yes

3.88

0.56

4.09

0.51

4.31

0.43

3.98

0.43

3.91

0.46

3.91

0.42

3.83

0.56

3.82

0.52

3.94

0.38

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.06

0.50

4.20

0.49

4.00

0.45

3.98

0.46

3.77

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.75

0.48

3.91

0.40

Health-Related Fields

Humanities

Liberal/General Studies (1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.81

0.50

4.13

0.40

4.19

0.46

3.99

0.34

3.99

0.39

3.87

0.49

3.75

0.61

3.79

0.52

3.92

0.30

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.84

0.58

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.40

Mathematics

Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies (1) Yes

4.04

0.51

4.31

0.43

4.46

0.40

4.26

0.39

4.25

0.42

3.91

0.45

4.26

0.61

4.03

0.49

4.17

0.38

(2) No

3.86

0.51

4.06

0.50

4.20

0.48

3.98

0.45

3.96

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.82

0.58

3.74

0.48

3.90

0.39

Parks, Recreation, Leisure Studies, Sports Management (1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

Physical Sciences (1) Yes

3.87

0.67

4.11

0.59

4.12

0.61

4.02

0.54

3.92

0.49

3.81

0.44

3.80

0.57

3.76

0.57

3.90

0.48

(2) No

3.87

0.50

4.07

0.49

4.21

0.47

4.00

0.44

3.98

0.46

3.78

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.48

3.91

0.39

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Environments by Outcome Measures - SCM Leadership Outcomes University of California, Berkeley

Consciousness of Self M

Sig

Congruence M

Sig

Commitment M

Sig

Collaboration M

Sig

Common Purpose M

Controversy with Civility

Sig

Citizenship

Sig

Change M

Omnibus SRLS Sig

Sig

Academic Major (continued) Pre-Professional (1) Yes

3.65

0.49

3.93

0.49

4.08

0.54

3.87

0.47

3.90

0.47

3.58

0.41

3.84

0.55

3.64

0.44

3.79

0.43

(2) No

3.88

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.98

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.92

0.39

(1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.59

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.95

0.45

4.04

0.48

4.24

0.46

4.02

0.46

3.94

0.47

3.83

0.42

3.86

0.58

3.78

0.49

3.94

0.38

(2) No

3.85

0.53

4.07

0.50

4.20

0.49

3.99

0.45

3.98

0.46

3.77

0.43

3.83

0.59

3.75

0.49

3.90

0.40

(1) Yes

(2) No

3.87

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.58

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

(1) Yes

3.60

0.60

3.89

0.48

4.05

0.49

3.93

0.43

3.97

0.43

3.67

0.47

3.67

0.62

3.60

0.46

3.77

0.42

(2) No

3.88

0.51

4.07

0.50

4.21

0.48

4.00

0.45

3.97

0.46

3.79

0.43

3.84

0.58

3.76

0.49

3.91

0.39

Public Administration

Social Sciences

Visual and Performing Arts

Undecided

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Sub-Study Outcome Measure Scores and Comparisons MSL National Sample

University of California, Berkeley

Sig Effect

Size Peers: Large M

Sig

Effect

Control Peers: Public

Mentoring Outcomes: Leadership Empowerment

3.65

1.49

3.74

1.39

3.70

1.37

3.69

Mentoring Outcomes: Personal Development

3.94

1.11

4.10

1.00

4.07

1.00

4.07

Sig Effect

Carnegie Peers: Very High Research M

1.40

3.69

1.02

Sig Effect

Selectivity Peers: Most Competitive M

1.37

3.65

1.38

4.06

0.99

4.04

0.97

2.59

1.31

2.54

1.33

3.69

1.01

3.68

1.00

Sig Effect

Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Scored on a 4-point scale ranging from Never (1) to Very Often (4) Spirituality: Search for Meaning

2.59

1.33

2.60

1.32

2.60

1.32

2.58

1.33

Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Does Not Describe Me Well (1) to Describes Me Very Well (5) Social Perspective-Taking

3.67

1.00

3.71

1.01

3.71

1.01

3.72

1.01

Scored on a 7-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7) Private Collection Racial Esteem

5.38

1.85

5.53

1.80

5.56

1.81

5.55

1.81

5.53

1.81

5.47

1.80

Public Collective Racial Esteem

4.69

2.12

5.01

1.90

4.98

1.93

4.97

1.90

5.01

1.93

5.04

1.95

Membership Collective Racial Esteem

4.89

1.77

5.09

1.69

5.12

1.69

5.10

1.70

5.11

1.69

5.06

1.73

Importance to Identity

4.02

2.53

3.57

2.32

3.60

2.31

3.59

2.30

3.57

2.36

3.47

2.45

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

132

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Student Characteristics

Gender

Student Characteristics

Transfer Status

(1) Female

475

(1) Non-Transfer Student

607

(2) Male

269

(2) Transfer Student

162

Race

Enrollment Status

(1) White

243

(1) Full-Time

753

(2) Middle Eastern

(2) Part-Time

(3) African American/Black

(4) American Indian

Political Views

(1) Very Liberal

(5) Asian American

318

(2) Liberal

345

(6) Latino

(3) Moderate

247

(7) Multiracial

(4) Conservative

(8) Not Included

Class Standing

(5) Very Conservative

GPA Estimate

(1) First-Year

167

(1) 3.50 - 4.00

(2) Sophomore

165

(2) 3.00 - 3.49

291

(3) Junior

211

(3) 2.50 - 2.99

102

(4) Senior

215

(4) 2.00 - 2.49

(5) 1.99 or less

(6) No college GPA

Sexual Orientation (1) Heterosexual

646

(2) Bisexual, Gay/ Lesbian, Questioning

(3) Rather Not Say

Age (1) Traditional (Under 24)

683

(2) Non-Traditional (24 or Older)

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

337

Educational Generation Status (1) First Generation

118

(2) Non-First Generation

619

Disability Status (1) Reported Disability

(2) No Reported Disability

661

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

133

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Comparative Data Student Characteristics

Gender

Student Characteristics

Transfer Status

(1) Female

(1) Non-Transfer Student

(2) Male

(2) Transfer Student

Race

95 .

Enrollment Status

(1) White

(1) Full-Time

(2) Middle Eastern

(2) Part-Time

(3) African American/Black

(4) American Indian (5) Asian American

Political Views (1) Very Liberal

(2) Liberal

(6) Latino

(3) Moderate

(7) Multiracial

(4) Conservative

(8) Not Included

(5) Very Conservative

Class Standing

GPA Estimate

(1) First-Year (2) Sophomore

(1) 3.50 - 4.00

(2) 3.00 - 3.49

(3) Junior

(3) 2.50 - 2.99

(4) Senior

(4) 2.00 - 2.49

(5) 1.99 or less

(6) No college GPA

Sexual Orientation (1) Heterosexual (2) Bisexual, Gay/ Lesbian, Questioning

87 .

(3) Rather Not Say

(1) First Generation

Age (1) Traditional (Under 24) (2) Non-Traditional (24 or Older)

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Educational Generation Status (2) Non-First Generation

94 .

. 81

Disability Status (1) Reported Disability

(2) No Reported Disability

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

134

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Student Characteristics

Off-Campus Job

Student Characteristics

Involvement in Off-Campus Organizations

(1) Yes

137

(1) Never

(2) No

632

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

124

On-Campus Job

458

(1) Yes

201

(4) Many times

(2) No

568

(5) Much of the time

Leadership Positions in Off-Campus Organizations

Community Service (1) Yes

351

(1) Never

582

(2) No

418

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

(4) Many times

(5) Much of the time

Residential Setting (1) Off-Campus

482

(2) On-Campus

265

Involvement in College Organizations (1) Never

103

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

223

(4) Many times

156

(5) Much of the time

211

Leadership Positions in College Organizations (1) Never

359

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

128

(4) Many times

(5) Much of the time

121

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

135

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Student Characteristics

Student Characteristics New Student Transition

Participation in Student Groups Academic/Professional

(1) Yes

99 668

(1) Yes

292

(2) No

475

Resident Assistants

Art/Theatre/Music

(1) Yes

38 729

(1) Yes

146

(2) No

621

Peer Helper

Campus-Wide Programming

(1) Yes

130 637

(1) Yes

(2) No

672

Advocacy

Identity Based

(1) Yes

101 666

(1) Yes

229

(2) No

538

Political

International Interest

(1) Yes

93 673

(1) Yes

122

(2) No

645

Religious

Honor Societies

(1) Yes

144 623

(1) Yes

126

(2) No

640

Service

Media

(1) Yes

206 561

(1) Yes

(2) No

703

Multi-Cultural Fraternities and Sororities

Military (1) Yes

(2) No

751

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

(1) Yes

(2) No

732

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

136

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Student Characteristics

Participation in Student Groups (continued)

Student Characteristics

Social-Cultural Discussions

Social Fraternities or Sororities

(1) Never

(1) Yes

105

(2) Sometimes

165

(2) No

662

(3) Often

365

(4) Very Often

231

Sports-Intercollegiate or Varsity (1) Yes

(2) No

Campus Climate

733

Belonging Climate

Sports-Club

(1) Strongly Disagree

(1) Yes

(2) Disagree

(2) No

670

(3) Neutral

179

Sports-Intramural

(4) Agree

392

(1) Yes

175

(5) Strongly Agree

127

(2) No

592

Discriminatory Climate

Recreational

(1) Strongly Disagree

(1) Yes

159

(2) Disagree

(2) No

607

(3) Neutral

179

(4) Agree

343

(5) Strongly Agree

188

Social/Special Interest (1) Yes

131

(2) No

636

Student Governance (1) Yes

103

(2) No

663

Social Change Behaviors (1) Never

(2) Once

290

(3) Sometimes

296

(4) Often

134

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mentor Relationships Faculty/Instructor (1) Never

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

239

(4) Often

104

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

137

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Student Characteristics

Mentor Relationships (continued)

Student Characteristics

Formal Leadership Training Experience

Student Affairs Professional Staff

Leadership Conference

(1) Never

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

139

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

Employer (1) Never

Leadership Retreat .

(1) Never

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

133

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

Community Member

Leadership Lecture/Workshop Series

(1) Never

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

Parent/Guardian (1) Never

Positional Leader Training .

(1) Never

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

156

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

310

(4) Often

Other Student

Leadership Course

(1) Never

125

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

211

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

255

(4) Often

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

138

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Student Characteristics

Student Characteristics

Outdoor Leadership Program

Formal Leadership Training Experience (continued) Short-Term Service Immersion

(1) Never

188

(1) Never

163

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Leadership Program

Emerging or New leaders Program

(1) Never

192

(2) Once

(1) Never

160

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

(4) Often

(1) Never

171

184

(2) Once

(3) Sometimes

Living-Learning Leadership Program (1) Never (2) Once (3) Sometimes

(4) Often

Peer Leadership Educator Program (1) Never

Multicultural Leadership Program

(4) Often

Formal Leadership Training Education Leadership Certificate Program

170

(1) Yes

(2) Once

(2) No

186

(3) Sometimes

Leadership Capstone Experience

(4) Often

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

(1) Yes

(2) No

200

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

139

WELCOME

USING THIS REPORT

DATA USE

STUDY OVERVIEW

PSYCHOMETRICS

SCHOOLS

DATA TABLES Spring 2009

Respondent Distributions Across Variables University of California, Berkeley Student Characteristics

Student Characteristics

First-Year or Freshman Seminar Course

Formal Leadership Training Education (continued) Leadership Minor

(1) Yes

366 401

(1) Yes

(2) No

196

Senior Capstone Participant

Leadership Major (1) Yes

(2) No

202

(1) Yes

(2) No

679

Academic Major Agriculture

Academic College Experiences Study Abroad

(1) Yes

101

(2) No

747

(2) No

667

Architecture/Urban Planning (1) Yes

367

(2) No

729

401

Biological/Life Sciences

Experienced Internship (1) Yes (2) No

(1) Yes

108

(2) No

640

679

Business

Learning Community Participant (1) Yes (2) No Living-Learning Program

(1) Yes

42 706

(1) Yes

(2) No

726

Communication

Research with a Faculty Member (1) Yes

181

(2) No

587

<< BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

(1) Yes

(2) No

729

2009 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP

140