UCB Dean of Students Annual Report 2010-11

UC BERKELEY

DEAN OF STUDENTS

ANNUAL REPORT

2010-2011

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER C E N T ER FOR STUDENT COND U C T CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEAN OF STUDENTS OFFICE STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES STUDENT LIFE BUSINESS OPERATIONS

DEAN OF STUDENTS 2010‐11 ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW, MISSION, VISION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 A NOTE ABOUT STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT REPORTING ........................... 2 CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER ............................................................................................................................ 4 ALTERNATIVE BREAKS ............................................................................................................................................... 6 BONNER LEADERS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 11 CENTER FOR STUDENT LEADERSHIP ........................................................................................................................... 14 THE CAL LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE ............................................................................................................................ 15 CALGREEKS NEW MEMBER CAMP .......................................................................................................................... 19 FUTURE LEADERS PROGRAM 2009‐2011 ................................................................................................................ 21 CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS ........................................................................... 24 CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 25 STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 29 STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 30

APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D:

APPENDICES DOS AREA‐WIDE LEARNING OUTCOMES OVERVIEW OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES (COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS) WITH RELATED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME LANGUAGE OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF UC BERKELEY2011 RESULTS FOR MULTI‐INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP (MSL)

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

OVERVIEW, MISSION, VISION The Dean of Students (DOS) portfolio was comprised of these units in 2010‐11:

 Cal Corps Public Service Center  Dean of Students Office  Center for Student Conduct and  Center for Student Leadership Community Standards o Leadership Development o Student Involvement  Student Legal Services o Fraternity & Sorority Life  Student Life Business Operations

This report contains program overviews and highlights for the student development components of DOS in 2010‐ 11, with detailed analysis of programs in which professional staff conducted assessment of student learning outcomes.

MISSION

DOS GUIDES THE LEARNING JOURNEY OF STUDENTS AS THEY EXPLORE LEADERSHIP AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

VISION

DOS WILL BE THE BERKELEY CAMPUS EXPERT AND HUB FOR TRANSFORMATIONAL STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 1

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

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 by DOS 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, 2009, and 2011, 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 and administered using the surveying system of the Office of Student Research. 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 10‐11 (1) Bonner Pre‐Assessment

4.48 4.44

4.29 4.28 SRLS scores scaled along “y” axis

3.81

3.98

4.06

3.87

Consciousness of Self

(2) Bonner Post‐Assessment

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 Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 2

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

groups. The analysis of learning outcomes is guided by rubrics, which identify three levels of accomplishment for each learning outcome: Emerging (beginning ), Developed (intermediate), and Accomplished (advanced).

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 2009‐2011.1 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, 2009, and 2011. 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: DOS AREA‐WIDE LEARNING OUTCOMES APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES (COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS) WITH RELATED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME LANGUAGE APPENDIX C: OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX D: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF UC BERKELEY2011 RESULTS FOR MULTI‐INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP (MSL)

1

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

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 3

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER OVERVIEW Mission: To connect people, ideas, and resources to act for social justice, build healthy communities, and foster life‐long commitments to public service.

Eighty‐five student staff manage most Cal Corps programs and partnerships with training and advising provided by ten Cal Corps career staff. In 2010‐11, Cal Corps programs engaged 5,956 students, served 256 community organizations, and partnered with more than 20 units across campus. The Center operates on a $1,800,000 budget that is supported by funds from the University, fee‐for‐service income, city and school district contracts, grants, $400,000 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) Shinnyo Fellows Program Student‐initiated Community Projects Students 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 Magnolia Project Summer Service Trip Oakland Community Builders Internship Program American Cultures Engaged Scholarship Program (ACES) Magnolia Project Exchange Program with UNO Faculty Support Services Volunteer Advising and Placement Berkeley United in Literacy Development (BUILD) Creative Residencies for Emerging Artists Teaching Empowerment (CREATE) Greening Berkeley Initiative Destination College AmeriCorps Program Residential Service Initiative Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program (VITA) Leadership and Social Justice Regional Conference Student Leaders in Service Orientation MLK Day of Service Poverty and Homelessness Conference Soul Food for the Activist: Sustaining Ourselves for a Lifetime of Service Retreat Poverty and Homelessness Symposium Chancellor’s Awards for Public Service Peace Corps 50th Anniversary ACES Faculty Institute

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 4

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

CAL CORPS PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER (Continued)

2010‐11 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS    

 

The total estimated students impacted by Cal Corps programs was 5,956 students who provided approximately 298,902 hours of service with an approximate economic impact of $6.2 million.

Provided more than 19,000 hours of leadership development to almost 150 student leaders.

With funding from the VC matched by external funding, the Center created two new staff positions: an Internship Programs Coordinator (Magnolia Project, Cal in the Capital and Cal in Local Government) and a Program Manager for Faculty and Graduate Students.

The Center is launching a new Shinnyo‐en Peacebuilding Leadership Program for student leaders in collaboration with the Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS) Department. This program was funded by a $100,000 grant from the Shinnyo‐en Foundation. Student leaders will take a PACS course to explore how to deepen their service, and can then apply for a mini‐grant of up to $2,500 to carry out their project.

Cal Corps’ Volunteer in Tax Assistance (VITA) Program, in only its second year, recruited 62 volunteers who served 2,904 hours and saved local communities $1 million.

The Magnolia Project successfully coordinated its first semester exchange program with The University of New Orleans, with four UNO students studying and interning in the Bay Area.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 5

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

ALTERNATIVE BREAKS PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: The Alternative Breaks program supports 17 student Break Leaders (including two former Break Leaders that piloted a winter break trip) to co‐plan 10 weeklong service‐learning trips for groups of 12 Cal students during the academically scheduled Spring Break. 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 2010‐2011, 17 Break Leaders led 10 trips for 97 trip participants‐‐providing a total of 3162 service hours to communities outside the Bay Area, while engaging in 2,697 hours of education and 1,620 hours of reflection. The 17 break leaders were supported by Cal Corps Professional Staff and four student directors who served as AmeriCorps Bonner leaders.

Break Leader Student Learning Outcomes: 1. Break Leaders will be able to lead their participants in a memorable, safe, and fun service‐learning trip  Practice risk management techniques  Cultivate relationships and leadership within a group  Apply reflection techniques 2. Break Leaders will 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

Break Participant Student Learning Outcomes: 1. Examine their beliefs and assumptions concerning the break topic 2. Engage and exchange ideas to gain a deeper understanding about a particular social issue and geographic area 3. Apply the service trip social issues to a local (Bay Area) context 4. Build friendships

Cal Corps staff and the four Alternative Breaks Directors evaluated the effectiveness of the Alternative Breaks program by using a “360‐degree” assessment which measured the growth of both Break Leaders and Break Participants. However, Break Leaders are the guiding focus of this assessment report. The data collection points are as follows:  Break Leaders: 1) Pre‐and‐post surveys including items from the Social Change Model’s Socially Responsible Leadership Scale, as well as separate items designed to measure center‐wide student learning outcomes. 2) Break participant evaluations including the four student learning outcomes for participants. 3) Co‐leader evaluations. 4) Community partner evaluations.  Break Participants: Pre‐and‐post surveys including items from the Social Change Model’s Socially Responsible Leadership Scale, as well as separate items designed to measure Student Learning Outcomes related to Break Leader performance.

BREAK LEADER LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT BREAK LEADER LEARNING OUTCOME #1 –BREAK LEADERS WILL LEAD THEIR PEERS IN A MEMORABLE, SAFE, AND FUN SERVICE‐LEARNING TRIP With regard to the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS), a pre‐assessment SCM average for Citizenship of 4.48 and a post‐test average of 4.56, the gains according to this measure are practically negligible, though both pre‐ and post‐assessment are far above the campus average of 3.83.

As defined by the Break Leader Student Learning Outcomes matrix designed by Cal Corps staff, this learning outcome involves Break Leaders practicing risk management techniques; cultivating relationships within the Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 6

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

group, and applying reflection techniques. Overall, Break Leaders ended the year in the developed‐to‐advanced quadrant. The “developed” stage states that students will be able to: 1) Keep the Break team energized during pre‐trip DeCals. 2) Articulate risk management techniques. 3) Facilitate teambuilders in an intentional manner. 4) Facilitate pre‐trip reflections and integrate education session into the trip plan. The “advanced” stage states that students will be able to: 1) Proactively address conflicts in the course of the trip. 2) Practice risk management during the trip. 3) Share/cultivate leadership on the trip by modeling and making room for new leader. The data to support this claim is below.

Risk management techniques –Break Leaders self‐reported gains of 1.08 using a likert scale of 1‐5 between pre‐ (3.05) and post‐assessment (4.13) on confidence in practicing risk management techniques. This represents a 35.4% increase. Feedback from break participants supported this self‐reported growth‐‐90% of participants agreed that Break Leaders effectively used risk management techniques with student participants.

Cultivating relationships and leadership within a group – Break leaders reported modest gains with a difference between pre‐ (3.84) and post‐assessment (4.37) of .53, representing a 13.8% increase. This self‐reported growth is supported by Break participant feedback: 89% felt that Break Leaders gave space for them to grow as a leader.

With regard to conflict being managed well on the trip, Break Leaders reported a smaller gain between pre‐ (3.58) and post‐assessment (3.93) of .35, representing a 9.8% increase with 86% of participants indicating that conflict was managed well by Break Leaders on the trip.

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. Representative and illustrative comments included:  The relationships I have cultivated with my fellow breaks leaders, participants, directors, and community partners has been the most memorable part of my Alt Breaks Leader experience.

Everyone that I have worked with has contributed to my understanding of social justice, my understanding of myself as a leader, and my understanding of myself as a person.  I’ll remember the second‐to‐last day, when the group reflected in the afternoon after our most emotionally demanding experience. People were so willing to be vulnerable with each other, make personal connections, plan future involvement and congratulate others for their contributions.

Applying reflection techniques –This learning outcome was assessed through participant feedback on a post‐trip survey, where participants indicated that their break leaders successfully met the third objective, with an aggregate MEAN of 4.75 on questions such as “Reflection activities helped me internalize my service experience,” “Break Leaders created a learning environment in which I could examine my beliefs and assumptions,” and “Overall this trip made me think critically about social inequality”.

Break participants remarked on how the reflection and educational portion of the trip impacted them:  The reflections were the most valuable thing for me, as stated previously the diversity of the group yielded interesting conversations/reflections. Seeing a different side of L.A. was beneficial, as someone that has visited there multiple times without ever seeing skid row.  The reflections [were important] because we were allowed to put into words and share with others the way we felt and we had the opportunity to hear the way others felt as well. The reflections also united us and the leaders were VERY good in facilitating these and they were also friendly and always willing to help.  Our trip held reflection very highly, and I liked that; I was made to look even beyond the service to understand how the trip was affecting me on a very personal level. I learned to question all prior beliefs or thoughts I had about certain groups or types of people. I understand the various perspectives that come to the table in a food system and I feel better prepared to work with them in the future.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 7

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

BREAK LEADER LEARNING OUTCOME #2 –BREAK LEADERS WILL CREATE A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH BREAK PARTICIPANTS CAN EXAMINE THEIR BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS. With a pre‐assessment SRLS Controversy with Civility average of 4.01 and a post‐test average of 4.20, according to the SRLS this measure showed a slight increase. Once again both pre‐ and post‐assessment are above the campus average of 3.78.

As defined by the Break Leader Student Learning Outcomes matrix designed by Cal Corps staff, this learning outcome involves Break Leaders creating a sense of collective responsibility for the success of the group, facilitating dialogue/reflection sessions, and challenging oneself and others appropriately. Overall, Break Leaders ended the year in the developed‐to‐advanced quadrant. The “developed” stage states that students will be able to: 1) Successfully facilitate dialogues during DeCals. 2) Analyze and share personal assumptions of “other” identities and the impact it has on communication. The “advanced” stage states that students will be able to: 1) Act as an ally to underrepresented (student and community) voices. 2) Share knowledge with participants on how to create similar environments.

According to likert‐scale (1‐5) self‐report for these three areas, Break Leaders on average reported significant gains, with an aggregate difference between pre‐ (3.58) and post‐assessment (4.35) of .77, representing a 21.5% increase. Break Leader post ‐trip reflections – which are taken to be more accurate in assessing learning in this area than above SLRS likert scale scores – demonstrate the gains made in this area. Common themes that emerged was utilizing democratic education pedagogy, emphasizing reflection as a means of getting to know oneself and communities better, and the importance of understanding an issue from multiple perspectives. Break Leaders shared:  We used a broad range of activities, including role‐playing, to give participants a greater personal understanding of and connection with our social justice issue. I actively encouraged reflection throughout the DeCal and trip through journals and facilitated discussions. During the trip, we interacted with many people and situations that challenged our assumptions.  We had some participants who were very confident in their beliefs and others who didn't know what their beliefs were. In order to create an environment where people could not only examine their beliefs but also come to conclusions about what they were, we did a mixture of group and anonymous activities. The group activities allowed those who didn't have an opinion to hear the opinions of others, while the anonymous activities centered the group a bit more and allowed everyone to examine their own beliefs more personally.  I think reflections were really what had the biggest impact on me and the participants. I don’t think service alone would have done enough to help me and the participants think critically about our role and the structure of society in general. I think that what we all take away from reflection is what we carry into our future endeavors and make social justice a sustainable thing in our lives.

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 pre‐ (3.38) and post‐trip assessment (4.68) of 1.30, representing a 39% increase.

CENTER‐WIDE STUDENT LEADER LEARNING OUTCOMES Each program within Cal Corps has developed its own Student Learning Outcomes. At the same time Center staff – with input from student leaders – have developed common understanding, skills, and knowledge that all student leaders serving through the Center are expected to learn. Each program creates instructional strategies to target only those Centerwide SLOs that are related to program‐specific SLOs; elsewhere we report on these competencies across programs as a Center.

This year, Break Leaders showed significant gains when forming and sustaining healthy groups (79.2%); understanding local pressing issues/challenges and strengths/indigenous solutions (35%); and creating SMART Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 8

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

goals (48.5%). While not demonstrated in the below graph, students showed a decline with regard to time management. Perhaps the decline can be attributed to a lag between an increasing what one focuses on and tends to and one’s ability to manage the increased focus with respect to time allocation.

Item 2010: 2011: Post‐ Pre‐ Post‐ Pre MEAN MEAN % Developing and maintaining strong community partnerships.

3.53 4.33 22.7% Forming and sustaining healthy groups 2.16 3.87 79.2% Engaging in self‐reflection

3.89 3.58

4.4 4.33

13.1% 20.9%

3.26

4.4

35.0%

2.74

4.07

48.5%

Incorporating the needs and strengths of constituents into program/project

3.37

4.27

26.7%

Taking intentional action to change an unjust situation

3.58

4.2

17.3%

Awareness of the range of ways of making social change Understand local pressing issues/challenges and strengths/indigenous solutions Creating SMART goals

BREAK PARTICIPANT LEARNING OUTCOMES 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 97 participants is just as important to the program.

Alternative Breaks Program Goals (Participant SLOs)

Pre‐ Post‐ SLO Item Post‐Pre % MEAN MEAN During the trip I examined my beliefs and 1 4.31 4.7 9.0% assumptions.

I have a deep understanding about my trip’s social 3.19 2 4.73 48.0% issue.

I have a deep understanding about the geographic 2 2.80 4.78 71.0% area.

3 How social issues on my trip manifest in the Bay Area.

3.51 4.46 29.0% 4 I built friendships with other participants.

4.02 4.76 18.4%

Furthermore, SRLS questions for trip participants in the area of Citizenship showed a MEAN 4.56; with a Break Leader MEAN of 4.9 the Citizenship results are practically the same between student participants and leaders.

One participant captured the experience expressed by many students when she wrote, “It is very hard to sum everything up, but I learned a lot about compassion and how we can manifest these feelings into doing something useful and using the privilege we have to help others at least try and get to a similar level. I learned about the amazing things people can do as well as a lot about myself and what I want to do/get out of my life. I have taken a desire for service, knowledge, and how to just be a better person from this trip. ”

STORIES OF SUCCESS Two new trips were added to the Alternative Breaks Program in 2010‐2011:  Winter Rebuilding the Gulf Coast: A winter trip to NOLA with twelve participants and two former Break Leaders was piloted. The former Break Leaders are not required to go to Break Leader trainings, rather, they act more independently and raise the majority of the funding on their own. Overall, the pilot was a success with a desire to continue more winter trips in the future.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 9

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11



We are Human: Immigration and Arizona: This new trip focused on immigration reform and Arizona’s SB1070 legislation. A significant highlight is the formation of a new community partner, Shura Wallin, of the Green Valley/Sahuarita Samaritans. Shura was the founder of the Dorothy Day House of Berkeley and had a tremendous impact on the students as she guided them in day of service across the border. Many students commented on the profound impact this had on their sense of justice, family, and understanding of privilege.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The program will continue to utilize the training package for Break Leaders. With more than 24 applicants and a solid foundation for growth, the program will expand from 9 spring break trips to 10 (18 to 20 Break Leaders) in 2011‐12 with four Break Directors to support the program. In addition, we are seeking to continue to offer winter break trips lead by former break leaders as the pilot proved successful. From the previous programming year (2009‐10) to this year (2010‐11) 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 streamlining trainings on the logistical management of various components of the program; making the trainings more interactive and driven by Break Leader feedback; and placing a greater emphasis on intervening and resolving conflict based on these findings.

Break Leader Self‐report 2010‐2011/2009‐2010 Comparison Item 2010‐11: 2010‐11: 2009‐10: 2009‐10: Post‐ MEAN Post‐Pre % Post‐ MEAN Post‐Pre % Cultivate leadership by modeling and making 4.27 16.0% 4.31 25.64% room for new leadership Articulate personal beliefs, values, and 4.33 4.1% 4.46 20.11% identities Time management 4.07 ‐1.0% 4.17 6.21% Event Planning 4.47 13.2% 4.58 29.53%

Additional goals include (1) establishing a funded Alumni dinner during break trips; (2) developing a set training curriculum in partnership with the Training and Education Director; (3) reorganizing the S: drive so that it is more accessible; (4) redesigning the participant application and decision making process to accommodate the increased number of trips/participants; and (5) creating all participant meetings to encourage intimacy and connection among participants early on.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 10

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

BONNER LEADERS PROGRAM PROGRAM OVERVIEW & HIGHLIGHTS: Program Overview: Bonner Leaders are UC Berkeley students who make positive change across campus and in the community of Alameda County while developing their leadership skills. Jointly supported by six Cal Corps staff members and thirteen non‐profit or school staff, students make a 1‐2 year commitment of 8‐12 hours a week.

They serve as program managers for service‐learning programs or volunteer programs in schools and nonprofits.

Students serve 240‐400 hours a year while receiving 60 hours of intensive leadership development which includes retreats and conferences, weekly workshops, reflection activities, and 1:1 advising.

Program Highlights for 2010‐2011:    

28 Bonner Leaders directly served 9,874 hours, engaging an additional 1,219 students who served 43, 725 hours in the Bay Area, Central Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego, Arizona, New Orleans, and Washington D.C. Increased the integration of community partners as co‐educators through programming such as the Leadership and Social Justice Conference and the Poverty & Education Tracks Strengthened cross‐program collaboration through Bonner Leaders sharing resources, knowledge, and support Enhanced social justice education for students via the Healthy Communities Projects (HCP). Projects included Challenging Poverty: a campus‐wide initiative to raise awareness of local poverty; Flat Stanley: a multi‐generational story‐telling project; and BCC Shadow Day: a program to support prospective transfer students from Berkeley City College.

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEADER 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 questions addressing Cal Corps’ Student Leadership Outcomes and SRLS, and reflection papers were written to the same exact prompt. Paper responses were coded by the Bonner Program Coordinator and included only 19 pre‐ and post‐ pairs. Other pairs were missing either pre‐ or post‐ data. Interpretations below made from reflection papers represent the 19 coded pairs, only 68% of the students. Data reported from the self‐report surveys had N=25 (Pre) and N=26(Post).

In all three Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), most students ended in the Developed and Advanced stages.

Students’ personal definitions of leadership shifted significantly from leadership as influence potential to leadership as the cultivation of new leaders. Students also increased their confidence to develop strong community partnerships and to contribute to the mission of the organization. Lastly, 15% more students reported the ability to take action against injustice.

STUDENT LEADER LEARNING OUTCOME #1 –STUDENTS WILL DETAIL PERSONAL DEFINITIONS OF LEADERSHIP, SERVICE, AND JUSTICE. Results for this measure show the Bonner Leaders Program significantly moved students away from viewing service as charity, leadership as a position, and justice as an objective norm, to more complex and nuanced definitions. A majority of students ended the program year in the Developed and Advanced stages for all definitions. For Service, the program went from 0% to 16% of students in the Advanced stage. There was a 42% increase in students in the Advanced stage for Leadership, and for Justice, 45% of students starting in the Emerging stage ended in Developed or Advanced.

Student reflection responses overwhelmingly illustrated a reassessment of their definitions of leadership, service, and justice. Two quotes that were most illustrative and representative of student responses are: ‐ “The biggest thing I’ve learned about service, leadership, and justice through my Bonner position…is that definitions are flexible and can mean different things to different people and in different circumstances and situations.”

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 11

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

‐

“[T]hroughout my role with VITA, I saw my role as a leader change from simply vision‐casting to focusing on creating a flexible structure that would empower the next round of leaders.”

Other survey data also revealed the program’s success in achieving Learning Outcome #1. When asked if they “have a detailed definition of service, leadership, and justice,” students’ pre‐ to post‐ averages changed from 3.67 to 4.28 for Service, 3.96 to 4.2 for Leadership, and 3.67 to 4.32 for Justice. Those numbers present a 17% increase for students articulating definitions for Service and Justice. In addition to the quotes above, many other reflection papers validate this increase as students reported their definitions changed from “when I was in high school.”

STUDENT LEADER LEARNING OUTCOME #2 –STUDENTS WILL MANAGE A PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAM WITH UNIVERSITY‐COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS. Learning Outcome #2 was a new outcome measured in 2010‐2011 with a purpose to measure a student’s capacity to lead and coordinate a public service program. The key objectives within this outcome were for students to seek collaborators for their public service program based on an understanding of the community’s needs, to give direction for the program, and to effectively manage volunteers. For most objectives, students ended the program year in the Developed and Advanced stages. There was an 11% increase in students who can “identify and seek out appropriate collaborators for [their] community project/program (3.96 v 4.4) and a 13% increase in students who can “Develop and maintain strong community partnerships.” When asked to describe what they learned about coordinating a program, typical responses include:

‐“ I learned about making realistic goals, taking into account the target population, time frame, and group dynamic, and learning to be flexible when issues arise.”

This quote also reflects an increase shown in SLRS data for “I helped shape the mission of the group.” Ten percent more students increased in proficiency (4.04 v 4.48) in this area. Students were able to develop goals with a community/group in mind, and implement strategies to meet those goals.

STUDENT LEADER LEARNING OUTCOME #3 – STUDENTS WILL BUILD HEALTHY COMMUNITIES. While most students began and ended in the Developed and Advanced stages of this learning outcome, there was a significant shift of students who began the year in the Developed stage into the Advanced Stage. By the end of the year, Bonner Leaders’ ability to articulate a vision for a healthy community increased by 12% (3.71 v. 4.16) according to pre‐post surveys. In addition, they grew stronger in two out of the three skills which program staff has identified to build healthy community: (1) Enacting a theory of social change and (2) Flexing their leadership style when appropriate and necessary. Most notable, is the self‐reported 9% increase in students’ ability to “enact a personal theory of social change.” While survey data shows zero change in students’ ability to “act as an ally to underrepresented communities,” there was a 15% increase in students reporting that they can “Take intentional action to change an unjust situation” (3.6 v. 4.15).

Two quotes that illustrate student learning in this area are: ‐ “If there is one thing I have learned from Bonner, it is that change has to happen on a small scale first and then reach the rest of the world.”

‐ “…regardless of those intricate differences [in the history and background of every individual and community], we must strive toward solidarity for we are all beings with dignity and inherent rights to equal opportunities.

The first quote illustrates a students’ theory of social change, one in which changes happens “on a small scale first.” The second quote articulates a vision for healthy community that includes “solidarity” among people and “equal opportunity.” In many other reflection papers and in open‐ended survey questions, students expressed their vision for a healthy community much like the quote here. In addition, they are able to share how they see leadership, service, and justice integrated in their visions, and how their theory of social change will help lead to this vision.

CENTER‐WIDE STUDENT LEADER LEARNING OUTCOMES Bonner Leaders showed the most learning in several Center‐Wide SLOs. Most notable, as seen in the chart and graph below, was student growth in “Cultivating leadership by modeling and making room for new leadership,” Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 12

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

“Creating SMART goals,” and “Taking action to change an unjust situation.” Several program elements may have contributed to this increase in proficiency, including goal setting and visioning exercises, an emphasis on transitioning new student leaders, and the Healthy Communities Project. These three strategies to meet program outcomes were the key focus of trainings, discussions, and group projects.

Bonner Leaders 2010‐11 Centerwide Leadership Competencies (1) Pre‐Assessment

(2) Post‐Assessment

4.38 4.12 3.80

4.04

3.92 3.62 3.32

(1) (2)

3.65 3.56

4.15 3.89 3.71

3.60

4.04

3.88 3.60

3.77 3.32

3.16

3.44

4.08 3.96 3.77 3.76 3.64 3.60

Program average of scores from Bonner Leaders pre‐assessment survey administered September 2010 (n=25) Program average of scores from Bonner Leaders post‐assessment survey administered April‐May 2011 (n=26)

Item Creating SMART goals Awareness of the range of ways of making social change Taking intentional action to change an unjust situation Facilitating reflection Cultivate leadership by modeling and making room for new leadership Developing and maintaining strong community partnerships.

Pre‐ Post‐ MEAN MEAN 3.16 3.56 3.6 3.32 3.44 3.6

3.65 4.04 4.15 3.77 4.04 4.08

Post‐ Pre RAW 0.49 0.48 0.55 0.45 0.6 0.48

Post‐ Pre % 15.5% 13.5% 15.3% 13.6% 17.4% 13.3%

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS For at least two years, the Bonner Leaders Program has shown significant impact on students’ personal definitions of service, leadership, and justice. I encourage next year’s Program Coordinator to continue the training plans associated with this learning outcome. In addition, I would expand on the social justice education to broaden students’ understanding of how communities with different definitions navigate their relationship with one another and to increase students’ ability to “act as an ally to underrepresented communities.” Additional activities can include a Social Movement Interview with site supervisors to learn about the history of their work and a training on how to be an ally. Other program recommendations include:  Design Pre‐ and Post‐ Survey questions to meet any newly developed SLOs before the program year begins.

Unfortunately in 2010‐2011, there were no questions that captured student learning specifically around volunteer management, and therefore no data to assess learning.  Learn more about community partner’s areas of expertise to tap into their skills as educators  Ensure that all students complete Pre‐ and Post Reflection Essays ‐ in order to have a larger sample size for data. Note that the Pre‐ Reflection Essay is a part of the recruitment process.  Develop measures for Program Objectives that accurately reflect the intended objective. For example, instead of “Develop 4‐year partnership plans,” a more useful measure might be “Partners are able to define at least one long‐term UCB partnership outside of Cal Corps.”

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 13

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

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 1,200+ 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 61 chapters and 2,911 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 Cal Leadership Institute Blueprint Leadership Development Program Future Leaders Program Indaba Multicultural Leadership Retreat 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

2010‐11 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS    

Registered a record number of student groups (1,247) Fraternity & Sorority community membership continues to grow (2,911 members, 11.4% of students) 11th Annual Cal Student Leadership Symposium was attended by some 550 students from 15 different colleges and universities from the western region of the United States and Mexico.

The Center for Student Leadership assessed student learning outcomes for four programs this year: 1) Cal Leadership Institute, 2) Future Leaders Program, 3) CalGreeks New Member Camp, and 4) Leadership Symposium Planning Team.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 14

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

THE CAL LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: The Cal Leadership Institute is a yearlong leadership experience with multiple ways for students to tailor the program to their own interests and passions. The fall semester includes students from several leadership communities (Blueprint Leaders for Social Justice, Berdahl Future Leaders Program Years 1 & 2, Senior Health Coordinators, and Leadership Symposium). 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 semester continues with Blueprint, Berdahl Future Leaders Program Year 1, and Senior Health Coordinators. The focus of spring semester is for students to apply what they learned in the fall—about themselves as individuals and how to work in teams—to making social change in the community. Students earn 3‐units in the fall and 2‐units in the spring for their participation.

The Cal Leadership Institute is based on the Social Change Model of Leadership and aims to support student development in three main areas.

1. Consciousness of Self: Students should develop their ability to accurately perceive personal values, beliefs, and attitudes and be able to identify and manage their emotions. We aim to achieve this outcome through providing students opportunities to explore their leadership style, assess their personal strengths, and reflect on their identities and backgrounds.

2. Collaboration: Students should grow in their ability to work with others towards a common goal—beginning by developing awareness of multiple perspectives and working styles and advancing towards creating a culture in which diverse viewpoints are respected and valued. We aim to achieve this outcome through the Indaba Multicultural Leadership Retreat, execution of a social justice team projects, and 360 team feedback.

3. Controversy with Civility: Students should develop their ability to manage conflict constructively. This starts with recognizing that differences in viewpoint are inevitable and progresses towards understanding multiple conflict styles and utilizing strategies to respectfully address conflict and hold each other accountable. In addition to the pedagogical strategies for developing students’ collaboration skills, we also aim to achieve this outcome through workshops on constructive feedback and intercultural conflict styles.

Highlights for 2010‐2011:  53 students participated in the fall workshops & 34 students participated in the spring workshops.  10 student‐volunteers worked with Cal Leadership Institute to support students’ social justice projects and team development.  The Indaba Multicultural Leadership Retreat brought about 70 student leaders together and was frequently referenced by students as one of the most influential program components.  Students carried out social justice projects in multiple areas: nutritional health, the environment, mental health, higher education access, education, and poverty in immigrant communities.  The environmental cohort won a UC Berkeley microgrant to continue their electronic‐waste recycling program next year.  Multiple social justice project teams are planning to continue doing service at their sites next year.

Cal Leadership Institute 2010‐11 (1) CLI Pre‐Assessment 4.034.02 3.87

4.52 4.31 4.06

Consciousness Congruence of Self

4.484.55 4.20

(2) CLI Post‐Assessment 4.204.28 3.99

Commitment Collaboration

4.43 4.25 3.97

Common Purpose

(3) Campus Average 4.444.45 4.09 3.88 3.78

Controversy with Civility

3.83

Citizenship

3.873.903.76

Change

(1) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CLI pre‐assessment survey administered August 2010 (n=53) (2) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CLI post‐assessment survey administered May 2011 (n=28) (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.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 15

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

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’ self‐reports of their consciousness of self stayed about the same from beginning to end of the Cal Leadership Institute, with “I learned to be an open‐minded students’ SRLS scores for consciousness of self at 4.03 (on a scale of 1‐5) individual who can actively listen to at the beginning of the program and 4.02 at the end. However, external someone while withholding judgment. I also learned how to initiate social change assessment of students’ developmental‐level via qualitative data1 illustrated positive growth. As illustrated in the graph below, the majority and to recognize diversity can be a (92%) of Cal Leadership Institute students began the year in the emerging powerful tool toward reaching social (16%), emerging to developing (38%), or developing (38%) stages of justice.” consciousness of self.

100%

Consciousness of Self

80%

Before CLI After CLI

60% 40% 20% 0% Emerging

Emerging‐developing

Developing

Developing‐advanced

Advanced

Students in the emerging stage of consciousness of self are in the process of learning to reflect on how their personal background, values, strengths, and limitations influence their leadership style. Students in the developing stage are able to identify personal tendencies across situations based on their personal background, values, beliefs, and attitudes, and also able to manage their "What motivates me is to travel to under‐served parts of our community emotions. By the end of the year, the majority of students (64%) grew to the developing (43%), developing to advanced (18%), or advanced (4%) stages of and to see the differences between consciousness of self. Students in the advanced stage utilize their awareness my part of town and theirs. I believe of self to identify their personal tendencies across situations and accurately that there should be equity, so these describe who they are in teams and groups. The inconsistency between self‐ differences drive me to serve my rated and externally‐rated consciousness of self developmental‐levels may be community and try to make a attributed to students over‐rating their developmental level before the start difference.” of the program and then learning—through feedback from peers and program staff—how to more accurately assess their own characteristics and tendencies.

LEARNING OUTCOME #2 ‐ COLLABORATION: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO WORK WITH OTHERS TOWARD A COMMON GOAL. Students’ self‐reports of their collaboration abilities increased “In CLI, I worked with six great people, and we are slightly from the beginning to end of the Cal Leadership all different in many ways. We all have different Institute, with students’ mean SRLS scores for collaboration at ethnicities, learning styles, conflict styles, 4.20 at the beginning of the program and 4.28 at the end. Once personalities, and strengths. This helped us to again, assessment of qualitative data showed an even greater learn from each other and contribute in different increase in students’ collaboration developmental‐levels. As ways to the success of our social justice project.” illustrated in the graph below, the majority (~60%) of Cal Leadership Institute participants started the year in the

1

Qualitative data comes from open‐ended survey questions on the pre‐ and post‐assessment (two questions to measure consciousness of self, three to measure collaboration, and three to measure conflict with civility.) Survey responses were coded by program staff to assess students’ developmental‐level.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 16

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

emerging (8%) or emerging‐developing (52%) stages of collaboration. In the emerging stage of collaboration students are learning to reflect on how to include multiple perspectives and leadership styles when working together. By the end of the year, the majority (~70%) of students were at or above the developing stage of this learning outcome—able to utilize their awareness of multiple perspectives to collaboratively create standards for responsibility and accountability.

100%

Collaboration

Before CLI After CLI

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Emerging

Emerging‐developing

Developing

Developing‐advanced

Advanced

LEARNING OUTCOME #3 – CONTROVERSY WITH CIVILITY: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO MANAGE CONFLICT CONSTRUCTIVELY. Students illustrated the greatest self‐assessed leadership development in the third learning outcome—engaging in controversy with civility. Students’ mean SRLS scores for controversy with civility grew from 3.88 at the beginning of the program to 4.09 at the end. Once again, assessment of qualitative data supported these findings. As illustrated in the graph below, the majority (~78%) of Cal Leadership Institute participants started the year in the emerging (43%) or emerging‐developing (39%) stages of controversy with civility.

100%

Controversy with Civility

80%

Before CLI After CLI

60% 40% 20% 0% Emerging

Emerging‐developing

Developing

Developing‐advanced

Advanced

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. By the end of the year, students made modest growth in this area, with 32% in the developing or developing‐advanced stages of controversy with civility—as compared to 22% in these stages at the beginning of the year. In the developing 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 no students were assessed as being in the advanced stage of controversy with civility, many students’ end‐of‐the‐year evaluations indicated an interest in continuing to improve their skills in this area.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 17

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

PROGRAM ADAPTATIONS BASED ON 2009‐10 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Recommendations made in the 2009‐2010 report 1. Evaluate the tenability of developing long‐term and sustainable community partnerships for students’ spring social justice projects.

2. Provide more support and structure for the peer mentors through offering a unit‐bearing course with readings on facilitation and democratic‐decision‐making.

3. Meet together as a larger leadership community in The Cal Leadership Institute for workshops and leadership development theory and then split up into smaller community groups for more individualized curricula.

Results of the changes in 2010‐2011 1. Held brainstorming sessions with student leaders over the summer 2009. Students highlighted the importance of forming partnerships with multiple organizations so student still have choices for their community partners. Unfortunately the amount of staff time needed to develop such partnerships was outside the scope of the program coordinator for this position.

2. The program coordinator developed a syllabus and unit‐bearing course for teaching mentoring and facilitation skills to the peer mentors. The peer mentors expressed satisfaction with the increased support.

3. The switch to the Cal Leadership Institute and larger class size presented multiple barriers. While some students expressed excitement at access to a larger range of leadership curricula, most students expressed discontent with the size of the class and how challenging it was to form a cohesive community with so many students. (See below for recommendations to address this.)

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The following program adaptations for the coming year will be implemented based on the assessment results: 1. Because a sense of community is a critical piece to creating a safe environment for students to grow in the three learning outcomes—consciousness of self, collaboration, and controversy with civility—we will make several changes to our leadership development programs with the aim of building small cohesive communities, while still aiming to serve multiple students. a. Leadership Symposium will meet separately with a different program coordinator in CSL. b. Senior Health Coordinators will participate in leadership training with their own program coordinator. c. Future Leaders Program students will transition into another CSL leadership program of their choice. d. Cal Leadership Institute will consist of a small group of advanced student leaders. These students will support CSL professional staff in running Blueprint Leaders for Social Justice in the fall and will co‐ facilitate student‐run versions of Blueprint in spring. e. Blueprint Leaders for Social Justice will focus on serving emerging and intermediate student leaders.

Smaller Blueprint communities will be built through running multiple semester‐long sessions‐‐one in fall and one in spring.

2. Students indicated a desire for more concrete support in how to practice leadership for social change.

Therefore, next year, we plan to partner with Cal Corps Public Service Center, so students can learn about the multiple community‐based opportunities to put their leadership skills into practice to work towards social change.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 18

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

CALGREEKS NEW MEMBER CAMP 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 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, and individually focused contemplations. Small group meetings, known as chapter meetings, are designed to allow participants to explore ideas and issues more fully in a more secure/safe setting. Everyone is expected to participate fully and be actively involved in all educational components, structured activities, and informal group activities throughout the institute.

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: 

The program is open to any member of a recognized fraternity/sorority chapter who has been in his or her chapter for less than 12 months. This year, 40 students (30 fraternity men and 10 sorority women) registered to attend New Member Camp (compared to 51 in 2009 and 37 in 2008).



Small group facilitators observed that the opening Challenge Course activity was an effective icebreaker and team builder for their group. Facilitators stated the activities were an effective way for group members to develop trust over a course of time. Building trust within the small groups is important because it facilitates active participation throughout the weekend.



During chapter meetings, facilitators observed that students were able to recognize the three “broken values” as potential threats to the CalGreeks community. Broken values are the current challenges in the fraternity and sorority life community. A facilitator commented, “The group was able to tie video and questions to their own personal experiences.” 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



Ritual is a topic that is emphasized at New Member Camp. The key points are “little r” ritual is a daily habit and “big R” ritual is a ceremony where fraternity and sorority members learn the values of their organization.

In their small groups, the participants discussed the “little r” and “big R” ritual and were able to connect their own chapter experience to the examples provided by their facilitators.

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 Pre‐assessment survey showed that new member camp participants were in the EMERGING stage of consciousness of self prior to attending the camp. Students at this stage are beginning to reflect on their personal values and beliefs and how these might influence their actions. As facilitators watched students participate in the “Creating a Co‐ed Fraternity” activity, they saw evidence that students were transitioning to the DEVELOPING stage. As students collaboratively created the symbols and associated values for their co‐ed fraternity, facilitators heard many students not only articulate their own values, but also identify which of these values they felt should be reflected in their fictitious fraternity. Thus many students were beginning to apply their individual values to a new situation.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 19

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

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 Member Camp participants were able to explain the intersection of personal values with their organization’s values. Through the values clarification exercise, it can be determined that the majority of new members were in the DEVELOPING stage. After Chapter Meeting Three: Congruent or Disconnect, facilitators observed that group members were able to articulate their personal and fraternal values. One participant noted that members are responsible for learning the values of their fraternity/sorority, and are responsible for deciding whether or not they can genuinely represent their organization. A participant wrote in the post‐assessment survey, “I work to uphold my values and my sorority's values to be sure that I am following the path I want to take. I haven't had to sacrifice any of my values for my sorority, and I think that it should be this way for all sororities and fraternities.”

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 Overall, participants were in the EMERGING stage by the end of the weekend. Discussions on Broken Values: Hazing, Sexual Assault, and Alcohol made participants aware of current challenges of the CalGreeks community.

One student stated that it is important for members of the fraternity and sorority community to “make an active effort to learn about the community. Striving to uphold its values and working to improve upon what we have to make this a better experience for future generations.” According to the facilitators, new members recognized the lack of explicit chapter‐wide discussions about these issues. A participant indicated that increasing awareness is important, “if everyone does their part and keeps their chapter informed, then over time, this may become less of a problem.”

PROGRAM RECOMMEDATIONS: 

 

Because of the low response rate for the post‐assessment survey we will collect reflections/short‐answer journaling from participants after each chapter session activity. While it is important to evaluate the overall experience of participants, often the survey was not completed because of its length. Next year, shorten the surveys.

To increase attendance we will decrease the cost to attend New Member Camp and adjust the format of the program.

The majority of New Member Camp attendants came from chapters with conduct sanctions. We would like the event to impact the whole community; therefore we will make it mandatory for all new members to attend.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 20

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FUTURE LEADERS PROGRAM 2009‐2011 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS: Overview: 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 both the FLP Year 1 and FLP Year 2 cohort groups. The FLP Year 2 learning outcomes primarily focused on: Consciousness of Self, Collaboration, and Common Purpose components of the Social Change Model.

Future Leaders Program supports student participants to: 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 group activities, attending a leadership conference, and execution of a group process consulting project.

3) Develop cross‐cultural competency through small cohort dialogues connecting their salient social identity and their personal values to create a more inclusive and purpose‐driven community.

MEASURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE MODEL COMPETENCIES ACHIEVED

FLP 2009‐2011 SRLS Scores

3.90

4.11

3.87

(1) FLP 2 Pre‐Assessment (2) FLP 2 Post‐Assessment 4.88 4.75 4.64 4.56 4.50 4.47 4.25 4.20 4.20 4.02 4.06 3.99 3.97 4.01

Consciousness Congruence of Self

Commitment Collaboration

Common Purpose

(3) Campus Average 4.78 4.25 3.78

Controversy with Civility

3.83

Citizenship

4.004.10

3.76

Change

(2) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CLI pre‐assessment survey administered August 2009 (n=8) (4) Program average of SRLS instrument scores from CLI post‐assessment survey administered May 2011 (n=4) (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.

LEARNING OUTCOME #1 ‐ CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THEIR VALUES AND TALENTS AND HOW IT RELATES TO THEIR PERSONAL LEADERSHIP AND PHILOSOPHY.

Students’ self‐report of their consciousness of self improved slightly from the beginning to the end of the FLP, with students SRLS scores for consciousness of self at 3.90 (on a scale of 1‐5) at the beginning of the program and 4.11 at the end. External assessment of students’ developmental‐level via qualitative data1 showed also slight positive growth. As illustrated in the graph below, the majority (87.5%) of FLP students began the year at the Developed stage or above. At the end of the FLP, the percentages of the different stages remained the same with an increased percentage at the Advanced stage (50%).

The students in FLP started the program with a high sense of consciousness of self as many were able to communicate their values, strengths, leadership philosophy, and motivations. The students started the FLP program with some kind of experience where they were able to apply their leadership philosophy to involvement opportunities. By the end of the year, the students grew slightly to Developed (25%), Developed‐Advanced (25%) and Advanced (50%) stages. The students were not only able to articulate their personal leadership philosophy

1

Qualitative data comes from open‐ended survey questions on the pre‐ and post‐assessment. Survey responses were coded by external coder to assess students’ developmental‐level.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 21

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

and values but discern situations and opportunities that capitalize on their strengths and leadership. This is evident through a student reporting, “I am naturally inclined to focus on the details and structure of things more so than the bigger picture. Therefore, I often struggle with coming up with creative ideas for the group and being spontaneous…I feel more talented in building close bonds with one or a few people than moving a whole group of people.”

Consciousness of Self

100%

Instructor Coding of Qualitative Data

80%

Before FLP After FLP

60%

50% 37.5%

40% 20%

25% 25% 12.5% 0%

0% 0%

0%

25% 25%

“My biggest motivations are the impoverished communities that have little access and opportunity to a better future. The children who are born into poor families and grow up having to continue the cycle of inequality.”

LEARNING OUTCOME #2 ‐ COLLABORATION: STUDENT WILL BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE DIVERSE VALUES AND LEADERSHIP STYLES OF OTHERS EFFECTIVELY.

Students’ self‐report of their collaboration abilities increased from the beginning to end of the FLP, with students SRLS scores for collaboration at 4.20 at the beginning of the program and 4.50 at the end. However, external assessment of student’s developmental level via pre‐qualitative data showed students’ initial collaboration were not as high compared to the high pre‐SRLS score at 4.20. In fact, the majority (62.5%) reported their collaboration at the Developed stage or lower. The slight incongruence between the pre‐SRLS score and pre‐ qualitative data may be attributed to students over‐rating their ability on the SRLS compared to the actual experiences they reported in the pre‐qualitative data as noted by the external coder. By the end of the FLP, students made significant improvement, progressing to Developed (25%) and Advanced (75%) stages which was also congruent with the high post‐SRLS score of 4.50 at the end.

In the Advanced stage, students’ self‐report demonstrated an ability to share responsibility and hold oneself and others accountable in a group that capitalizes on various perspectives and communication styles.

Students illustrated the greatest leadership development in this second learning outcome. This growth was demonstrated from students at the beginning being able to just work with strengths and weaknesses of group members and try to hold oneself accountable to eventually sharing responsibility and holding others accountable.

Students reported in the beginning of FLP that they were not comfortable confronting group members or delegating tasks. At the end, post‐qualitative data showed a consistent theme of students being more comfortable in taking an active leadership role, ensuring positive group progress, and sharing responsibilities.

“I always seem to find a Before FLP common point with all my group mates because it helps After FLP 100% Instructor Coding of Qualitative Data 75% me connect with them better 80% and have a special bond. This 60% helps me collaborate better 37.5% 37.5% with the rest of the team 40% 25% members.”

12.5% 12.5% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% “I made sure we were keeping up with our project and that we did honest work…I tried to include everyone in the project

and make sure everyone’s

voice was heard.”

Collaboration

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 22

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

LEARNING OUTCOME #3 – COMMON PURPOSE: STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE SHARED VALUES AND AIMS IN ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS.

Students illustrated an improvement in engaging in common purpose. Student SRLS scores for common purpose grew from 4.47 at the beginning of the program to 4.64 at the end. The assessment of students’ developmental levels via pre‐qualitative data showed the majority (75%) of students were at the lower stages of common purpose with Emerging (37.5%), Emerging‐Developed (25%), and Developed (12.5%) at the beginning of the program while pre‐SRLS score was a high 4.64. Once again, the slight incongruence between the pre‐SRLS and pre‐qualitative data may be attributed to students over rating their ability on the SRLS than the actual experiences they demonstrated in the pre‐qualitative assessment.

At the end of the FLP, students demonstrated a modest improvement in Common Purpose. Emerging decreased from (37.5%) to (25%) and the majority (75%) of students improved to the Developed (50%) stage and maintained the same percentage at Advanced (25%) stage. While the pre‐qualitative data showed that a few students were able to communicate effectively and worked towards shared values and aims; most students were not specific with strategies or abilities when working with people different from themselves. At the end of the FLP, there was a modest progress to a Developed stage when more students demonstrated they were able to work with differences by communicating shared goals and having a common respect for each other.

Common Purpose

100%

Instructor Coding of Qualitative Data

80% 60% 40%

“When working with others, I believe it helps to understand where people are coming from, and coming to a common ground when differences arise.”

“I’m collaborating with people that are different from me, the unique set of experiences that they carry adds different strengths to the group.”

Before FLP After FLP

50% 37.5% 25%

25%

20%

25% 25% 12.5% 0%

0% 0%

0%

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our assessment finding during the past two‐years, the following recommendations would improve the learning curriculum for this type of leadership experience: 1. Our quantitative and qualitative findings demonstrated modest growth in the self and group dimensions of the Social Change Model. However, instructor observations and reflection recommends that the curriculum add more activities that intentionally create opportunities for students to engage in conflict and practice giving feedback to one another. These type of activities coupled with increased practice should assist students in moving from the Developed to an Advanced stage in the group dimensions of the Social Change Model (i.e.

Collaboration, Common Purpose, and Controversy with Civility).

2. Programmatically, the 2009‐2011 cohort experienced extreme changes and fluctuation in their program.

Instructor, curriculum, and class size changes were several examples that occurred mid‐program due to departmental reorganization. Despite attempts to create seamless transition of these changes, it created confusion and a lack of group identity for the students. In the future, if two‐year leadership programs are offered, a strong effort should be made to minimize curriculum and instructor changes, which can adversely affect the morale of student and the sense of community.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 23

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT OVERVIEW The mission of the Center for Student Conduct is to promote concepts of fairness and due process in conduct settings while striking a balance between community standards and individual behavior through the development of its students. The Center for Student Conduct strives to resolve allegations of misconduct under the Code of Student Conduct in a manner consistent with our core values of fairness, honesty and integrity. We recognize the importance of balancing the interests of the individual student and the community at large, as well as protecting the integrity of the University and its values. As a component of our work, we seek to involve students in the conduct process.

The Center for Student Conduct 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 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 student behavior, referral to resources, student crisis response and management, etc. Additionally, in collaboration with campus partners, the staff conducts trainings and workshops for faculty, staff, and students on topics related to student conduct.

PROGRAM AREAS AND RELATED PROGRAMS STUDENT CONDUCT CASE MANAGEMENT

 Academic misconduct and non‐academic conduct cases  Individual students and student groups

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 Students of Concern Committee Town/Gown relations UCPD

2009‐10 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS 



Managed higher number of total cases referred to Student Conduct and Community Standards – 1,005, 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. Conducted student learning outcomes assessment for participants in conduct process.



BREAKDOWN: Academic cases (273), non-academic cases (732); individual cases (953), group cases (52) Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 24

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

CENTER FOR STUDENT CONDUCT ASSESSMENT STUDENT CONDUCT OVERVIEW The Center for Student Conduct (Student Conduct) serves the campus community in three broad areas:  Student Conduct – gathers information and addresses/resolves academic integrity and behavioral misconduct of 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 2010‐2011 year, Student Conduct received 1044 complaints. This resulted in 1005 cases adjudicated by Student Conduct. This includes cases that were dropped, were issued a 2nd response letter or resolved with a 2nd response meeting, resolved between a faculty member and a student, resolved informally between Student Conduct and a student/student organization, or resolved through a panel or administrative hearing.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS The survey was emailed to 915 students who interacted with the conduct process either as an individual or as a representative of their student organization and whose case was resolved prior to June 3, 2011. Of the 915 students, 204 students completed it and 103 students partially completed it. Forty three percent (43%) of the students resolved their conduct incident through an administrative disposition, thirty percent (30%) of the students resolved their conduct incident through a notification, seventeen percent (17%) had their conduct incident dropped, seven percent (7%) had their conduct incident resolved through a hearing, and three percent (3%) were issued a 2nd response letter or had a 2nd response meeting. Of the responding students, seventy percent (70%) of their conduct incidents were non‐academic related and thirty percent (30%) were academic related. Many of the students that responded (65%) accepted responsibility in their conduct case. Thirteen percent (13%) denied responsibility and twenty‐two (22%) accepted some responsibility and denied some responsibility.

Overall program observations:  Seventy‐nine percent (79%) strongly agreed or agreed that they were treated with respect throughout the conduct process.  Seventy‐three percent (73%) strongly agreed or agreed that the amount of time to took to resolve his/her case was reasonable.  Eighty‐two percent (82%) strongly agreed or agreed that they had the opportunity to ask questions about the conduct process.

Students were asked as part of the survey whether or not they met with a conduct officer during the conduct process. Sixty percent (60%) of the survey respondents met with a conduct officer. Ninety‐seven percent of them strongly agreed or agreed to the statement “I was truthful during my conversations with the conduct officer.”

Program observations from students who met with a conduct officer:  Over seventy‐five percent (75%) of the students strongly agreed or agreed that the conduct office was unbaised.  Over eighty percent (80%) of the students strong agreed or agreed that the conduct officer showed care and concern for his/her personal well‐being.  Over eighty‐five percent (85%) of the students strongly agreed or agreed that the conduct officer clearly explained the conduct process to him/her and also reviewed his/her rights in the conduct process.  Over eighty‐five percent (85%) of the students strongly agreed or agreed that the conduct officer listened to what he/she shared.  Over eighty‐five percent (85%) of the students strongly agreed or agreed that he/she understood the complaint and the violations associated with it.  Ninety percent (90%) of the students strongly agree or agreed that he/she was given the opportunity to explain his/her actions to the conduct officer.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 25

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES OUTCOME #1 ‐ STUDENTS WILL DEMONSTRATE AN AWARENESS OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE CAMPUS COMMUNITY. Ninety‐five percent (95%) of the students strongly agreed or agreed that they were a part of the campus community. Almost all of them see themselves as members of our campus community. Many of them (92%) strongly agreed or agreed that their values align with the expectations of the University. This data reflects that they perceive their personal values as aligning with being a member of our campus community. This reflects the emerging level of this learning outcome.

The students strongly agreed or agreed that they behave in ways that are congruent with their values and are also congruent with the expectations of students by the University (93%). It appears that while the students believe that they behave in ways that are congruent with what is expected of members of our campus community, there were about two‐fifths (39%) of the respondents who were not familiar with the Code of Student Conduct prior to the conduct process. This is interesting as the Code spells out broadly what behaviors and actions are not appropriate for student members of our community so violating the Code could be viewed as not meeting the behavioral expectations of the University. It appears that the students might not recognize that how they behave is not always congruent with what they perceive as the University’s behavioral expectations and how the University’s behavioral expectations are connected to the Code. These quotes reflect this:  “I believe I should be accountable for all my actions, including those that caused my conduct incident ‐ but I do not feel that the University needs to step in and keep me accountable for an incident that occurs outside of University property.”  “I climbed something well within my abilities, that was not dangerous for me or anyone else. I understand it's a violation of school policy, and I shouldn't do it; I won't violate school policy in the future. However, I'm not convinced the policy should be there.”

Some of the students might also not behave in ways that are congruent with their values as two‐thirds of the respondents did not think that their actions in their conduct incident reflected who they are. These quotes capture this sentiment:  “I realize I was wrong but at the time I was in a state where my judgment was impaired but I still committed the act and therefore deserve to face the consequences.”  “I was not myself for what I have done. I made a very big mistake and I will never do it again. I learned from the conduct process that my misbehavior brings big trouble.”  “Although my actions were against my general values and character, I fully accept all consequences and responsibility because it is important to learn from mistakes and the best way to do that is through proper consequences and understanding.”

An interesting aspect of the data shows that students learned from their experiences. Over three‐fourths of the students strongly agreed or agreed that when they are faced with a similar situation that resulted in them going through the conduct process, they now take different actions. Additionally, over three‐fourths of the students strongly agreed or agreed that they have changed their behavior after their experience with the conduct process.

It appears that the students would behave differently in similar situations and have taken different actions as a result of the conduct process.

The information above tells us that the respondents have generally identified their personal beliefs and values around being a member of our community (the emerging level). It appears that the respondents generally fall in the Developed range of this outcome with some of them touching the Advanced range of this outcome. Most students recognize what the University’s behavioral expectations are even if they are not familiar with those expectations as outlined in the Code (the developed level). At times though, they may not agree with the standards and expectations even if they think that their own values are in alignment with the University’s (responding to off‐campus conduct seems to be one place where the alignment between a student’s values and the University’s values is challenged). Additionally, it also appears that some of the students are still developing in the area of congruence with their values and their behaviors, while others seem to be finding an approach that balances their personal values with an understanding of the behavioral expectations as a member of our Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 26

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

community (the advanced level). One student articulates this concept quite clearly: “I should have been (and was) held accountable for my actions. They were not in line with my own values, the values of the UC system, and the values expected of good citizens. It would have been unjust not to hold me accountable for the effect my actions had on others.”

OUTCOME #2 ‐ STUDENTS WILL DEMONSTRATE INSIGHT INTO HOW ONE’S PERSONAL CONDUCT (HIS/HER DECISIONS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACTIONS) IMPACTED OR COULD HAVE IMPACTED ONESELF. Two‐thirds (66%) of the survey respondents shared that they accepted responsibility for their most recent conduct incident. Additionally, twenty‐one percent (21%) of the respondents accepted some responsibility and denied some responsibility for their more recent conduct incident. These numbers reflect that the students felt some responsibility for their personal conduct. Almost three‐fourths (74%) of the students strongly agreed or agreed with the survey question – during my conduct incident, I considered the possible impacts and consequences of my actions on me. The students typically know when their decisions, behaviors, and actions impact themselves and are willing to accept some responsibility for what occurred.

There are times though that the interaction with the conduct process can help students realize how their decisions, behaviors, and actions are impacting themselves. Many students (73%) strongly agreed or agreed that their interaction with the conduct process caused them to think about the impact of their actions and behaviors on oneself. These quotes illuminate the impact that the conduct process can have on students as the conduct process can help them see additional ways that their decisions, actions, and behaviors may be impacting them:  “After going through the conduct process, I altered the way that I behaved and began to understand that I shouldn't have been using alcohol as often as I was before.”  “It really made me re‐evaluate my drinking situation not only for the health consequences, but also the school consequences, which makes me much more considerate about my decisions because they can dramatically affect my future.” 

“I learned mostly to take into consideration the realistic consequences of my actions, Fun should not be the only deciding factor in my decisions because it can cause some dramatic consequences both physically and academically.

A number of students also recognized that they could have made different decisions during their conduct incident that would have resulted in them not going through the conduct process (74%). This data shows that many of the respondents recognize that they could have engaged in different behavior or actions. Seventy‐five percent (75%) strongly agreed or agreed that they now take different actions when faced with a similar situation. This data shows that they are making different decisions or taking different actions. This recognition of potential impacts reflects the advanced stage of this learning outcome. The two comments below capture this sentiment:  “I learned that I should think more carefully through my actions before I do anything spontaneously or brash.”  “I learned that I should be more conscious and think through my actions and their implications before I take them.”

Overall, the students appear to be mostly in the Advanced stage of this learning outcome. They recognize that their behavior and actions have impacted themselves and that there are consequences. Many of them are considering those potential impacts and consequences and are making some changes to their decisions, behaviors, and actions moving forward. For some, this means avoiding potential conduct incidents. For others, they can identify and articulate alternative choices and actions but are not necessarily changing their behavior and actions to prevent conduct incidents.

OUTCOME #3 – STUDENTS WILL DEMONSTRATE INSIGHT INTO HOW ONE’S PERSONAL CONDUCT (HIS/HER DECISIONS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACTIONS) IMPACTED OR COULD HAVE IMPACTED FRIENDS, OTHERS, AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY. The students recognize that their behavior impacts their friends and the community. Almost all the respondents (92% ‐ agreed or strongly agreed) said that they consider the potential impacts on others when making decisions.

Additionally, the respondents also agreed that they considered how their actions could potentially impact their friends (68%) and could potentially impact the community members/neighbors surrounding the campus (68%).

Three‐fourths (75%) of the students strongly agreed or agreed that they understood how their actions impacted others in the Berkeley community. What was surprising about the data though was when the students were Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 27

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

asked how their friends and how the community was impacted by their actions during the conduct incident with an open‐ended question, the students shared a wide variety of answers reflecting that no impact was created:  “I didn't tell them. It had no impact on them.”  “No one was around. We were not disturbing anyone.”  “They were not [impacted].” (This response was listed a number of times with the friends question)  “The community was not impacted. (This response was listed a number of times with the community question) There appears to be some discrepancy between the Likert scale questions and the open ended questions in regards to the impact caused to friends and the community due to the students’ decisions, actions, and behaviors.

A small group of students expressed a different awareness though. It appears that the conduct process can help students to see how their actions impact their friends and the campus community. Here are some realizations from students:  “I learned that my decisions can impact me, my friends, my teammates and UC Berkeley as an institution. I was not aware of this before!”  “I did not treat my classmates with respect because while they did honest work that required much time and effort, and I copied mine and did not put in the same time and effort.”  “It is embarrassing to even think of cheating in college because it reflects on my school and community, in my opinion. I would rather get a C than cheat on an essay again.”

Generally, the students reflect the entire range of this learning outcome (from the Emerging to Developed to Advanced). They see how their decisions, behaviors, and actions impact others. Some of them can identify and explain how they impacted their friends (emerging). Some of them can identify and explain how they impacted the campus and surrounding community (developed). They understand the concepts of considering others when making decisions and recognizing that their actions and behaviors impact others, but when asked to provide specifics (as the open‐ended questions did), the students did not articulate how their friends and the community were impacted by their actions. A handful of students’ open‐ended responses reflected the advanced stage of this learning outcome. This group of students were able to recognize how their decisions, behaviors, and actions impacted both their friends and the community. They are able to identify the range of alternative decisions, behaviors, and actions, and their potential impacts, to both their friends and the community.

RECOMMENDATIONS As the taskforce on Student Conduct has completed their recommendations and the Provost has approved them, Student Conduct will be implementing those recommendations in 2011‐2012.  While 73% of the survey respondents said that the time it took to resolve their case was reasonable, a number of students commented negatively on the amount of time it took to resolve their individual cases.

Student Conduct can work to receive the complaints more quickly from the various reporting agencies, notify the student about the conduct incident within a day or two after receiving the complaint, further encourage the student to meet about the conduct incident promptly, and issue notice to a student earlier in the process.

These steps should reduce the overall amount of time it takes to resolve a case and reduce the complaints about the length of the conduct process.  Eighty‐seven percent (87%) of the survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they could explain what behaviors are expected of students by the University. But, sixty‐one percent (61%) of the survey respondents said that they were not familiar with the Code prior to going through the conduct process. It appears that what many students perceive as the University’s behavioral expectations of students is not related to the Code. Student Conduct should expand its outreach activities to help students understand the University’s behavioral expectations and how those expectations relate to the Code.  As the students shared that they consider how their conduct impacts others (friends and community) but their open‐ended responses reflected something differently, Student Conduct can create ways to consider how one’s conduct impacted others through such short term actions as incorporating it into conduct meetings and creating sanctions that focus on the impact to others and through long term efforts by developing alternative resolution options such as mediation and restorative justice circles.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 28

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

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 30‐minute 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 (30.5%)  Police citations for alcohol, shoplifting and other misdemeanor offenses (24.8%)  Auto insurance/accident/other personal injury (8.9%)  Small claims court actions (6.1%)  Family Law (4.8%)  Credit problems/consumer fraud (4.4%)  Friend or previous SLS client (41.0%)  Campus administrative or academic department (22.4%, from 38 different administrative and academic departments)  Personal research by student (20.8%)  ASUC Student Legal Clinic, ASUC Renter’s Legal Assistance, and Student Advocate (9.6%)

2010‐11 HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY METRICS  

  

Provided 705 total legal consultations (29.4% 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 students (more than double the campus average), Chicano/Latino students (50% higher than campus average), age 24+, transfer admits, undergraduates with lower parental income, and Pell Grant‐ eligible undergraduates (16% more than campus average). [All student demographic data is aggregated.]

Offered workshop and trainings on landlord‐tenant issues, alcohol and the law, car accidents and insurance, and preparation for law school.

Topic areas of growth since previous year: landlord‐tenant, police citations, and filesharing/infringement.

Conducted student learning outcomes assessment of SLS clients, with 99 responses to online quantitative and qualitative survey.

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 29

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

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 705 client consultations in 2010‐11, which – in addition to helping students resolve legal issues – are intended to support the student learning outcomes described below.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES SLS conducted two surveys (in January and May 2011) of clients to assess four student learning outcomes and students’ overall experience and satisfaction with the service. The recipients of the surveys were 220 students who had consulted with SLS in the 8 and 4 months, respectively, prior to the applicable survey and for whom a valid email address was on file.1 Ninety‐nine students responded, for a response rate of 45.0%.

LEARNING OUTCOME #1: AFTER CONSULTING WITH SLS, STUDENTS WILL UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THEIR CASES.

The first learning outcome captures the main purpose of SLS. Student clients almost universally (99.0%) agreed or strongly agreed that consulting with SLS improved their understanding of the legal issues related to their cases.

Representative narrative comments from clients included the following:  SLS gave me the resources to understand the 74 I gained a better understanding of the implications of the legal paperwork involved in my legal issues involved in my case. (n=98) issue, and make a more informed decision.  Mark helped me understand the issues of my case more clearly and the different approaches I could take in 23 resolving the matter. He also reviewed the letter I sent to the court and provided me with the time and 1 0 information necessary for me to understand my case.

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly  Mark listened to all my concerns and went over them Disagree Agree one at a time. We brainstormed the consequences of each option, coming to agreement on the best course of action.

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.

I had a better understanding of the options available to me in my case (including non‐ legal options, as applicable). (n=99)

76

22 0

1

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

SLS does not represent or directly advocate on behalf of students, so it is very important that students know what to do next to resolve the issue that brought them to SLS. Almost all clients (99.0%) agreed or strongly agreed that they had an improved understanding of their options after consulting with SLS, and a similar percentage (96.9%) agreed or strongly agreed they knew the first “next step” to take in their case. Sample narrative responses included:

1

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, a password‐protected SurveyMonkey.com account, 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).

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 30

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11



So much help, support, and fresh ideas for I had a clear idea of the first “next step” to how to handle my case. It made me aware of take (if any) in my case. (n=98) 77 prospects outside of hiring an expensive lawyer or paying a fine.  SLS patiently explained my options and 18 3 meticulously went over my next steps in detail 0 with me. SLS also consulted with me in a timely manner when I was subsequently Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree drafting letters.  Mark not only answered my questions, gave thorough advice as to how I should go about negotiating my situation, but also referred me to other helpful resources.  SLS was very helpful at laying out the options I had with my case, and helping me formulate the best response. Mark also assisted with claim requests and subsequent responses to the companies involved.  The counselor covered every possibility objectively and gave me all of the time needed to understand my case. He also did further research after I left and emailed me his findings.  Mark listened to me and carefully explained the terms of the contract, what my outcomes could be, and what would be the costs of each choice.

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 most SLS consultations involve fairly simple legal matters, almost all SLS 63 clients are facing their first experience with the law, making it new and 32 unfamiliar. As a result, SLS often helps students work within a system or bureaucracy that they have never used 2 1 0 before. 96.9% agreed or strongly agreed that SLS helped them navigate an issue or N/A Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree institution that they might not otherwise have known how to navigate. Representative comments on this point included:  SLS was a huge help to me because I had no idea what I should be doing in court, what the consequences of my charges were, and what I options I had. The whole situation was daunting, but after meeting with Mark, I felt much more in control because I understood what I needed to do.  SLS set out step‐by‐step measures for me to protect myself on my financial/debt issues and gave me a wealth of information which demystified the process(es) I'm facing.  Mark provided crucial information about the procedures, possible outcomes, repercussions and ways to proceed [in] my case. He empowered me with the knowledge and confidence necessary to represent myself.

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=98)

Ideally, working through a legal question or problem with SLS provides students with transferable skills that they can apply to future experiences. A high percentage (97.0%) of SLS clients agreed or strongly agreed that their work with SLS helped them feel better equipped to deal with similar future situations. Related responses included the following:  With Mark’s advice, I successfully resolved my issue. I also learned a lot about the law, and Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

After consulting with Student Legal Services, I feel better equipped to handle similar situations in the future. (n=99) 0

3

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

78

18

Agree

Strongly Agree

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 31

Dean of Students Annual Report 2010‐11

  

feel more confident in solving legal problems independently in the future.

Mark was extremely helpful in educating me on my rights and even assisting me in communicating my concerns to my landlord. I truly felt empowered as a citizen after meeting with Mark.

Mark taught me how to write a letter to protect myself from being taken advantage of by my landlord, and I plan to use similar protections with future landlords.

Before meeting with SLS, I had no idea what to do. Afterwards, I knew exactly how to prepare myself and now I could do it again, or even give someone else ideas about how to handle a similar problem.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS In addition to four specific learning outcomes, the SLS mission emphasizes 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 fosters student success at Cal by providing assistance that enables students to focus on academics and limit the potential distraction of legal matters. When asked whether the legal issue they brought to SLS could have (or did have) an impact on their ability to stay in school, 43.8% of SLS clients responded “Yes.” Of those students, 78.6% said “Yes” when asked whether the assistance they received from SLS improved their ability to stay in school. This is particularly important, since SLS clients come from underrepresented groups in much higher numbers than in the overall student population1, and 82.8% of respondents said that without SLS, they would have no access to legal counseling. Related comments describe the variety of ways that SLS offers this support:  The advice offered took off a lot of stress, made me aware of my rights, and enabled me to focus on school rather than incessantly worrying about having to drop out or drop to half time to pick up more hours at work.  The SLS attorney saved my career at Cal.  I was seriously ill with a [health] problem. Mark helped me explain to the [healthcare professional] that the second [procedure] should be free. I really needed it as I couldn't focus at all and was going down the drug route, but after shelling out so much money for the first one, I really couldn't afford the second.  It helped me clear away some legal issues which could have affected my status in school.  Without resolving the legal issue, my finances would have prevented me from affording school.

One way SLS supports retention is by facilitating the recovery of money. 30.1% of respondents said that because of SLS, they collected or recovered money that they would not have otherwise collected or recovered (such as security deposits, excess credit fees, debt forgiveness, small claims recovery, and better‐negotiated insurance claims). Twenty‐three students identified specific amounts of money that SLS helped them recover; these amounts totaled $22,134, ranging from $200 to $3,000 and averaging $962 per student, with a median of $800.

Finally, client satisfaction levels with SLS remain very high. 99.0% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “SLS is a worthwhile/beneficial service” (with 92.9% strongly agreeing), and 100% agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend SLS to a friend (94.9% strongly agreeing). Similarly, 100% of SLS clients agreed or strongly agreed that they would use SLS again if they had another legal issue or question. Overall, 94.9% were satisfied or very satisfied with SLS (83.7% being very satisfied). Comments included:  This is a phenomenal service and I am so grateful to have it. It certainly enhanced my time at Berkeley.  Mark is great! One of the most helpful people I've meet in the 5 years I've been at Berkeley.  Mark has a very nice demeanor ‐ he is relaxing yet supportive and somehow calmly outraged on your behalf.

This made me feel much better.  SLS went above and beyond what I would have expected from a student legal advice service.  I can't emphasize how much SLS has helped reduce the amount of stress I've had to deal with regarding these issues. Truly an invaluable resource.

1

The following groups consult with SLS in a proportion higher than their average numbers on campus: African American students (more than double the campus average), Hispanic/Latino students (50% higher than campus average), and Pell Grant eligible undergraduates (16% more than campus average). [All student demographic data is aggregated.]

Dean of Students – UC Berkeley

2010‐11 Annual Report | Page 32

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010‐11

APPENDIX A

DEAN OF STUDENTS AREA‐WIDE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Students who participate in DOS programs 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 A

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010‐11

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 DOS 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 A

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010‐11

APPENDIX B

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: identify acquire label collect list define name distinguish quote examine

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: estimate predict associate explain prepare change extend read conclude extrapolate rearrange contrast fill in reorder demonstrate 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: modify develop apply organize discover calculate relate employ change restructure examine choose show experiment classify use generalize complete illustrate demonstrate 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 B

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010­11

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: propose formulate classify rearrange generalize combine relate integrate compose rewrite invent constitute specify modify create substitute organize deduce synthesize originate derive plan design tell prepare develop transmit produce document 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: rank defend appraise rate discriminate argue recommend estimate assess select evaluate choose summarize explain compare support grade conclude test interpret consider judge contrast validate measure convince value predict critique

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: separate differentiate accept set apart listen (for) accumulate share posturally respond to combine select control RESPONDING TO PHENOMENA: ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE, ATTEND AND REACT TO NEW LEARNING. QUESTION NEW CONCEPTS IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THEM.

Appendix B

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010­11

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

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: relinquish help assist specify increase complete subsidize increase numbers of debate support initiate deny argue protest differentiate 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: organize define abstract prepare discuss adhere synthesize formulate arrange theorize (on) generalize balance integrate combine modify compare 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: resist influence avoid resolve manage be rated high by peers in revise modify be rated high by superiors serve perform in verify practice change require complete

(Adapted from Bloom, Benjamin S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longmans, Green.)

Appendix B

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010‐11

APPENDIX C

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 C

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010‐11

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 C

Dean of Students Area Annual Report 2010‐11

APPENDIX D

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF UC BERKELEY 2011 RESULTS FOR MULTI‐INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF LEADERSHIP (MSL)

(ATTACHED)

Appendix D

Executive Summary

MSL 2011 School Report

University of California Berkeley

2011

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

STUDY OVERVIEW Background & Rationale 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 first iteration of the MSL study was administered in the spring of 2006. Subsequent data collections have been conducted in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Over 150 institutions and 150,000 students have been part of the study to date. The study is led by Principal Investigator, Dr. John P. Dugan, at Loyola University Chicago, and co-PI Dr. Susan R. Komives, at the University of Maryland, College Park. The National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs (NCLP - www.nclp.umd.edu/) plays a central role as the sponsor of the MSL. The Center for Student Studies (www.studentstudies.net), a division of Survey Sciences Group, LLC, serves as the primary coordinators of the research. Further support for the MSL was provided by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation; ACPA: College Educators International Educational Leadership Foundation; National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and the National Association of Campus Activities.

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, 2000; 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.

Study Framework The social change model of leadership development (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996) provides the theoretical frame for this study. 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: consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, common purpose, collaboration, controversy with civility, citizenship, and change. These values function at the individual, group, and societal levels. 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).

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 posited in Weidman’s (1989) model of student socialization were integrated, which extended variable measurement beyond just elements of the collegiate environment to external environment as well.

2

Sample & Instrument A total of 148 U.S. colleges and universities participated in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 MSL. The total sample size for the study was over 94,009 students. Schools were also invited to submit comparison samples of up to 1000 cases of their own choice. Data collected as part of comparison samples are not included in the national benchmark data.

The questionnaire was developed with a core set of measures adapted from the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) (Tyree, 1998), which measures the eight core values of the social change model (HERI, 1996). 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. Other leadership-related outcomes studied in the MSL include complex cognitive skills, leadership efficacy, social change behaviors, seeing alterative social perspectives, outcomes of mentoring relationships, spiritual development, and racial identity.

The MSL Codebook provides information on scaling and value labels for all variables in the study. The complete report provides an overview of the reliability and validity of key outcome variables.

Data Collection The MSL was administered between January and April, 2011. Data collection was conducted entirely via the Internet.

Each student received an invitation email and up to three reminder emails, if they had not responded to the initial request.

Overall, the response rate for all schools combined in this study was 29.09% and the total number of completed cases was 21,705. Any requests not to participate were noted and further contacts with the refusing respondent were cancelled.

3

Given the scope of the MSL, number of funding partners, and requirements associated with Institutional Review Board (IRB) policy, it is important to review issues related to using MSL data. Please keep in mind the following considerations as you move forward with using results on your campus.

STUDY DESIGN & PSYCHOMETRICS 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.

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). 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).

When surveying any population it is not uncommon to have a less than a perfect response rate. 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 nonrespondents which poses a risk. When such differences occur, biases may result when drawing conclusions from the data.

To minimize this potential for bias, a non-response weight was constructed. A national weight was also created to allow the benchmark data to accurately reflect the population of students at all participating schools.

BENCHMARKING Within the report each school is benchmarked to the National Sample which includes 148 collegiate campuses throughout the United States. The National Sample includes schools who participated in the MSL from 2009, 2010, and 2011. Schools

4

were classified into the following categories as gathered from IPEDS: Campus Size, Control, Carnegie Class, Religious Affiliation, and Campus Setting. Schools were also classified into a Selectivity category gathered from Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges. Along with the National Sample statistics, each institution was able to select four other benchmark groups from the classifications above that their institution was compared against. Each school contact filled out an online form that allowed them to select the categories for their school. This form also gave them the option of creating Custom Benchmark Groups that allowed them to create their own comparison groups with the schools of their choice.

KEY FINDINGS Executive Summary Key Findings While the full MSL 2011 report provides a wealth of usable statistics and findings for your school that spansnearly all of the measures collected, we have summarized some key findings for your institution here that we think may be of interest to you. These are key measures that the research team has selected as important for a great majority of MSL schools.

Collaboration

Common Purpose

Controversy with Civility

Citizenship

Change

Omnibus SRLS

National Benchmark

Commitment

Your Institutions Scores

Congruence

OVERALL SCORES

Consciousness of Self

The primary measures for the study, the SRLS, as described in the Study Design section, are reported as mean composite scores that range from 1 to 5. Your school’s SRLS measures, side-by-side with the national benchmark measures, are reported below. For significance and effect size results, please see the table "General Outcome Measure Scores and Comparison" in the full report.

3.85 3.98

4.08 4.15

4.22 4.30

3.96 4.04

3.97 4.00

3.75 3.81

3.82 3.79

3.72 3.82

3.89 3.96

Change

Omnibus SRLS

X

X

X

Gender Race Class Standing

Citizenship

Controversy with Civility

Common Purpose

Collaboration

Commitment

Congruence

KEY INPUT MEASURES

Consciousness of Self

The conceptual design of the MSL, using the IOE model, provides you with valuable information on how your students' characteristics and the environmental experiences with which they engage have an impact on the SRLS outcome measures.

The following table shows how several input measures may be related to the SRLS outcome measures. If there is a relationship, then you will see an "X" in the cell for each measure. If you do not see an "X" then there were no significant differences. For more about these findings, you may find the detailed results in the table "Inputs by Outcome Measures" in the full report.

X

X

X

X

5

Common Purpose

X

X

X

Involvement in College Organizations Leadership Positions in College Organizations

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X

Socio-Cultural Discussions Mentor Relationships (Faculty/Instructor)

Omnibus SRLS

Collaboration

X

Change

Commitment

X

Citizenship

Congruence

Community Service Residential Setting

Environmental Measures

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

Controversy with Civility

Consciousness of Self

Environmental experiences can influence these outcomes as well. In the following table, you can find where several key environmental variables influence the SRLS outcome measures. You may find the detailed results in the table "Environments by Outcome Measures" in the full report.

Omnibus SRLS

X

Change

X

Citizenship

Controversy with Civility

Collaboration

X

Commitment

X

Common Purpose

MSL Delta Measure-Change Over Time

Congruence

Overall Scores

Consciousness of Self

Because of the IEO quasi-experimental design, your MSL results are able to give you a picture of students' change over time across the outcome measures. Looking at seniors at your school, we have developed the MSL Delta Measure - a quasi experimental analysis that gives you a look at change over time to calculate this. The following chart identifies the outcomes in which students report a significant difference between pre-college and senior year. Significant changes are identified by the X. Please refer to your complete report to view the direction, scale, and effect size for these measures.

X

X

Relevant References Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007). College learning for the new global century Washington DC Author Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change Battle Creek, MI W. K. Kellogg Foundation Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students: Findings from a national study College Park, MD National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs A Report from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Higher Education Research Institute (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version III College Park, MD National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs Howard, G. S. (1980). Response shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post selfreports Evaluation Review 4 93–106 Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-shift bias: A source of contamination in self-report measures Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 144–150

6

Hoy, A, & Meisel, W. (2008). Civic engagement at the center: Building democracy through integrated co-curricular and curricular experiences Washington, DC Association of American Colleges and Universities Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L� word in higher education: The revolution in research on leadership San Francisco Jossey-Bass ASHE Higher Education Report 31(6) Komives, S. R., Wagner, W., & Associates (2009). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development San Francisco Jossey-Bass A publication of the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, & American College Personnel Association (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience Washington, DC Author Posner, B. Z. (2004). A leadership development instrument for students: Updated Journal of College Student Development, 45 443-456 Rohs, F. R. (1999). Response shift bias: A problem in evaluating leadership development with selfreport pretest-posttest measures Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4) 28-37 Rohs, F. R. (2002). Improving the evaluation of leadership programs: Control responses shift Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2) 1-12 Rohs, F. R., & Langone, C. A. (1997). Increased accuracy in measuring leadership impacts Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 1, 150-158 Tyree, T. M. (1998). Designing an instrument to measure socially responsible leadership using the social change model of leadership development Dissertation Abstracts International 59(06), 1945.

(AAT 9836493) Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. C. Smart (Ed.) New York Agathon Higher education: Handbook of theory and research Vol. 5 289-322 Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (1999). Leadership in the making: Impact and insights from leadership development programs in U.S. colleges and universities Battle Creek, MI W. K. Kellogg Foundation

7