functioned as strengths counselors were predictive of their effectiveness in ...... most often cited for using peer leaders in education (Turner & Shepherd,. 1999).
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY PREDICTORS OF PEER LEADER SUCCESS AS STRENGTHS COUNSELORS IN A FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR by David J. Brodersen
A dissertation submitted to the School of Behavioral and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education
Azusa, California May, 2008
UMI Number: 3308536 Copyright 2008 by Brodersen, David J.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI UMI Microform 3308536 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
© Copyright by David J. Brodersen 2008 All Rights Reserved
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY PREDICTORS OF PEER LEADER SUCCESS AS STRENGTHS COUNSELORS IN A FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR by David J. Brodersen has been approved by the School of Behavioral and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education
Laurie A. Schreiner, Ph.D., Committee Chair
David D. Mclntire, Ed.D., Committee Member
Karen A. Longman, Ph.D., Committee Member
Mark Stanton, Ph.D., Dean School of Behavioral and Applied Sciences
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A dissertation is the culmination of much effort put forth by many individuals. While I was writing the manuscript I was reminded on several occasions by the members of my committee that this was "my" dissertation. After completing this process I am convinced now more than ever that although the dissertation may be described as mine, taking sole credit for the work would be an affront to the kindness shown to me by the many individuals who have supported me in this academic goal. I would like to begin by acknowledging the contribution of my original dissertation committee chair, Dr. Edward "Chip" Anderson, who was taken by cancer July 5, 2005. During the years he worked with me, he helped me to discover and to cultivate my own strengths while inspiring me to pursue the philosophies and theories undergirding strengths theory. He was a man deeply concerned about equipping his students for academic and career success. He will be missed. Additionally, I would like to thank my committee members for the hard work they have contributed toward the success of this project. Dr. Schreiner helped me to direct my focus and spent an enormous amount of energy helping me with my transition into writing at the level required for this dissertation. Dr. Mclntire was a source of constant encouragement in the face of setbacks in addition to his contributions to the dissertation itself. During the times when I felt that I would never complete this project, he was quick to tell me that he had faith in my abilities. Dr. Longman joined the committee in the latter
in
stages of my study. It was amazing to see her quickly become an involved member of the process. Her contributions came in her unique skill at getting to the root of a problem and helping me with my focus. Additionally, she forwarded the titles of articles and books to me that targeted my personal growth with respect to strengths; material that I found exceedingly interesting and helpful. Dr. Stephanie Juillerat was not on my committee; however, I would like to acknowledge her contribution to my work. During the times that I called Dr. Schreiner at home seeking the answers to statistical questions, Dr. Juillerat graciously answered them on the occasions when Dr. Schreiner was attending to the demands of other students or her college duties. I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the members of the Gallup Organization for all of their help. Specifically, Irene Burkland, Mark Pogue, and Tom Rath, for providing me with information on The Clifton StrengthsFinder, the StrengthsQuest program, and information on the colleges and universities that were using these resources at the time I was writing this dissertation. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to my family, friends, and colleagues who encouraged me throughout this project. Specifically, my Aunt Audrey, and Aunt Toots who both expressed a deep desire to see me obtain my "sheepskin" while expressing their faith in my ability. I would like to express my thanks to Dennis Monokroussos who answered many questions on philosophy and offered suggestions on wording; Norma Mathews, Leslie Shipp, and Ed Eschner who encouraged me to begin work on my doctorate, and to the countless others who prayed for my success.
Additionally, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the community of scholars who faithfully answered my inquires: specifically, Alex Linley, Martin
iv
Seligman, Betsy Barefoot, John Gardner, Frank Pajares, and Nancy Betz. They treated me as a colleague during my research and made me feel welcome among a community of scholars that I hold in high regard. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my wife. There were many hours that she gave up so that I could complete this degree. She supported me through her confident smile, patience, personal prayer, and organizing prayer support for me. While sifting out all my failures, she placed all that was worth keeping in a box along with Scriptures of encouragement. While I was being humbled by my limitations, she opened that box and as she expressed her faith in me, she used its contents as proof that God would help me make it to the finish line. I love her to no end, and I am sincerely grateful for her commitment to me. Lastly, I would like to thank my God: the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob, and His Son, Jesus Christ for helping me through this degree program. The process of completing this degree has reminded me that God is the one who equips us in our endeavors (Deuteronomy 8:18). If I did not have a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ, I would not have finished.
v
ABSTRACT PREDICTORS OF PEER LEADER SUCCESS AS STRENGTHS COUNSELORS IN A FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR David J. Brodersen Doctor of Education in Higher Education Leadership, 2008 Azusa Pacific University Advisor: Laurie A. Schreiner, Ph.D. This research study sought to determine if certain characteristics of peer leaders who functioned as strengths counselors were predictive of their effectiveness in providing strengths counseling to first-year students. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to determine which peer leader characteristics were significant predictors of firstyear students' changes in strengths awareness, changes in academic self-confidence, cumulative first year GPA, and perceived peer leader effectiveness. Additionally, the peer leaders were split into quartiles in terms of first-year students' perceived effectiveness and the extreme quartiles were compared using analysis of variance. The results from the hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that the only characteristic that was a significant positive predictor of the peer leaders' effectiveness was their comfort with their level of preparation. This characteristic positively predicted changes in first-year students' strengths awareness over the course of the semester. The analysis of variance revealed that the most effective peer leaders were significantly better at fostering positive changes in first-year students' changes in strengths awareness and academic selfconfidence than the least effective peer leaders. The implication from the findings in this
vi
study is that effective peer leaders appear to be able to foster an increase in the first-year students' beliefs about their capabilities, which promotes first-year student success in academics and how they approach the future.
vn
Table of Contents Acknowledgements
iii
Abstract
vi
List of Tables
xiv
List of Figures
xv
Chapter
Page
1. Introduction
1
Background
3
Theoretical Contributors to Peer Leader Success Strengths Awareness
9 9
Academic Self-Efficacy
10
Career Self-Efficacy
11
Comfort Level and Perceived Peer Leader Effectiveness
12
The Problem
13
The Purpose
13
Research Questions
14
Significance of the Study
15
Definition of Terms
16
Academic Self-Efficacy
16
Career Self-Efficacy
16
Peer Leader
17
viii
er
Page Strengths
17
Strengths Counselor
18
Summary
18
2. Literature Review
20
Introduction
20
Chapter Organization
20
A Developmental History of the Strengths Philosophy
21
Foundations of the Strengths Philosophy
23
The Positive Psychology Movement
23
Origins of Positive Psychology
23
The Climate Prior to Positive Psychology
24
The Emergence of Positive Psychology
26
The Philosophical Roots of Positive Psychology
28
The Classification of Character Strengths and Virtues
29
The Major Principles of Positive Psychology
30
Strengths-Based Approaches in Social Work
32
Talent Development in Education
34
Organizational Approaches to Talent Development
39
Strengths Philosophy: Definitions and Theoretical Constructs
41
Strengths as Learned Coping Skills
42
Strengths as Character Traits
43
Strengths as Developed Talents
46
ix
Chapter
Page The Clifton StrengthsFinder Related Strengths-Based Research
48 49
Strengths-Based Interventions in Social Work Practice and Positive Psychology
50
Contributions from Positive Organizational Scholarship
51
Strengths in Organizational Development Strengths-Based Interventions in Education
53 56
The StrengthsQuest Approach to Student Success
58
Research in K-12 Education
59
Types of Research in Higher Education
61
The Impact of Strengths Interventions on College Students ...64 Student Self-Confidence
64
Academic Self-Efficacy
67
Career Self-Efficacy
69
Academic Motivation
70
Academic Engagement
73
Grade Point Average
73
Student Retention
74
The Use and Effectiveness of Peer Leaders in the College Setting
76
The Use of Peer Leaders
77
Historical Context
77
Rationale and Appropriate Roles
78
x
Chapter
Page Training
80
Peer Leaders in Strengths-Based Interventions
80
The Qualities of Effective Peer Leaders Leadership Qualities
82 84
The Source of Leadership Qualities
88
Positive Psychology and Leadership Qualities
89
Theoretical Contributors to Peer Leader Effectiveness
92
Self-Awareness Theory and Motivation
92
Self-Determination Theory and Types of Motivation
94
Self-Efficacy
98
Academic Self-Confidence
104
Career Self-Efficacy
109
Conclusion
112
3. Methodology
114
Introduction
114
Research Questions
114
Design
115
Participants
116
Peer Leader Participants
116
First-Year Student Participants
117
Measures
119
The Self-Reporting Scale for First-Year Students
XI
120
Chapter
Page The Self-Reporting Scale for Peer Leaders
120
The Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale
121
Criterion Variables
122
Changes in Strengths Awareness
124
Changes in Academic Self-Confidence
124
Perceived Counselor Effectiveness
125
Cumulative Grade-Point Average
125
Predictor Variables
125
Peer Leader Educational Requirements Self-Efficacy
126
Peer Leader Job Duties Self-Efficacy
126
Peer Leader Academic Self-Efficacy
127
Peer Leader Career Self-Efficacy
127
Peer Leader Strengths Awareness
127
Peer Leader Academic Applications of Strengths
128
Peer Leadership Applications of Strengths
128
Peer Leader Comfort with Level of Preparation
129
First-Year Student Predictor Variables
129
Procedures
130
Protection of Participants
130
Informed Consent
130
Data Integrity
130
Data Collection
131
xii
er
Page Peer Leader Data
131
First-Year Student Data
132
Student Tracking
132
4. Findings
133
Data Analysis
133
Coding of Variables
133
Data Screening
136
Univariate Linearity and Normality
138
Multivariate Linearity, Normality, and Homoscedasticity ....139 Multicollinearity
140
Hierarchical Multiple Regression First-Year Student Changes in Strengths Awareness
140 141
First-Year Students' Changes in Academic Self-Confidence
142
Counselor Effectiveness
143
Cumulative First-Year GPA
144
Further Exploration
146
Conclusion
151
5. Conclusions
153
Discussion
153
Significant Predictors of First-Year Student Outcomes First-Year Students' Changes in Strengths Awareness
xiii
154 154
Chapter
Page First-Year Students' Changes in Academic Self-Confidence
157
First-Year Students' Cumulative First-Year GPA
159
Significant Predictors of Peer Leader Effectiveness
162
Peer Leaders' Comfort with Their Level of Preparation
163
Peer Leaders' Academic Self-Efficacy
164
Peer Leaders' Career Self-Efficacy and Job Duties Self-Efficacy
164
The Peer Leaders' Effectiveness in Terms of Increase Strengths Awareness
167
Limitations
168
Implications for Practice
169
Recommendations for Further Research
172
Conclusion
174
References
176
Appendixes A. Self-Reflection Survey for First-Year Students
212
B. Self-Reflection Survey for Peer Leaders
215
C. Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale
219
xiv
List of Tables 1. Peer Leader Demographics
118
1. First-Year Student Demographics
119
2. SRS-PL Predictor-Item Map
122
3. SRS-F Criterion-Item Map
123
4. Data Coding of Variables
134
5. Mean and Standard Deviation for All Variables
139
6. Regression Coefficients: Change in First-Year Students' Strengths Awareness
142
7. Regression Coefficients: Change in First-Year Students' Academic Self-Confidence
143
8. Regression Coefficients: First-Year Students' Perception of Peer Leader Effectiveness
145
9. Regression Coefficients: First-Year Students' Cumulative First-Year GPA
146
10. Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Upper and Lower Quartiles of Strengths Counseling Session Effectiveness
148
11. Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Upper and Lower Quartiles of Peer Leaders' Effectiveness as Strengths Counselors
xv
150
List of Figures 1. Flowchart for Analysis of Variance Procedures
xvi
166
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A successful first year of college has the potential to positively impact not only students' personal and academic success throughout their college years (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005), but also their persistence to graduation (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) and their subsequent career performance (Tucker, 1999). Raab and Adam (2005) note that the impact of first-year student success is not limited to the individual student. The failure of students to transition successfully into college during this critical year can also negatively impact the institution and the broader society. There are many programs designed to foster first-year student success, including first-year seminars, remediation courses for underprepared students, and peer intervention programs both in and out of the classroom (Bacharach, Bamberger, & McKinney, 2000; Guay, Senecal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Sawyer, Pinciaro, & Bedwell, 1997), many of which focus on remediating deficits. The research on first-year seminar programs is limited in its ability to document the impact on firstyear student success (Reason, Terenzini, & Domingo, 2007; Tobolowsky, Mamrick, & Cox, 2005); there is a similar lack of empirical evidence supporting remediation programs as a strategy for enhancing first-year student success (Bracken, 2004; Merisotis & Phipps, 2000). The empirical research on peer-led interventions as a strategy for increasing the success of first-year students is also lacking in breadth and rigor, with no
1
controlled studies of the impact of such interventions on student success measures (Tobolowsky et al.). Work by Anderson (1997) to improve academic advising led him to conclude that deficit remediation is not an effective means of motivating students and enhancing their success. Anderson's advocacy of an approach that involved assisting students to identify, develop, and apply their talents led to the implementation of strengths-based first-year programs beginning late in the 1990s. Related to the emerging field of positive psychology, this approach posits that greater gains in student success can be realized if the focus on student development is shifted from remediating weaknesses to capitalizing on strengths (Clifton, Anderson, & Schreiner, 2006). Initial research conducted on the use of a strengths-based approach in first-year programs has found that it can significantly affect students' academic engagement (Cantwell, 2005), academic performance (Williamson, 2002), self-confidence, direction, and academic performance GPA (Clifton & Harter, 2003), and persistence (Schreiner, 2004). Various delivery models have been implemented within these strengths-based first-year programs. While many of them rely on considerable faculty involvement (Bracken, 2004; Cave, 2003; Kinzie & Kuh, 2004; Maton & Hrabowski, 2004; Schreiner, 2004), others rely on peer leaders, particularly in larger institutions (Tobolowsky et al., 2005). Peer-led models have been used effectively in tutoring and advising centers to deliver services to students (Ender & Newton, 2003; Gainor & Constantine, 2002;
Martin, 1998). The impact of peer intervention models on programs designed to enhance student success, however, have not been empirically assessed. As part of that larger
2
research agenda, evaluation is needed of models in which peer leaders assist in the course delivery with the goal of the enhanced academic success of first-year students. Background In a survey of colleges that conducted evaluations of their first-year seminars using convenience samples, Tobolowsky et al. (2005) found that over 75% of the 322 colleges that responded to the survey had adopted first-year seminar programs to introduce students to campus life and provide them with tools for succeeding in college. However, none of the tools included capitalizing on strengths. Fewer than 60% of the colleges responding to the survey measured the relationship between first-year program participation and persistence, fewer than 40% reported gathering evidence of increased academic abilities, and less than 20% documented increased persistence to graduation because of their first-year seminars. This lack of comprehensive research on the effectiveness of first-year programs makes it difficult to determine the success of various models. In addition to first-year seminar programs, remedial education programs are designed to foster first-year student success in those students who are underprepared for college. Remedial programs have existed since the founding of Harvard University in 1636 (Merisotis & Phipps, 2000) and are employed by nearly all higher education institutions in the United States (Phipps, 1998). These programs, which assess student abilities and place low-scoring students in classes that focus on the development of basic skills while overcoming weakness (Anderson, 2005; Perin, 2006), are often costly and have been judged by some researchers as inefficient (Bettinger & Long, 2004; Bracken, 2004; Grubb, 2001).
3
The literature describing the success of remediation programs is contradictory. Bracken (2004) notes that more than 2 decades of research on remediation programs for underprepared first-year students have failed to produce findings positively linking these programs to improved freshman-to-sophomore retention rates. In a longitudinal study of nearly 7,000 students, Attewell, Lavin, Domina, and Levey (2006) noted that placing students in remedial courses did not foster subsequent higher academic achievement. Surprisingly, they found that after controlling for academic preparation and family background among other covariates, students enrolled in remedial courses were 6-7% less likely to graduate than their counterparts who did not enroll in remedial courses. However, research by Merisotis and Phipps (2000) "found that students who were enrolled in remediation courses reached three-fifths to three-quarters of the graduation rate of students who did not need remedial coursework. Thus, similar to the research on firstyear seminar programs, there is a lack of empirical evidence that supports the use of remediation programs as a strategy for promoting student success. Additionally, descriptions of these programs often include a focus on remediating weaknesses. A third means used to foster first-year student success is the use of student peers in various leadership capacities. Peer leaders are used for a variety of purposes, including leading and managing student groups (Gainor & Constantine, 2002) and assisting with academic advising (Sukolsky, 2004). They have often served as tutors for students in remediation programs who do not possess prerequisite skills for specific classes. As tutors, they have been used to help students remediate a variety of weakness. Although evidence of the success of peer leadership programs is limited (Wiegand, 2006), their contributions in helping first-year students achieve prerequisite skills for classes have
4
been more successful than relying on developmental courses alone. Peer leaders provide social support (Bacharach et al., 2000), help to alleviate demands on faculty while modeling leadership qualities (Carter & McNeill, 1998), and reach students who are at risk for destructive behaviors (Freeman, 2001). Thus, peer leaders are used in many remediation programs to foster student success and, in some cases, to help remediate weakness in their peers. Similar to the research on first-year seminars and remediation programs, there are no controlled studies that provide empirical evidence supporting their use (Tobolowsky et al., 2005). A second similarity is that all of these programs often include some form of deficit remediation as an approach to student success. The strengths philosophy stands in contrast to deficit remediation, with its emphasis on optimal human functioning (Linley & Joseph, 2004), productivity (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001), and reaching levels of excellence (Clifton et al., 2006). This philosophy is consistent with the principles underlying the positive psychology movement; identifying and cultivating one's most fundamental strengths and taking advantage of every opportunity to use them are among the factors that contribute to thriving. As Seligman (2001) has found, people function optimally when factors that allow them to thrive are in place. The fundamental goals of the positive psychology movement are to increase the prevalence of fulfilled individuals and thriving communities (Snyder & Lopez, 2005). Buckingham and Clifton note that people who are placed in situations where they are permitted to use their talents and strengths are more productive because they are capitalizing on what they do best. Overcoming weakness, at
best, results in average levels of performance; however, using strengths enables individuals to perform at levels of excellence (Clifton et al.).
5
The strengths philosophy complements not only the work being undertaken in the field of positive psychology, but also in social work practice and organizational development. Research in all three fields has been undertaken to examine the impact of a strengths-based approach on the optimal functioning of individuals and organizations. Research using positive psychology approaches such as cultivating and employing the virtues and strengths present in individuals has demonstrated a significant and lasting positive impact on individual well-being (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Studies in social work practice report similar findings, noting that positive changes in client behavior are realized when practitioners communicate methods for using strengths to contribute to creative problem-solving, social networking, and resilience-building (Aldwin, Sutton, & Lachman, 1996; Lee, Uken, & Sebold, 2004). The positive impact of the strengths philosophy on employee performance, satisfaction, and productivity is documented in studies on organizational development where environments foster talent discovery and its cultivation in employees (Baker, Cross, & Wooten, 2003; Bateman & Porath, 2003; Black, 2001; Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Clifton & Harter, 2003; Connelly, 2002). Such beneficial findings in the fields of positive psychology, social work practice, and organizational development provide support for researching the impact of implementing a strengths-based philosophy in the field of higher education. Programs that are distinctively strengths-based have been adopted in higher education as early as the late 1970s. Although empirical evidence is limited, there is growing evidence of the effectiveness of various strengths-based programs. The most popular delivery model has been within the context of first-year seminars, where a strengths assessment is administered and students are taught how to interpret and use the
6
results (Cave, 2003; Schreiner, 2004). Another approach is to adjust course curriculum in and out of the classroom to include the identification and use of strengths to accomplish course goals (Cantwell, 2005; Schreiner). Additionally, strengths-based advising programs for all levels of students have been introduced on campuses to foster student success (Schreiner; Williamson, 2002). The most comprehensive introduction of a strengths-based program on a college campus is described by Schreiner as part of a federally-funded grant project designed to implement the strengths philosophy on two campuses across all 4 years of the college experience through advising, first-year seminar programs, courses, and workshops. Research on these various modes of delivery suggests a positive link between strengths-based interventions and student self-confidence, student success (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2003, 2004), academic and career self-efficacy (Cooper, 2004; Schreiner), academic motivation (Estevez, 2005), and academic engagement (Cantwell). These strengths-based interventions have been largely faculty driven. Although such faculty-driven models are effective, they are also labor-intensive and can be prohibitively expensive. Consequently, other possible delivery models have been explored. Peer intervention models have the potential to provide effective delivery of strengths-based interventions for a variety of reasons. Peer intervention has been successfully used in higher education contexts to address program funding limitations by using peer leaders as advisors (Sukolsky, 2004). In fact, peer leaders have been used as
advisors, counselors, mentors, and tutors when assisting with the growth and development of students (Boice-Pardee, 2005; Gershman, Anchors, & Robbins, 1988).
7
D'Andrea and Salovey (1983) note in their foundational work on peer counseling that the coping skills of peer leaders appear to be sufficiently developed to help others with their transition into college. Many peers possess sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to act as tutors for students in remediation programs (Muraskin, 1997). Peers leverage a system of trust that is already in place (Harter, 1999), and peer groups possess the power to influence individuals (Erikson, 1968). Interventions that included the use of peer leaders have been documented to positively impact student retention (Stockwell & Zahorik, 2006), attendance, attitudes, classroom behaviors (Tobias & Myrick, 1999), and academic achievement (Muraskin, 1997; Slavin, 1991). In addition to the beneficial services provided by peer leaders, some researchers suggest that the personal characteristics of peer leaders may be a contributor to their effectiveness (Mohr, 1991; Morgan, 1976; Treadwell, Ashcraft, Teeter, & Ritchie, 2006). The qualities noted in the literature include responsibility, punctuality, and loyally (Treadwell et al); also cited are a positive attitude, patience, and understanding (Mohr). Murphy (2005) suggests that self-management, self-esteem, self-regard, and selfawareness all contribute positively to successful leadership in the general population. In addition, the literature on authentic leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003) and strengths development within the field of positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004a; Snyder & Lopez, 2005) suggests that self-awareness, and in particular strengths awareness, is predictive of successful leadership. Such qualities have been found to be significantly correlated with self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 1999), which is one's belief in his or her own capabilities to succeed in specific situations. However, the literature describing these qualities provides no rationale for selecting any particular quality; they
8
were simply listed as being desirable. Moreover, these studies provided no description of any research methods or instruments used to assess the impact of peer leader qualities on students who receive services from peer leaders. Theoretical Contributors to Peer Leader Success In addition to the qualities of peer leaders that have been described in the literature but not empirically tested, there are peer leader characteristics that may specifically contribute to their capacity to function as strengths counselors in a strengthsbased first-year program. Such qualities as strengths awareness, academic and career selfefficacy, the level of comfort that peer leaders have in their role, and their preparation as peer leaders could potentially contribute to their effectiveness in such a program. The literature related to each of these qualities is described briefly hereafter. Strengths Awareness For individuals to be effective in new situations, they need to be aware of their own capabilities, which requires significant levels of self-knowledge and self-awareness (Hies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Self-awareness theory can be used to provide a theoretical framework to support the hypothesis that strengths awareness contributes to peer leaders' effectiveness in a strengths-based program (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998). The theory posits that individuals will be motivated to change when they find themselves in situations where their behavior is incongruent with accepted. They have the option to respond in one of three ways: change their behavior, change the standard, or avoid the situation causing the incongruence (Hall, 2004). In this way, they become more
self-aware. One of the qualities possessed by persons who are self-aware is an understanding of their uniqueness and strengths. Murphy (2005) notes that self-awareness
9
is a quality desirable in leaders that contributes to their success in that it fosters selfmanagement. Additionally, it is a strong predictor of student success (Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind, & Herman, 2003). The benefit of increased self-awareness is that students are better prepared when responding to new circumstances (Amundson, 1995). When coupled with an understanding of strengths philosophy, self-awareness in peer leaders equips them to facilitate greater strengths awareness in first-year students. Peer leaders who are aware of their strengths and how to use them to achieve academic and career goals are better able to communicate their own knowledge and skills to others. They become strengths models when others witness their successes as they employ their strengths in various settings. Additionally, personal experience reflecting on and utilizing their own strengths increases the peer leader's ability to help others learn how to apply their strengths to academic and relationship issues in the first year. Firstyear students who form a positive connection between the strengths knowledge in their peer leader and their perception of their peer leader's success may conclude that understanding and using strengths has benefited their peer leader. This realization may then motivate them to identify and apply their own strengths (Varma-Nelson, Cracolice, & Gosser, 2004). Academic Self-Efficacy According to Clifton and Harter (2003), students who are aware of their strengths experience higher levels of self-efficacy, a construct that is domain- or task-specific (Lent & Hackett, 1987). Academic self-efficacy describes judgments of personal efficacy as it
relates to academic choice and adjustment (Pajares, 1996). Pajares posits that students who believe they are capable of performing specific academic tasks are more engaged,
10
persist longer, and earn higher grades when engaging in similar tasks than those who are in doubt of their ability to succeed, because self-efficacy beliefs "mediate the effect of skills or other self-beliefs on subsequent performance by influencing effort, persistence, and perseverance" (p. 552). Thus, academic self-efficacy is linked to student success (Bandura, 1986). Pajares describes the relationship as reciprocal: Academic self-efficacy contributes to academic success, and academic success is a strong contributor to increased academic self-efficacy. Students who succeed academically are often sought by their peers for advice because they are perceived as knowledgeable, and they have persevered through problems encountered in the academic setting (Morgan, 1976). Thus, peer leaders with higher academic self-efficacy have the potential to be better role models than those with lower levels. Career Self-Efficacy Career self-efficacy refers to beliefs about one's capability to make good career choices and decisions (Lent & Hackett, 1987). This type of self-efficacy is a mediator between personality factors and career interests, which contributes to the career decisionmaking process in first-year students (Nauta, 2004). Even though personality may foster interest in a particular task (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), a decline in self-efficacy resulting from failed attempts at various tasks may dissuade one from choosing a career that includes similar tasks. Choosing a major and vocation is easier for students with higher levels of career self-efficacy (Betz & Hackett, 2006). Peer leaders who have selected a career, or at least a major, can be good role models who are able to discuss their own path to making a career selection. As students consider what resources they possess that might relate to career options, an awareness of personal strengths can be
11
helpful. Clifton and Anderson (2002) define a strength as the "the ability to provide consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity" (p. 8). The strengths approach helps people grow in self-knowledge and equips them to identify the environments where they are most likely to flourish (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Comfort Level and Perceived Peer Leader Effectiveness Comfort level in the context of this study is a peer leader's ease when considering the tasks one has been asked to do. Comfort level is determined prior to the peer leader moving into that role. Peer leaders who are prepared and comfortable are more likely to do well in their role than those who are uncomfortable (Cantwell-Wilson, 2002). According to Bandura (1991), comfort level influences feelings of self-efficacy. As students become increasingly anxious about their capabilities to succeed in a particular role, self-efficacy begins to ebb. Self-efficacy predicts students' persistence and their willingness to engage in tasks (Pajares, 2001). Thus, there should be a positive relationship between peer leader comfort level and willingness to engage in tasks and persist when challenges are experienced. Peer leaders who are willing to meet demands and persist when difficulties arise may be rated by first-year students as being more effective than peer leaders who are less comfortable with their anticipated role. Peer leaders' strengths awareness, academic and career self-efficacy, the level of role comfort, and preparation for their role, all potentially contribute to how first-year students evaluate their peer leaders' effectiveness. Peer leaders who are self-aware, comfortable in their role, and model self-efficacy will be viewed by first-year students as credible leaders,
which will foster trust. Thus, a positive effect on academic and career self-efficacy may
12
be realized in the first-year students who learn about their strengths while observing positive examples of strengths capitalization in their peer leaders. The Problem Despite the frequent use of peers in various roles within the academic setting, there is little empirical research on the efficacy of peer models or on understanding what qualities of peer leaders enable them to be effective. The selection criterion used when choosing many peer leaders is their willingness to serve and their potential to be a good role model, not particular qualities that enable them to be effective (Budny & Paul, 2004; Tien, Roth, & Kampmeier, 2004). Organizations seeking to employ individuals often have a standard that includes a list of qualifications and qualities they expect from prospective employees. Although this approach is used when hiring faculty and staff in higher education, it is seldom used when choosing peer leaders. To select the best peer leaders and design effective training for them, there is a need to understand which qualities predict peer leader effectiveness. The Purpose This research study sought to determine if certain characteristics of peer leaders who functioned as strengths counselors were predictive of their effectiveness in providing strengths counseling to entering students participating in a first-year seminar at a private liberal arts university in California. The characteristics examined in the peer leaders included academic self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, awareness of their strengths, and self-reported comfort level with their assigned task of providing strengths counseling to
first-year students. Because two of the primary goals of the strengths counseling program within the first-year seminar were to increase students' awareness of their strengths and
13
to increase their ability to apply those strengths to academic tasks, the effectiveness of peer leaders was defined both in terms of the extent to which these seminar goals were met and in terms of the first-year students' ratings of peer leader effectiveness. Research Questions The following four research questions were developed to address the purpose of the study. 1. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness predict changes in strengths awareness within the first-year students they counsel in the first-year seminar? 2. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness predict changes in academic self-confidence within the firstyear students they counsel in the first-year seminar? 3. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness predict the ratings of strengths peer counseling effectiveness by the first-year students they counsel in the first-year seminar? 4. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness, along with the first-year students' own strengths awareness,
academic self-confidence, and perception of strengths counseling
14
effectiveness, predict first-year cumulative grade point average of the firstyear students who had been enrolled in the first-year seminar? Significance of the Study If strengths-based programming is increasingly included in first-year seminars, then it is possible that peer leaders will be used to deliver such programming. If qualities that are known to contribute to peer leader effectiveness can be assessed, then peer leader selection and training processes could be improved. The potential significance of this study lies in its attempt to identify peer leader characteristics that will contribute to peer leader effectiveness when counseling first-year students in the context of a strengthsbased student success program. Specifically, this study will determine the extent to which academic and career self-efficacy, strengths awareness, and the level of comfort that the peer leaders have in their role and their preparation as strengths counselors contribute to their effectiveness. This study has implications for programs designed to foster student success in higher education. Qualities or characteristics that contribute to peer leader success can be used as criteria when selecting peer leaders. Peer leaders who possess the qualities that foster the success of the students with whom they interact will be more effective in their role, increasing their credibility with first-year students. This increased level of credibility should foster trust between the peer leaders and the students they serve. Additionally, it should be easier to train peer leaders who possess qualities that potentially contribute to their effectiveness, because they will be able to more easily
recognize how those qualities can foster effectiveness as they are presented during training.
15
This study is significant because the relationship between peer leader characteristics and effectiveness in a strengths-based student success program has never been investigated. Results of this study may promote changes in the selection and training of peer leaders. Definition of Terms Academic Self-Efficacy Pajares (2001) defines academic self-efficacy as "judgments of capability to succeed in academic pursuits" (p. 29). Academic self-efficacy was assessed in peer leaders by computing a composite score from three items from the Self-Reflection Survey for Peer Leaders (Anderson, Schreiner, & Brodersen, 2003). Additionally, it was assessed in first-year students by computing a composite score from five items from the Self-Reflection Survey for Freshmen (Anderson & Schreiner, 2003). An additional component of academic self-efficacy measured in this study is what Betz and Hackett (1998) refer to as educational requirements self-efficacy. This specific type of academic self-efficacy targets students' belief in their ability to complete the entire program of classes required to enter the workforce. Educational requirements selfefficacy was assessed in counselors using 20 items from the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (Betz & Hackett). Career Self-Efficacy Career self-efficacy relates to individuals' beliefs that they can choose and successfully function in a suitable career. It contributes to students' ability to make academic and career decisions, their ability to develop plans for the future, and their selfappraisal (Young & Friesen, 1992). In the context of this study, it refers to students'
16
belief in their ability to choose a vocation and succeed in it. Career self-efficacy was operationalized using five items from the Self-Reflection Survey for Peer Leaders (Anderson, Schreiner, & Brodersen, 2003). A component of career self-efficacy identified by Betz and Hackett (1998) is job duties self-efficacy, which was measured in the peer leaders and was defined as the 20item scale from the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (Betz & Hackett). This type of selfefficacy is defined as judgments of capability to successfully perform the job duties required in various occupations, as long as the necessary training has been provided. Peer Leader A peer leader is defined as an individual who guides his or her peers in various capacities such as advising, counseling, tutoring, mentoring, and group leading (BoicePardee, 2005). Peer leaders have varying degrees of involvement in the life of a fellow student. In the context of this study, peer leaders were employed as strengths counselors to supplement a 10-week first-year seminar that met twice a week. In addition to the seminar meetings, all of the first-year students met with peer leaders in small group settings twice a week. Strengths For the purposes of this study, strengths are talent themes that have been refined with knowledge and skill to produce "consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity" (Clifton & Anderson, 2002, p. 8). Talent themes are similar talents that are grouped together. A talent is "a naturally recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or
behavior that can be productively applied" (Clifton & Anderson, p. 6). According to Clifton and Anderson, talents are specific and measurable. The specific set of talents
17
present in each individual helps to determine that person's uniqueness and equips him or her to perform explicit tasks. In this study, students received an assessment of their talent themes using The Clifton StrengthsFinder (CSF; Gallup, 1999), an internet-based instrument developed by The Gallup Organization to help individuals identify and apply their talents. After the assessment, the students followed a program designed to help them develop their talent themes into strengths. As the strengths were developed, the students were taught to employ their strengths to foster academic success and choose a vocation. Strengths Counselor A strengths counselor is a peer leader employed in the role of a student counselor within the context of helping fellow students understand and capitalize upon their CSF talent themes to further develop them into strengths. Strengths counselors were trained prior to the first-year seminar and met with students in small group and individual settings to discuss the application of strengths in a variety of situations. Summary Although the literature provides a description of many characteristics that contribute to successful leadership observed in various organizations (Drucker, 1996; Eblin, 2006; Greenleaf, 2002; Maxwell & Ziglar, 1998; Murphy, 2005; Rost, 1993), little empirical research is available that identifies the qualities of effective peer leaders in higher education. No research is available that describes the qualities that foster peer leader effectiveness in the context of strengths-based programs. This research study sought to determine if certain characteristics of peer leaders who function as strengths counselors were predictive of their effectiveness when counseling entering students enrolled in a first-year seminar at a private liberal arts university in California. The
18
following chapter explores the pertinent literature on the strengths philosophy and its use with college students, followed by an exploration of the use and effectiveness of peer leaders in the college setting and a review of the literature on the qualities of effective leaders. Chapter 3 describes the research design, instrumentation, and statistical methods used to determine the relationship between peer leader characteristics and their effectiveness when counseling first-year students. Chapter 4 is a report of the statistical results that address each of the research questions. Chapter 5 discusses the findings and their implications. An interpretation of the data is then presented along with conclusions and suggestions for further research on subjects covered in this study.
19
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This research study sought to determine if certain characteristics of peer leaders who functioned as strengths counselors were predictive of their effectiveness in providing strengths counseling to entering students participating in a first-year seminar at a private liberal arts university in California. The characteristics examined in the peer leaders included academic self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, awareness of their strengths, and self-reported comfort level with their assigned task of providing strengths counseling to first-year students. Because two of the primary goals of the strengths counseling program within the first-year seminar were to increase students' awareness of their strengths and to increase their ability to apply those strengths to academic tasks, the effectiveness of peer leaders was defined both in terms of the extent to which these seminar goals were met and in terms of the first-year students' ratings of peer leader effectiveness. Chapter Organization This chapter takes a cyclic approach to presenting the review of literature. It is organized into four major sections. The first section provides the developmental history of the strengths philosophy within the context of positive psychology, social work practice, positive organizational scholarship, and education. The second section discusses definitions and the theoretical constructs from positive psychology, social work practice, and positive organization scholarship that undergird the strengths philosophy. The third
20
section discusses related strengths-based research in the context of positive psychology, social work practice, positive organizational scholarship, and education. The last section presents an exploration of the use and effectiveness of peer leaders in a college setting and a review of the literature on the qualities of effective peer leaders, followed by a conclusion. A Developmental History of the Strengths Philosophy Since the mid-20th century, psychology has focused primarily on addressing human failings and abnormalities in an attempt to increase human happiness. Disease has been studied to learn about health. Sadness has been studied to learn about joy. Failure has been studied to learn about becoming successful. Consequently, the notion that a person should focus on correcting what is wrong rather than capitalizing on areas of personal strengths to address problems has been prevalent in psychology, business, and the larger society (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Clifton & Nelson, 1992; Snyder & Lopez, 2005). The strengths philosophy stands in contrast to this focus on remediating weaknesses. It is founded upon the belief that talent is the greatest asset held by an individual and that such talent is often unidentified, yet is available within individuals to be developed and leveraged. According to this philosophy, a talent is "a naturally recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied" (Clifton & Anderson, 2002, p. 6). Talents can be refined with knowledge and skill into strengths that produce "consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity" (Clifton & Anderson, p. 8). Strengths can then be applied constructively to address various problems, as opposed to trying to identify and find remedies for weaknesses that may
21
have contributed to those problems (Tucker, 2003). Research by The Gallup Organization has found that individuals who focus on correcting their weaknesses are only able to achieve average performance at best, whereas those who exert comparable effort toward building on their talents can transcend average performance, even reaching levels of excellence (Clifton & Harter, 2003). With the goal of helping individuals to become more successful in various life activities, a strengths-based approach focuses and applies awareness of individual talents to daily activities. The integration of this approach into higher education originated in the late 1970s with the work of educational psychologist Donald Clifton, whose early research focused on tutors, counselors, and teacher education students at the University of Nebraska (E. C. Anderson, personal communication, January 15, 2001). His work was further developed by The Gallup Organization, which attempted to improve employee satisfaction and productivity in the business sector (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Clifton found that cultivating human talents was far more productive than trying to overcome weaknesses when pursuing excellence. Decades of work by The Gallup Organization focusing on strengths-based achievement represented a major stream of research that eventually flowed into the emerging field of "positive psychology" (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). Seligman (2002) argues that optimal human functioning and subjective well-being are at the core of human happiness, noting that to be authentically happy, individuals must identify and cultivate their strengths and virtues for daily use in all aspects of life.
In the late 1990s, The Gallup Organization hosted meetings of leading scholars who were working on the conceptualization and measurement of the strengths taxonomy
22
used in Seligman's research (Seligman, 2005). This convergence of leading thinkers significantly furthered the development of the theoretical framework that undergirds the strengths movement in general (Linley & Joseph, 2004; Rath & Clifton, 2005). Research studies using approaches related to positive psychology, such as cultivating and employing virtues and strengths, have demonstrated significant results with regard to increasing individual happiness (Seligman et al., 2005). Historically, attempts to positively impact the happiness of individuals using traditional methods had resulted in a "rapid return to baseline levels of happiness shortly after the intervention" (Seligman et al., p. 414). In contrast, a meta-analysis of positive psychology research findings reported that studies using interventions directed at cultivating strengths within individuals resulted in a significant and lasting impact on their happiness (Seligman et al.). These findings supported Clifton's premise that it is more productive for individuals to build upon talents and strengths rather than addressing areas of weakness. Foundations of the Strengths Philosophy Evidence of a paradigm shift toward a strengths philosophy extends beyond the field of psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004b) to social work practice (Compton & Gallaway, 1999) and organizational development (Cameron et al., 2003). This section describes the development of strengths constructs within each of these fields and the contribution of those constructs to the strengths philosophy. The Positive Psychology Movement Origins of positive psychology. Although Seligman is often credited as the founder of the positive psychology movement, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), Kranzberg (1999) and Nicholson (1998) note that others laid similar groundwork as early
23
as the 1960s, such as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Gordon Allport. Seligman (2002) recounts the historical understanding of educated persons living in the mid-19th century who believed that good character led to good actions and good living conditions, which made life worth living. Those with such character would nurture their talent toward excellence. In contrast, poor character was thought to lie behind such human shortcomings as "moral defect, sin, viciousness, mendacity, stupidity, cupidity, cruelty, impulsiveness, lack of conscience" (Seligman, p. 126) and the nurturing of talent toward self-serving purposes. It was believed that people of poor character came from the lower classes and experienced an unsatisfying life. At that time, there was no conception that environmental conditions might contribute to the development ofpoor character. The assumptions underlying this focus in the field of psychology were that character directs action, and character can be either good or bad (Seligman). However, these assumptions changed. The climate prior to positive psychology. In the early 20th century, the birth of the social sciences and behaviorism fostered a shift in the blame for bad behavior from character to environmental factors and conditioning. Character strengths were no longer viewed as governing behavior. Social science introduced the belief that conduct, whether good or bad, was a function of environmental forces acting on the individual (Skinner, 1938). If people misbehaved, then it was because the conditions and society in which they lived shaped their behavior. Early social scientists did believe that individuals could possess good character; however, a negative environment could promote destructive behavior in the individual, despite the presence of good character (Seligman, 2002).
24
The field of psychology was influenced by Watson (1913), who laid the groundwork for behaviorism. He called for a radical change in psychological research, with character playing no role in this emerging psychology. To the behaviorist, psychology was a purely objective experimental branch of natural science; its goal was to predict and control behavior (Wozniak, 1997). A common belief of the behaviorist was that behavior is a function of conditioned responses. Along with Watson, other pre-World War II psychologists offered various methods of conditioning as a means of controlling behavior. Hull (1933), a Yale researcher, used hypnosis as a form of conditioning and Skinner (1938) introduced operant conditioning as a method for behavior modification. Prior to World War II, psychology focused not only on treating mental illness, but also on identifying and nurturing talent and helping individuals lead more fulfilling lives (Seligman, 1998a). Shortly after World War II, the focus within the field of psychology shifted away from the positive to an emphasis on the treatment of mental illnesses. The U. S. Veterans Administration, created in 1946, provided funding for the treatment of mental illnesses in returning war veterans. Psychologists working in the academic realm could obtain grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, created in 1947, if their research focused on pathology (Seligman, 2001). Moreover, the introduction of drug therapy in 1951 made it possible to treat mentally ill patients with faster results (WBGH Educational Foundation, 2001). According to Seligman (2002), this combination of forces focused the field of psychology on pathology rather than seeking to prevent mental illness and identifying and nurturing high talent.
However, some post-World War II researchers did focus their work on positive aspects of self, such as human strengths and the promotion of character (Snyder & Lopez,
25
2005). Among these were leaders in the humanistic movement, such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, who encouraged focusing on human strengths during the 1960s (Kranzberg, 1999). Additionally, Nicholson (1998) notes that Gordon Allport, one of the leading researchers in modern personality theory, promoted character strengths and virtue when he began his professional work. According to Seligman (2002), Allport never lost that focus throughout his career in scientific psychology. Seligman further notes that in the early 1990s the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a workshop focusing on identifying any factors that would mitigate the development of mental illness; they referred to these preventive factors as psychological strengths. Pathology was still the main interest, but the NIMH catalogued four principal domains of psychological strengths that would help focus research in this area: self/personal, cognitive, biological/temperamental, and occupational/social. The emergence of positive psychology. In February 1998, a symposium was held in Philadelphia on the subject of the science of optimism and hope, stressing the need to study and promote human strengths. Three months later, Seligman testified before the Workgroup of the National Advisory Mental Health Council about the urgency of making the prevention of mental illness apriority (Kranzberg, 1999). Seligman (1998a) explained that 50 years of effort addressing weakness and brain dysfunction had done little to equip professionals to effectively prevent psychological pathologies such as depression and substance abuse. He proposed an alternative paradigm for future research: We have discovered that there is a set of human strengths that are the most likely buffers against mental illness: courage, optimism, interpersonal skill, work ethic, hope, honesty, and perseverance. Much of the task of prevention will be to create
26
a science of human strength whose mission will be to foster these virtues in young people, (p. 11) Just as behaviorism represented a paradigm shift in psychology in the mid-20th century, this science of human strengths required a radical change in the approach to psychological research in the late 1990s. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) note that the new movement of "positive psychology" (p. 5) represented a shift in focus to understanding and building those strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive. Positive psychology emphasized positive experiences and positive character or virtues (Jorgensen & Nafstad, 2004) that fostered optimal human functioning and "authentic happiness," ~ happiness that is genuine and "comes from identifying and cultivating your most fundamental strengths and using them every day in work, love, play, and parenting" (Seligman, 2002, p. xiii). One of the defining moments in the inauguration of positive psychology was Seligman's keynote address as the newly elected president of the American Psychological Association (Seligman, 1998a). He spoke of "psychology's forgotten mission" (p. 1) and his goal to reacquaint his constituents with psychology's pre-World War II mission of building strength, resilience, and health in humanity. Seligman's efforts served to redirect the focus within the field, with the result that scholarship on positive aspects of well-being and health continues to escalate (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003). With support from The Gallup Organization, eminent scholars gathered in 1999 to explore the potential for developing a taxonomy of the good life along with instruments
for measuring strengths (Values in Action Institute, 2005). The group produced a list of 17 characteristics in three categories that were identified as being related to a positive life
27
(Seligman, 2005). The Gallup Organization founded The Gallup Positive Psychology Center (GPPC, The Gallup Organization, 2005) and in 2002 hosted the first annual International Positive Psychology Summit at its facilities in Washington, DC. Since its inception, the field of positive psychology has expanded rapidly. Numerous related initiatives exist, such as the Positive Psychology Center established at the University of Pennsylvania (Positive Psychology Center, 2004), research opportunities funded by the John Templeton Foundation (Packard, 2005), and various journal and book publications such as The Journal of Positive Psychology established in 2006, The Handbook of Positive Psychology (Snyder & Lopez, 2005), Character Strengths and Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004b), and the 2007 launching of a Ph.D. program at Claremont Graduate University focusing on positive psychology (Smith, 2007). The philosophical roots of positive psychology. Positive psychology is philosophically rooted in an Aristotelian model of human nature (Jorgensen & Nafstad, 2004). Aristotle concluded that more than anything else, people want to be happy. He was convinced that character provides the motivating source behind human action toward seeking happiness; the virtues are the foundation of happiness. That is, one cannot be happy without virtues (Adler, 1978). Seligman (2002) sought to renew the notion of good character as a core assumption of positive psychology, believing that any study of strengths and virtues would be seriously handicapped without that foundation because character significantly
contributes to the motivation behind behavior. According to Peterson and Seligman (2004b), good character leads to positive actions that foster positive virtues. Thus, a
28
research model involving a study of strengths and virtues would be difficult to develop if a focus on character was not central. Although Seligman (2002) does not subscribe to the Aristotelian absolute that character is the single motivating force for human action, he does agree with the Aristotelian notion that one cannot be happy without virtues. To some degree, he views the virtues differently than Aristotle. Aristotle describes virtues as habits or dispositions to act in particular ways. Virtues, Aristotle notes, are states of the soul that equip the individual to live an excellent and fulfilled life. It is the excellence found in producing quality work that enables the individual to live a genuinely happy life (Lear, 1988). Consequently virtues, in this sense, can be measured. Seligman's concept of virtue is more abstract and is defined by strengths, which he equates with measurable character traits. For example, wisdom is a virtue defined by the strength of acquiring and using knowledge. Wisdom may then be exhibited in a variety of ways, such as creativity, or the love of learning, or any other qualities that capitalize on acquiring and utilizing knowledge (Peterson & Seligman, 2004b). The classification of character strengths and virtues. Peterson and Seligman (2004b) believe that the classification of character strengths and virtues is still in process. They describe character strengths as an intermediate level of classification due to the "good balance between the concrete (themes) and the abstract (moral virtues)" (p. 16). The classification of strengths began with input from a core group of scholars who met in 1999 and provided a preliminary list of human strengths and virtues drawn
from a review of professional, historical, and common literature across various cultures. Surveys of influential religious and philosophical traditions were used as tests for
29
ubiquity to avoid the selection of idiosyncratic character strengths and virtues. Ten selection criteria, such as contribution to happiness, moral value, and acceptance by the larger society, were agreed upon by the scholars. Six moral virtues that are believed to be present in all cultures met these criteria (Peterson & Seligman, 2004b). Additionally, 24 character strengths that were identified as being present in all cultures met the criteria. These character strengths are viewed by Peterson and Seligman as the means by which one can achieve any of the six moral virtues. Assuming that the basic needs that allow an individual to function in society are in place, it follows that if one engages in activities that foster the development of strengths, then one will build virtues, which contributes to happiness. The major principles of positive psychology. Positive psychology includes the study of positive emotion, positive traits, strengths, virtues, and abilities, and positive institutions that support virtues (Snyder & Lopez, 2005). One of its guiding principles is that psychology must include a focus on optimal human functioning in addition to the historical focus on dysfunction, disorder, weakness, and pathology. The study of "health, fulfillment and well-being is as meritorious as the study of illness, dysfunction, and distress" (Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006, p. 6). Embedded within that principle is the view that the study of human strengths and virtues should be central to human psychology. A corollary principle is that positive emotions initiate a "broaden and build" (Fredrickson, 2005, p . 122) process that aids in creative problem-solving, social
networking, and resilience building. Positive emotions are not only indicators of wellbeing, but also "broaden people's momentary thought-action repertoires and build their
30
enduring personal resources" (p. 123). Fredrickson's broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions follows a path that begins when one experiences positive emotions. Experiencing positive emotions leads to the broadening of a person's capabilities and responses, along with further development of personal resources that will be available later in life. These new resources transform individuals by equipping them with assets that can be used for problem-solving, social networking, and resilience building (Fredrickson). While the specific approaches to defining and measuring strengths vary within the positive psychology movement, there is consensus that such strengths are to be cultivated and applied as individuals "seek the good life" (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 141). Seeking the good life is conceptualized as the experience of rich gratification in the main areas of one's life, such as work, school, and play. That is, the good life is accomplished when the activities that people enjoy are completed to a level of excellence that results in deep satisfaction. This level of gratification cannot occur without the development and use of personal strengths and virtues (Seligman, 2002). Leaders within the positive psychology movement see a life that is full, healthy, and filled with meaning as the ultimate goal (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Linley & Joseph, 2004; Seligman, 2002; Snyder & Lopez; 2005). Seligman (2002) summarizes the good life as consisting of "experiencing positive emotions about the past and future, savoring positive feelings from the pleasures, deriving abundant gratification from strengths, and using these strengths in the service of something larger to obtain meaning" (p. 263).
31
Strengths-Based Approaches in Social Work A decade prior to the launch of the positive psychology field, social work was also experiencing a paradigm shift toward a strengths-based perspective. The dominant paradigm in social work has been similar to that of psychology; that is, viewing clients through the filters of weaknesses, limitations, problems, and failures (Cohen, 1999; Graybeal, 2001). However, there has been a dichotomy among workers regarding the best approach to social work practice; "A dual focus - on problems and growth, on strengths and deficits - has long coexisted at the core of traditional social work practice" (McMillen, Morris, & Sherraden, 2004, p. 321). Affirmation of the long-standing existence of a strengths-based approach in social work is noted by Compton and Gallaway (1999), "The identification and use of strengths has always been a part of the problem-solving model" (p. 89). A focused emphasis on a strengths perspective in social work emerged in 1989 with an article describing a strengths-based approach to treatment (Weick, Rapp, Sullivan, & Kisthardt, 1989). The strengths perspective takes the position that people can call upon their own assets and resources when addressing personal problems. People's coping resources "must be seen in the light of their capacities, talents, competencies, possibilities, visions, values, and hopes" (Saleebey, 1996, p. 297). Key terms associated with strengths-based social work are strength, empowerment, resilience, and membership. The client's ability to draw upon specific resources when addressing problems in social work practice is defined as a strength. Those using the strengths-based approach seek to help people become empowered by their strengths and thereby to become more resilient. Resilience describes the ability to
32
rebound from challenges or adversity. The view that strengths can be employed as coping resources also contributing to resilience is a developmental perspective. Social work literature that suggests the adoption of a strengths perspective explains that capitalizing on strengths has positive outcomes that are not easily explained by the conventional approach to social work practice. Green, McAllister, and Tarte (2004) relate stories of individuals and families who endured and sometimes thrived in the face of adversity. The individuals and families in these stories demonstrated resilience as they rebounded from problematic situations by using their unique strengths, skills, and abilities to create solutions when faced with challenges. These types of stories challenge the dominant paradigm in social work, because they fail to fit "neatly into any category" (Graybeal, 2001, p. 233). Saleebey (1996) argues that although problems assailing individuals and groups cannot be overlooked, coping mechanisms developed when handling difficulties can be a major asset. This positive aspect of resilience is a major focus of the strengths perspective in social work because it rejects the premise that people who have experienced various tragedies during their lifetimes will remain injured or disabled (Cohen, 1999). Acceptance of a strengths perspective in the approach to social work has not been universal. McMillen et al. (2004) attribute this difficulty largely to the fact that "consumers still ask for help with presenting problems, and those who pay salaries still consider a reduction of those problems as the primary evidence of effectiveness" (p. 317). Similar to professionals in psychology, social workers took a problem-solving approach
embracing psychoanalytic theory and using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the standard when diagnosing and addressing problems. Moreover,
33
"problem solving displayed a remarkable ability to adapt to the times" (McMillen et al., p. 320). This problem-solving approach was so deeply rooted historically that to the average social worker it did not make sense to embrace a strengths-based philosophy. Saleebey (1996) notes that "pursuing a practice based on the ideas of resilience, rebound, possibility, and transformation is difficult, because, oddly enough, it is not natural to the world of helping and service" (p. 297). Since the publication of Cohen's (1999) article on the positive aspects of resilience, literature about the use of strengths-based approaches in social work has increased. Professionals have created inventories and assessments designed to measure strengths-based service delivery in family support programs (Early, 2001; Green et al., 2004) as well as the strengths and competencies of young adults and children (Epstein, Harniss, Pearson, & Ryser, 1999). The strengths-based approach in social work has gained acceptance and is being used in tandem with traditional approaches (Saleebey, 1996). The use of strengths-based instruments has expanded the conventional evaluation focus of behavioral change, resulting in positive changes in client behavior (Lee et al., 2004). Talent Development in Education A corollary to the strengths perspective in social work and the positive psychology movement is the talent development approach in education. This approach traces its roots to the work of Holland and Astin in the early 1960s, who asserted that"... the concepts of talent and talent loss common to social scientists and educators doing
research on these subjects have been surprisingly uniform and limited" (Holland & Astin, 1962, p. 77). Scores on aptitude and intelligence tests were the sole means for measuring
34
talent. Students who received high scores were thought to possess more talent than their peers and were described as being gifted. Thus, research on talent development was almost exclusively in the context of gifted students (Coleman, 2002; Gagne, 2004; Porath, 2004). According to Holland and Astin, studies published prior to their work have shown that grades and aptitude "have little relation to leadership, vocational achievement, creative achievement in science and the arts, or other socially significant manifestations of talent" (p. 78). Accordingly, the authors introduced the alternative approach to defining talent in terms of "an excellent and socially relevant performance" (p. 77). Holland and Astin summarize: Human talent is the potential for excellent and creative performance having value for the individual and society; talented performance results from the interaction of personal potential for talented performance and favorable environmental opportunities for such performance; there are many, not few, kinds of talented performance, each probably requiring somewhat different personal capacities and opportunities; and "talent loss" is the failure of talented persons to perform work at a level of excellence which is commensurate with their potential, (p. 81) This new definition fostered change in research models to include individual characteristics and opportunities as criteria for identifying and cultivating talent in students. Holland and Astin (1962) note that talent can be lost when "opportunities necessary for the occurrence of talented performance are not present" (p. 79). Thus, colleges and universities provide the opportunity for people to advance their careers by fostering the development of the skills, talent, and maturity required to make one vocationally marketable.
35
Astin (1965, 1968) expanded on this talent development theme in his exploration of student retention, viewing characteristics as indicators of talent. He sought to identify the characteristics of students and colleges with the goal of aligning students with colleges that had characteristics similar to their own. Astin noted that people in different vocations have differing "interests, goals, values, temperaments, and socioeconomic characteristics" (p. 28). Accordingly, these attributes and characteristics could be used with some success to assist students in making career choices. In a study seeking to identify the characteristics of first-year students and whether or not they might be similar to the characteristics of colleges and universities, Astin (1964) identified six student characteristics that relate to six characteristics of educational institutions: intellectualism, estheticism, status, leadership, pragmatism, and masculinity. He hypothesized that students would be most likely to succeed in college environments that were congruent with their own typology. For example, according to Astin (1961), students with an intellectual characteristic who attend universities with an intellectual characteristic will have a greater likelihood of success. Astin's (1961, 1964, 1965) research in this area led to studying students with high aptitudes to determine the effect of different college environments on their vocational choices. His findings suggested that although college selection does have an impact on career choice and persistence to graduation, career choice is affected more by the characteristics of the individual than those of the college environment. In a study directed toward identifying reasons for attrition in higher education, Astin (1975) determined that gifted or talented students are at risk of leaving college due to boredom, and the likelihood of attrition increases if the student characteristics such as
36
race, academic self-confidence, or religious affiliation do not align with the characteristics of the institution. Astin found that academic self-confidence was, by far, the strongest predictor of retention among college students. Contributors to academic self-confidence are performance in secondary school, composite scores on the ACT and SAT, self-efficacy, and study habits. Additionally, he found a positive relationship between academic self-confidence and secondary school performance. Secondary school performance in terms of GPA was found to be a much greater predictor of college persistence than the other variables. The contributors to academic self-confidence and performance in secondary school were not the only predictors of persistence in college. Astin (1977, 1993) found that student retention was greatly affected by interaction with peers, faculty, and staff. Involvement in residence life, honors programs, undergraduate research, and social fraternities and sororities contributed to self-esteem, self-efficacy, academic selfconfidence, and a broadening of academic interests. Astin (1977) noted that "student faculty interaction had a stronger relationship to student satisfaction with the college experience than any other variable" (p. 223), including student and institutional characteristics. Thus, Astin's (1964, 1965, 1975, 1977, 1993) research suggests that: (a) students are drawn to institutions that will provide them the opportunity to use their talents; (b) students who attend institutions that foster the use and cultivation of their talents will choose a career that affords the opportunity to do the things they do best; (c) students
should choose an institution with familiar characteristics; and (d) peer, faculty, and staff
37
interaction are significant contributors to student satisfaction, which increases student persistence. Similar to Astin, Holland (1959) extended talent development into the suggestion that people will be most satisfied and successful in environments that match their trait characteristics. Based on this premise, Holland developed a career typology of persons and of environments that allowed certain talents to flourish. His theory begins with four assumptions: (a) people's traits can be categorized into six personality types; (b) there are six work environments that parallel the six personality types and allow these types to flourish; (c) people seek out environments and situations that will provide them opportunities to use their strengths; and (d) behavior is a function of the interaction of the person and the environment. Nauta, Kahn, Angell, and Cantarelli (2002) summarized the impact of Holland's theory, which has provided the framework for many research studies. It is well accepted in the educational community at all levels and is used as a foundation when developing career assessment instruments and advising students (Evans, Forney, & Guido-Dibrito, 1998; Spokane, 1996). The contributions of Astin and Holland complement each other. Astin's theories address the first stage of career success by providing a model that fosters talent development through a focus on student success in college. Holland's theories address the second stage of career success by providing a model to help students choose a career path that includes opportunities to use their talents. Both theories align with positive
psychology by emphasizing the environments that enable individuals to utilize and cultivate their talents throughout the process of education and career selection. However,
38
Astin and Holland define talent differently. In his focus on the characteristics that lead to success, Holland (1959) views individual talents as traits, while Astin (1964) views individual talents in a manner more similar to Peterson and Seligman (2004b) as characteristics that can be developed. The talent development approach in higher education that began with the work of Astin (1964) and Holland (1959) has been extended by Kuh (1998). He believes that the primary purpose of higher education is to help students realize their full potential through the adoption of a holistic view toward student development. According to Schuh and Kuh (2005), "Every student can learn under the right conditions" (p. 2). Kuh's research suggests that campuses that most fully engage the student are those that have embraced a talent development perspective. Such a perspective promotes the growth of positive student characteristics while creating optimum learning conditions. Organizational Approaches to Talent Development The view that every individual has talents that can be cultivated into strengths that contribute to excellent performance was introduced into education as a result of Clifton's talent research. Clifton was also the first to implement the strengths philosophy in business and educational organizations. He sought to help people become productive members of society by helping them to identify their talents, developing them into strengths. Even prior to the founding of Selection Research, Incorporated (SRI) in 1977, Clifton focused on individual strengths as a way of helping businesses select and manage employees (Lewis, 1997). He identified individuals who were top achievers in particular employment roles and studied their strengths (Clifton & Anderson, 2002).
39
Subsequently, SRI purchased The Gallup Organization which, under Clifton's leadership, continued to conduct research involving over 2 million respondents in an effort to determine the best way to maximize human potential (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). The initial studies began by asking the question, "What do the most talented employees need from their workplace?" (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 11). The results generated two new questions used in later studies: "How do the world's greatest managers find, focus, and keep talented employees?" (p. 12), and "What is it that brings individuals to a level of excellence beyond their peers?" (p. 12). Clifton's research questions were the catalyst for the strengths movement, beginning with the publication of Soar with Your Strengths (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). The strengths-based philosophy articulated in Clifton and Nelson's book attracted advocates throughout the business and educational communities (Clifton & Anderson, 2002). Gallup researchers found that work engagement led to improved productivity as well as to lower employee turnover. Their research resulted in the development and validation of a questionnaire called the Q12 (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). It was designed for use by management to measure the environmental contributors to employee engagement, such as what employees receive, what they give, their sense of belonging, the facilitation of growth, and opportunities to use their strengths. Studies have found that the Q12 can be used successfully to improve the work environment, thereby increasing employee morale, productivity, and retention by giving employees a voice and helping them seek out a way to apply their talents toward improved job performance
(Buckingham & Coffman). The success of the Q12 led to the development of an instrument that would more efficiently identify areas of talent that could be developed
40
into strengths. An online instrument called The Clifton StrengthsFinder, which became available in 1999, dramatically increased the momentum of the strengths movement, particularly within the business world and to a lesser extent within higher education (Clifton & Harter, 2003, Gallup, 1999). Strengths Philosophy: Definitions and Theoretical Constructs The developments within positive psychology, social work, education, and business provide a framework for the strengths philosophy with its emphasis on achieving optimal human functioning and capitalizing on personal motivation, interpersonal skills, and ways of perceiving the world to produce excellence (Clifton & Anderson, 2002). The strengths philosophy is a belief that achieving levels of excellence and productivity in any arena is far more likely to occur when people build on their talents than when they focus on remediating their weaknesses (Clifton & Harter, 2003). People who learn to capitalize on their strengths can: (a) look to the past and note any situations where they naturally used their strengths; (b) choose situations in which they are free to use their strengths in the present; and (c) consider past experiences that involved the use of their strengths to produce hope and optimism when anticipating future events (Seligman, 2002). The various proponents of a strengths philosophy do not define strengths in the same way, nor is there uniform agreement on the methods for strengths development and deployment. Aspinwall and Staudinger (2003) note that the meaning of the terms "strengths" and "talents" (p. 12) varies with the situation, context, and author. This
section presents the theoretical constructs and the definitions of strengths within each discipline and the contributions of those constructs to the framework undergirding the
41
strengths philosophy. For example, social work practice defines strengths in the context of coping skills (Aldwin et al., 1996; Saleebey, 1996). Peterson and Seligman's (2004b) concept of strengths relates more closely to character traits. Strengths "are the psychological ingredients - processes or mechanisms - that define the virtues" (p. 13). Clifton defines strengths in the context of performance. For Clifton, a strength is the ability to provide "consistent near-perfect performance in an activity" (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 25). Buckingham (2007) states, "The simplest and most useful definition of a strength is this: Your strengths are those activities that make you feel strong" (p. 85). He notes that strengths are "specific activities at which I do well and for which I still retain a powerful appetite" (p. 21). The following sections provide a more thorough discussion of strengths constructs from these perspectives. Strengths as Learned Coping Skills The strengths model in social work was developed in the School of Social Welfare at the University of Kansas (Rapp, 1997; Saleeby, 1997). Social work views strengths as resources within the individual that can contribute to creative problemsolving, social networking, and resilience-building (Saleeby, 1997). Such resources can include "talents, competencies, possibilities, visions, values, and hopes, however dashed and distorted these may have become through circumstance, oppression, and trauma" (Saleeby, 1996, p. 297). Additionally, strengths can be learned coping skills that develop over time as a consequence of responding to difficult situations. Strengths are realized as the result of the integration of wisdom gained from life experiences and the strategies used to manage those experiences (Pasupathi, Staudinger, & Baltes, 2001). The strengths perspective in social work encourages the client to utilize internal resources and abilities
42
to address life issues (Staudt, Howard, & Drake, 2001). Thus, anyone can obtain a particular strength because strengths can be learned (Saleeby, 1997). This view is similar to that found in psychology. However, the emphasis in social work is on building resilience (Goleman, 1995; Saleebey, 1997), learned optimism (Seligman, 1998b), and the development of coping skills (Rosenbaum, 1990). Strengths as Character Traits Seligman does not limit his definition of strengths to a repertoire of coping skills. Rather, he has taken a systematic approach toward developing a more comprehensive definition, beginning with a 1999 meeting of senior scholars in the field of psychology who endeavored to classify human strengths. This group devised a preliminary list of characteristics, which they termed "mansions" (Seligman & Peterson, 2003, p. 307). Later, the term was revised to wellsprings, which they believed would be a more neutral description. Eventually, the characteristics were simply called strengths. In 2000, the Mayerson Foundation and the Positive Psychology Network funded the Values in Action (VIA, Values in Action Institute, 2006) classification project. The mission of the VIA was to identify human strengths using the following criteria: A strength (a) should be general and stable across situations and time, (b) is noticed and welcome when present and missed when absent, (c) is a characteristic that parents try to cultivate within children, (d) is a characteristic that society tries to cultivate within its members, (e) is a characteristic identified in stories and role models in a compelling way, (f) is seen as a gift in children at an age younger than the norm, and (g) must be seen as
valuable in all cultures (Seligman & Peterson, 2003).
43
The outcome of the VIA project was a definition of strengths as a means by which one could achieve any of the six, culturally ubiquitous, virtues: "wisdom and knowledge; courage; love and humanity; justice; temperance; and spirituality and transcendence" (Seligman, 2002, p. 133). Peterson and Seligman (2004b) provide a list of 24 specific character strengths in their theoretical model, each of which is viewed in light of the "new psychology of traits that recognizes individual differences that are stable and general but also shaped by the individual's setting and thus capable of change" (p. 10). Each of the six virtues has specific strengths associated with it. Similar to the meaning of strengths in social work practice, Peterson and Seligman's (2004a) understanding of strengths does not include the assumption that they are innate. Rather, strengths are learned; they are cultivated by society and developed through personal experiences and are the results of the choices one makes. The acquisition of a character strength is not limited to a particular society or geographical location; strengths are culturally ubiquitous, just as virtues are. As strengths develop, they may become "signature strengths" (Peterson & Seligman, 2004a, p. 18) that are deeply characteristic of the individual. Signature strengths are measurable by others and help to define people in the minds of their peers. Seligman (2002) describes talents as inherent abilities that may contribute to strengths but should not be confused with strengths. Talents can either be developed or underutilized by those who possess them, in contrast to strengths which tend to be voluntary; are valued in their own right; and produce good results. Additionally, he views
strengths as "moral traits, while talents are nonmoral" (Seligman, p. 134). The possession of a strength involves choices regarding its acquisition in the first place, when to use it,
44
and whether or not to develop it over time. "With enough time, effort, and determination, the strengths ... can be acquired by almost any ordinary person. The talents, however, cannot be acquired merely by dint of will" (Seligman, p. 135). Although talent may or may not contribute to the strengths possessed by individuals, situational themes are inextricably connected to strengths. Peterson and Seligman (2004b) identify "situational themes" which are "specific habits that lead people to manifest given character strengths in given situations" (p. 14). Situational themes are at the beginning of a path that leads to virtue. That is, a variety of these themes can reflect a particular character strength. These character strengths combine with other character strengths to create a particular virtue. Peterson and Seligman provide an example of this relationship as follows: ... empathy, inclusiveness, and positivity all reflect the same character strength of kindness. And if we look at kindness even more abstractly, this character strength - along with the strengths we call love and social intelligence - falls into the broad virtue class of humanity, (p. 14) The VIA inventory of strengths provides individuals with a classification of their strengths (Values in Action Institute, 2006). Once measured, a report is generated indicating the top five strengths in order of intensity. Seligman (2002) suggests that no two people are exactly the same with regard to the strengths they possess, their intensity, or the order in which they appear. Consequently, the list of strengths provided by the report is known as a list of "signature" (Seligman, p. 13) strengths. The cultivation of signature strengths and virtues can improve the individual's quality of life with regard to
45
work and personal satisfaction, love and relationships, raising children, and developing meaning and purpose. Strengths as Developed Talents The situational themes described by Peterson and Seligman (2004b) are similar to the talent themes described by Buckingham and Clifton (2001), who define "strengths" as talent themes that have been refined with knowledge and skill to produce "consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity" (p. 25). In Clifton's view, there is no list of strengths comparable to what Seligman (2002) provides because strengths are viewed as highly specific to a particular activity and context. Consequently, Clifton measures themes of talent that can be used to build strengths to accomplish tasks at a level of excellence. According to Clifton and Anderson (2002), a talent theme is a group of similar talents. Talents are "naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied" (Clifton & Anderson, p. 257). Because the patterns occur naturally, those who employ them sometimes are completely unaware of the fact that they have them, or are employing them (Clifton & Anderson; Drucker, 2000; Tucker, 2003). Unlike the strengths construct described in positive psychology and social work, Clifton and Harter's (2003) perspective on strengths is that they are not universally valued by all cultures nor can they be obtained by anyone who chooses to pursue them. Rather, certain talent themes, which are fundamental to strengths, occur naturally in some individuals but not in others. Building on talents already possessed by the individual allows higher gains than when comparable efforts are employed toward improving areas of weaknesses (Clifton & Harter). Buckingham and Clifton (2001) believe that while
46
improvement can be made in specific activities, it would be impossible to obtain nearperfect performance without the presence of natural talent. Thus, the identification of dominant talents, refining those talents, and building the associated strengths are important to fully develop human potential. Drucker (1999) concurs with Buckingham and Clifton (2001) and Tucker (2003) that individuals cannot build performance on weakness. In his view, people must identify areas where they perform well and are able to use their strengths, place themselves in situations where their strengths can be used to produce results, and work on improving them. However, he notes that people are usually unaware of the strengths they possess and incorrectly identify areas where they believe they excel. Thus, it becomes important to obtain a means for accurately assessing one's talents and strengths. According to Clifton and Nelson (1992), identifying strengths begins with identifying talent. They propose four characteristics that facilitate talent discovery. People with a particular talent are drawn to certain activities that employ that talent. Clifton and Nelson describe this first characteristic as a "yearning" (p. 43). Second is the individual's experience of great satisfaction when engaged in activities related to their talents. Third, rapid learning is an indicator of a talent. A fourth characteristic of talent in action is glimpses of excellence at the onset of new activities and consistent near-perfect performance when the individual becomes more familiar with the activity. The characteristics that facilitate talent discovery are similar to those that indicate that talent has been developed into strengths. Buckingham (2007) describes the four indicators as: (a) high levels of self-efficacy when considering an activity; (b) being drawn to certain activities repeatedly; (c) rapid growth in an activity, due to interest and
47
the side-effect of "true happiness" (p. 82); (d) and the fulfillment of an innate need without psychologically draining the individual. According to Buckingham, strengths are an accumulation of the four experiences that are indicators of a strength. When people are operating in their strengths, they "feel strong" (Buckingham, p. 85) and may experience a state of effortless concentration and enjoyment; a state that Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes as flow. The Clifton StrengthsFinder. By 1998, Clifton and his associates had spent over 30 years studying the characteristics of top achievers in a variety of fields. Research by The Gallup Organization (2004) was able to identify more than 400 different themes of talent (Clifton & Anderson, 2002) that are foundational to the development of strengths. From these, "34 of the most prevalent themes" (Clifton & Anderson, p. 7) contributing to excellence were selected to form the basis of the StrengthsFinder™,
a 180-item web-
based instrument. The availability of a web-based instrument to assess strengths was considered to be a major development in the field of positive psychology (Lopez, 2006); this instrument was subsequently renamed The Clifton StrengthsFinder (CSF: Gallup, 1999) upon Clifton's death in 2003. Those who complete the inventory receive a report of their top five talent themes, called signature themes. Individuals can discover how to use their talents to develop strengths through the use of supporting materials (Lopez, Hodges, & Harter, 2005). Prior to the inauguration of the web-based version of the CSF into the higher education community in 2000, the CSF was used primarily in the business community to help organizations and individuals capitalize on talents to increase
employee satisfaction, productivity, and effectiveness.
48
Related Strengths-Based Research There are many programs in higher education that focus on deficit remediation as a way to foster student success. This approach has been based partly on contributions from the fields of psychology, social work practice, and positive organizational scholarship. Deficit remediation is an approach oriented toward addressing issues that could prevent the individual's success in a particular endeavor (Schreiner & Anderson, 2005). Similar to areas outside of the college experience, students are expected to overcome their deficiencies within a specified time period before they are permitted to move on to pursuing goals. The result of the deficit remediation approach is that individuals sometimes abandon their goals "because of disillusionment, discouragement or reduced motivation... [rather than a] lack of ability" (Anderson, 2005, p. 183). They can feel demoralized as a consequence of the focus on shortcomings and inadequacies, negatively impacting self-efficacy in completing goals (Yarbrough, 2002). If students do not believe that they have the resources to complete an academic program, then motivation and a desire to become involved with others decreases (Schreiner & Anderson). In contrast to the deficit perspective, "strengths-based development has potential that is just beginning to be realized. There is clearly a need to educate the world about positive psychology in practice and the importance of understanding and focusing on strengths" (Hodges & Clifton, 2004, p. 256). To that end, proponents of social work practice, positive psychology, positive organizational scholarship, and education have
researched the application of a strengths philosophy within their various disciplines. This section provides a summary of that research.
49
Strengths-Based Interventions in Social Work Practice and Positive Psychology Social work practice has a longer history of strengths-based interventions than does the field of psychology. Social work interventions are holistic in nature, in that they "identify strengths, focus on building trust, target the development of competence, address ecological factors, and reach out to individuals and families" (Ohser, 1996, p. 27). Interventions in social work that help participants identify and capitalize upon their strengths have resulted in a variety of positive outcomes, such as individuals discovering and implementing coping skills (Greene, Lee, & Hoffpauir, 2005), couples developing a shared vision for their marriage (Murray & Murray, 2004), and improved relationshipbuilding capacity of families. Such interventions also have resulted in increased participant engagement when receiving treatment, an increase in clinician efficacy with regard to social work service, and participants gaining a sense of empowerment and selfefficacy by enhancing existing skills (Green et al., 2004; Lebel et al., 2004; Vera & Shin, 2006). Strengths-based social work practice assumes that individuals already possess what they need to succeed (Saleebey, 1996). While noting that some clinicians argue that making any kind of assumption about patients increases the likelihood of failure in various treatment approaches, Saleebey disagrees. He asserts that assuming the existence of strengths draws attention to resources that were previously unexplored. In a qualitative study of 75 caregivers to the chronically ill, Berg-Weger, McGartland, and Tebb (2001) found that using a strengths-based approach when caring for family members is a natural complement to historical social work practice. Caregivers who focused on strengths developed from past experiences found it easier to adjust to the circumstances in which
50
they found themselves, had a greater level of self-efficacy, and were able to develop better management strategies when the need to develop skills demanded by care-giving situations arose. As a result, they were more empowered and engaged. In the field of psychology, Seligman et al. (2005) studied the effectiveness of strengths interventions. Almost 600 participants responded to an online inventory of character strengths and received individualized feedback about their top five signature strengths. They were encouraged to find a way to use one of the top five signature strengths reported by the inventory in a new way, every day, for 1 week. Data were collected across nine time points using the Authentic Happiness Inventory, General Happiness Scale (Peterson & Seligman, 2004a), and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), which measure happiness and depression. Using analysis of variance, the intervention resulted in participants realizing increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms for 6 months (p < .001), if participants continued with the intervention beyond the 1 week requirement, when compared to the control group that did not utilize their strengths daily. Contributions from Positive Organizational Scholarship The field of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) seeks to understand the dynamics behind "excellence, thriving, flourishing, abundance, resilience, or virtuousness" (Cameron et al., 2003, p. 4) in organizations. Many of the studies on the strengths philosophy in the field of business are exploratory, using appreciative inquiry to determine the positive aspects or strengths of an organization. Appreciative inquiry is a
process that uses individual employee contributions within an organization to foster success by focusing on what works rather than trying to fix what is not working. POS
51
focuses on positive relationships among employees, the impact of virtues on productivity, situations that foster an increase in self-efficacy and transcendent behavior, and includes studies on the impact of taking a strengths-based approach to organizational structure. Cameron, Bright, and Caza (2004) explored the relationship between employees and the organization for which they worked in the context of virtues. A definition for organizational virtuousness was presented, and an exploration of its relationship to performance was undertaken. "Virtuousness is associated with what individuals and organizations aspire to be when they are at their very best... [and leads to] ... health, happiness, transcendent meaning, and resilience in suffering" (Cameron et al., p. 767). After developing a two-part instrument that asked participants to characterize their organization based on suggested virtues and assessed key performance indicators, data were collected from 18 organizations in the Midwestern United States. Using linear regression and hierarchical linear modeling, findings indicated a positive and statistically significant relationship between perceived virtuousness and perceived performance and organizational profitability. Bateman and Porath (2003) suggest theoretical links between self-efficacy, the tenets of positive psychology, and transcendent behavior in which "people transcend what others perceive as limits, perform at extraordinary levels, and create transformational change" (p. 124). Transcendent behavior is strongly linked to positive psychology in several ways. It is an indicator of optimal behavioral functioning and contributes to subjective well-being. Character strengths and virtues help to form the
impetus behind transcendent behavior. Additionally, strengths and virtues contribute to self-efficacy, which contributes to transcendent behavior (Peterson & Seligman, 2004b).
52
According to Bateman and Porath (2003), intrinsic motivation is a much stronger contributor to transcendent behavior than extrinsic motivation. Additionally, transcendent behavior cannot occur without significant levels of self-control and self-management. It is plausible that individuals exhibiting transcendent behavior may have higher levels of self-control, be more intrinsically motivated, possess positive character and virtue, and be able to function optimally in many situations. Additionally, performance at extraordinary levels is an indicator that an individual is operating in his or her strengths (Buckingham, 2007). Thus, it becomes desirable to seek out such individuals for leadership, because: (a) those with higher levels of intrinsic motivation will likely perform better when given tasks (Deci & Gagne, 2005), (b) those who possess character strengths and virtues will provide "authentic" (Luthans & Avolio, 2003, p. 242) leadership which is trustworthy, and (c) human achievement is enhanced by self management (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Strengths in organizational development. Gallup researchers investigated the impact of using a strengths-based approach to management (Clifton & Harter, 2003). Over 2,000 respondents from the Gallup databases were asked open-ended questions regarding management of individual talent vs. weakness. Using the median performance of managers as the standard of measurement, the findings indicated that top-performing managers were more likely to "spend time with high producers, match talents to tasks, and emphasize individual strengths versus seniority in making personnel decisions" (Clifton & Harter, p. 116). Although Clifton and Harter did not specify how success in terms of employee management was measured, they noted that managers who used a
strengths approach nearly doubled their likelihood of success in terms of employee
53
management and advancement in the company when compared to managers who did not use a strengths approach. A study conducted by Black (2001) and included in a description of research by Clifton and Harter (2003) indicated that organizations that used talent identification and strengths development interventions experienced significant growth in employee engagement. The study was a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design with multiple observations over a 3-year period. The treatment group consisted of employees of a 150bed hospital in Florida who were surveyed for satisfaction and engagement using the Q12, an employee satisfaction questionnaire developed by The Gallup Organization (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). The results of the pretest were compared to the control group of employees from 151 hospitals stored in the Gallup database. The employees in the treatment group ranked in the 24th percentile at the beginning of the study. The treatment was the assessment of talent among the employees using an interview process, a restructuring of employee placement based upon talent, and employee training toward the cultivation of talent into strengths. Training was designed to help employees notice when they are using their talents, observe the impact of their talent, and see how focusing on their talent changes behavior. Once training was completed, employee engagement was measured annually using the Gallup Q12 as a posttest. The results indicated a linear increase in employee engagement and satisfaction scores to the 99th percentile by the third year compared to the control group (Black). Eight other hospitals in the same healthcare organization were given the same treatment during the same period of time,
with the result that "hospitals using the talent identification and strengths developmental
54
interventions grew significantly (Cohen's d= 0.86) in employee engagement in comparison to the control group" (Clifton & Harter, p. 117). Connelly (2002) found that building teams of workers whose members represent diversity in strengths results in teams that function more effectively than those whose members tend to have similar strengths. Toyota North American Parts Center California (NAPCC) was originally organized into a 54-team model with the team goal of finding ways to make work more stimulating, because problems with the functionality of the teams had emerged. Team functionality and employee satisfaction were measured using the Q12 as a pretest to establish a reference for measuring improvement. Individual employee strengths were identified using the CSF. Team membership size was reduced and the teams were reorganized to insure diversity in represented talent themes within each team. Six months later the Q12 was re-administered. The results from both administrations of the Q12 were placed into Gallup databases for comparison with nearly 1.5 million employees who had taken the Q12. The Q12 pretest results ranked in the 15th percentile, while the posttest ranked in the 29th percentile. Connelly noted that findings suggest that work teams are more productive if the size is small, the members are permitted to make decisions by consensus, and if the team members represent a diversity of talent themes. While the results cannot be attributed solely to the creation of teams with diverse strengths because the size of the groups was reduced as well, these findings lend support to the advantages of strengths diversity on work teams. Connelly (2002) also found that employees who identify and learn to capitalize upon their strengths are more productive than those who do not. Two groups, a treatment group (n = 48) and a control group (n - 297), were selected from employees at the
55
Toyota North American Parts Center California for a quasi-experimental study. The study group was given the CSF, feedback on the results, and developmental activities related to individual talent themes. The Gallup Q12 was used as a posttest to determine employee engagement 6 months later. Compared to the control group, employees in the treatment group experienced significant gains in their engagement, resulting in a 50% increase in productivity (Cohen's d= .72). The findings from both studies performed by Connelly suggest that strengths application is a predictor of productivity and that the diversity of represented talent themes within a group may be a predictor of group productivity. The results from studies reported by Baker et al. (2003), Cameron et al. (2004), and Bateman and Porath (2003) are similar to the studies by Clifton and Harter (2003), Black (2001), and Connelly (2002), in that employee performance, satisfaction, and productivity are enhanced when the work environment incorporates a strengths-based approach. However, their reasons for reaching this conclusion are different. In the Baker et al., Cameron et al., and Bateman and Porath studies, strengths are viewed as virtues that lead employees to be at their best and result in transcendent behaviors. In contrast, the Gallup studies (Clifton & Harter, 2003) view strengths as talents that have been developed that will lead to enhanced performance and levels of excellence. Strengths-Based Interventions in Education In an effort to improve student success, strengths-based interventions have been conducted in secondary and post-secondary educational settings. In college settings, a strengths-based approach has primarily been incorporated in first-year programs and the advising relationship. Although many of the interventions are recent (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2003, 2004; Cave, 2003; Estevez, 2005; Schreiner, 2004), a
56
strengths approach to education has influenced the field since Clifton first introduced the concept in 1978 (Anderson, 2005). A strengths-based philosophy represents a stark contrast to the dominant higher education paradigm of deficit-remediation. There are many programs designed to foster first-year student success, such as first-year seminars (Tobolowsky et al., 2005), remediation courses for underprepared students, classes designed to facilitate the transition into college, and peer intervention programs both in and out of the classroom, most of which focus on remediating deficits (Bacharach et al., 2000; Guay et al., 2003; Sawyer et al., 1997). According to Bracken (2004), the past 2 decades of research on remediation programs for underprepared students have produced no empirical findings suggesting an improvement in the retention rates for first-year students enrolled in these programs. In some cases, remediation programs were deemed to modestly reduce the chances of graduation of participants (Attewell et al., 2006). In contrast, Merisotis and Phipps (2000) note that students in need of remediation who failed to attend remediation courses were less likely to graduate. In contrast to the deficit-remediation model, a strengths philosophy is built around identifying talent and building upon it toward excellence. However, constructs surrounding excellence in the context of higher education have often focused on the institution rather than the individual student (Astin, 1983). Although a university or college may be excellent in the traditional sense, the lack of focus on cultivating individual excellence can limit student success. According to Astin, excellence can result
from developing human talent. Thus, he suggests that truly excellent institutions are those that are able to successfully develop human talent by focusing on changes in the student's
57
development over the course of an educational program. Anderson's (1997) advising model combines Astin's talent development approach with Clifton's strengths philosophy (Clifton & Nelson, 1992) in its focus on students' excellence as "performance at a perfect or near-perfect level" (p. 162). This advising model was later refined by Anderson and McGuire (2004) and published by Noel-Levitz in a program designed to enhance student retention. The StrengthsQuest approach to student success. Anderson contributed to Clifton's efforts while developing the CSF by researching its usefulness with the college student population at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In 1999, Gallup published a workbook by Clifton and Anderson intended to help students apply their strengths to academic and career interests (Clifton & Anderson, 1999). This publication was followed in 2002 by the release of StrengthsQuest: Discover and Develop Your Strengths in Academics, Career, and Beyond (Clifton & Anderson, 2002). This text is part of a multifaceted curriculum that includes access to the CSF and web-based resources designed to identify, develop, apply, and celebrate student strengths. The text presents students with the nature of talents and provides insights into developing those talents into strengths for use in relationships, leadership, academics, and career planning. A second edition of the text was released in 2006 with additional material on relationships and career issues (Clifton et al., 2006). As of June 2007, StrengthsQuest has been used by more than 260,000 people in over 2,200 colleges and universities to obtain their top five signature themes.
StrengthsQuest is used on campuses in a variety of ways, ranging from professors who use it in a single section of a class to institutions that are including it in programs for all
58
incoming first-year students (M. Pogue, personal communication, October 1, 2007). In addition to use in curricular venues, StrengthsQuest has been used in advising programs, counseling centers, and residential life programs (CCCU, 2005). Strengths-based interventions have been developed and introduced into K-12 education (Austin, 2005; Gillum, 2005) as well as into higher education programs such as first-year student seminars (Cave, 2003; Schreiner, 2004), general course curriculum (Cantwell, 2005), advising (Schreiner & Anderson, 2005), and campus-wide programs engineered to change the focus of student success from a deficit-remediation model to a strengths model (Schreiner). The following section presents both empirical and nonempirical studies of the impact of various strengths-based interventions used in the field of education. The CSF has been used in all of the interventions discussed hereafter to assess strengths. Many have used StrengthsQuest (Clifton & Anderson, 2002) as a curriculum or treatment guide. Research in K-12 education. Three studies have been conducted in high schools using the StrengthsQuest curriculum. Two of the studies formed the basis of doctoral dissertations and reported findings that suggest students benefit from learning about their strengths and how to use them (Austin, 2005; Gillum, 2005), while the third study was a large-scale longitudinal study. Austin found significant increases in levels of selfefficacy, expectancy, self-empowerment, and self-perception in the students who attended a class developed to help them identify and capitalize on their strengths. Gillum found that students who were made aware of their strengths and how to use them
exhibited significantly more effort when addressing class goals, attended classes more regularly, and completed more homework assignments than those in the control group.
59
While the research designs are similar, in that both involved non-equivalent control group designs, the treatment length and number of participants differ significantly. Austin's (2005) study lasted only 6 weeks and included over 500 participants from math and English classes who were divided into control and treatment groups. However, there was no control for differences between teachers chosen for the study. Gillum's (2005) study had less than 100 participants from math classes who were divided into four groups receiving differing treatments along differing timelines. The control group received no treatment. Students in the other three groups received various levels of a strengths treatment, which ranged from only receiving the CSF, to choosing their own signature themes from the CSF list without taking the inventory, to receiving the CSF and further training toward strengths development. The research designs in both studies included the use of self-reporting scales to collect data. The designs, methods for collecting data, and limitations reported in the studies suggest that generalizing the findings to other populations may be inappropriate. However, both studies found that the behaviors indicative of student engagement differed significantly depending on students' level of strengths awareness. These findings lend support to using strengths interventions that include a follow-up strengths training program after the assessment of individual strengths. Austin's (2005) and Gillum's (2005) results are consistent with the findings from Clifton and Harter's (2003) study of over 1,500 students in urban Chicago. In a timeseries research design that ran from 1994 to 1997, teachers were randomly selected each
year to receive training from Gallup on a specific talent identification interview process. Once the training was completed, teachers were employed to provide feedback to
60
incoming ninth graders on using strengths in various life aspects. The students in the treatment group (n = 807) showed a significant decrease in tardiness and absenteeism and an increase in GPA compared to the control group (n - 841). Control of extraneous variables, such as teacher training and student interview fidelity, was not described in the study and may limit the generalizability of the findings. However, the results lend support to a link between strengths awareness and student success in that a strong predictor of academic self-confidence is high school GPA (Laird, 2005), and students who possess greater levels of academic self-confidence experience greater levels of academic success (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Types of research in higher education. In the limited studies that have been conducted on strengths-based approaches to higher education, the interventions have ranged from only administering the CSF and providing students with the results (Cooper, 2004) to campus-wide interventions that have included faculty and staff as well as students (Schreiner, 2004). Various types of intervention will be described, and the results of the studies will be analyzed in the section that follows. The smallest intervention reported in the literature is that of administering the CSF and providing students with a report of their results. Cooper (2004) contacted students from multiple universities who were enrolled in courses on agricultural teaching methods. Those who agreed to participate in the study were given a copy of Now, Discover Your Strengths (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001), asked to read it, take the CSF, and later respond to several surveys. Thus, the intervention was minimal, involving only
taking the CSF and reading the book.
61
In contrast, the most frequent type of strengths-based intervention utilized in colleges and universities was within the context of first-year seminars. In most cases, StrengthsQuest (Clifton & Anderson, 2002) was used as a guide to supplement existing curriculum materials and used as the treatment (Cave, 2003; Estevez, 2005). However, one study designed original material to augment the existing first-year seminar curriculum (Schreiner, 2004). In each study (Cave; Clifton & Anderson; Estevez; Schreiner), the strengths intervention was typically for only a limited number of class sessions rather than for the entire semester. An alternative approach to these first-year seminar interventions is the introduction of strengths in other types of courses. Cantwell (2005) incorporated the StrengthsQuest curriculum in a required Public Speaking course. Once talents were identified, students were encouraged to use them during the entire semester to accomplish course goals. A similar semester-long approach was used with a psychology class (Clifton & Harter, 2003) and with a sophomore elective course on Calling and Vocation (Schreiner, 2004). In a different approach, a chemistry professor placed students in learning teams based on the students' strengths. The students were also required to make journal entries on how they used their strengths to foster success in their chemistry assignments. Additionally, the chemistry professor met with students individually outside of class to help them strategize about study techniques that were a good match for their particular strengths (Schreiner, 2004).
Thus, as of 2007, three types of course-based strengths interventions in higher education have been reported in the literature: (a) the course is designed with a focus on
62
strengths as part of the course content; (b) the course content remains the same, but strengths-based activities are assigned outside of class; and (c) a strengths-based approach is infused within the course delivery in and out of class sessions, without deleting any of the course content. Strengths-based interventions have extended beyond the classroom as well. Strengths-based advising, as described by Schreiner and Anderson (2005), has been the focus of several studies. In some cases, the advising sessions have been supplemental to a specific course (Clifton & Harter, 2003; Schreiner, 2004). In other cases, the advising sessions have not been connected to a course (Williamson, 2002). The two intervention types used by advisors include interventions in which advisors are paired with students for individual strengths counseling and interventions in which advisors are used to lead group discussions designed to affirm and nurture students' strengths. The final type of intervention documented in a study is one that was campus-wide and included faculty, staff, and students (Schreiner, 2004). In a comprehensive program at two liberal arts institutions that was supported by a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), strengths assessments were given to students during their first semester of college. The students' first-year experience was modified to include training on strengths application in academics and student life. Changes were made in the curriculum in various classes to include a strengths-based approach. Advising methods were adjusted to include a strengths perspective. New strengths-based classes were developed to foster an increase in career decision-making
ability. A plan for developing talent in students at each class level from the first through the fourth year was introduced. Campus personnel took the CSF and received training on
63
how to help students apply their talents in their academic work and consideration of majors. Additionally, residence hall leaders took the CSF and received training toward maintaining a focus on incorporating the strengths approach to student success. These leaders met with their residents to foster strengths development and informally counsel students. Thus, the cumulative intervention was an approach that incorporated all intervention types noted previously in a campus-wide initiative designed to foster a strengths-based campus culture (Schreiner, 2004). The Impact of Strengths Interventions on College Students The types of strength-based intervention programs in higher education described in the previous section have experienced varying levels of success. This section is organized around the dependent variables used in past research that were chosen to measure the impact of the strengths-based interventions. Student self-confidence. Self-confidence is defined as a belief in self-worth and the capacity to succeed. The constructs of self-confidence, self-efficacy, and self-esteem overlap, but they are not the same (Williams, 2002). Student self-confidence can be described as a combination of students' general sense of self-efficacy that is not contextspecific and self-esteem (Paulsen & Betz, 2004). Self-efficacy in individuals is best examined contextually, such as within the context of academics, career choice, or confidence in one's ability to engage in positive social interactions. General self-efficacy is an accumulation of measures of self-efficacy across these differing contexts (Bandura, 1986). Thus, as self-efficacy within a particular context increases, so does selfconfidence; providing that self-esteem does not change. Student self-confidence is a
64
contributor to academic motivation in that it is a predictor of a student's choice of achievement tasks (Schunk, 1991; Wigfield & Karpathian, 1991). Three studies suggest a positive link between strengths-based interventions, student self-confidence, and student success (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2003, 2004; Clifton & Harter, 2003). In two of these studies (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2003; Clifton & Harter), the non-experimental nature of the research design limits the inferences that can be made. However, one quasi-experimental study did find significant differences in self-confidence between students who participated in a strengths-based first-year seminar and those who did not (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2004). Using the Self-Reflection Scale (Anderson & Clifton, 1998) to collect data from 212 students attending UCLA in 1998, Clifton and Harter (2003) noted that the students experienced significant growth in self-confidence as a consequence of training directed toward the identification and use of strengths. This study utilized a non-experimental prepost design with no control group. Paired sample t tests were used to test for changes within the students over the course of the semester. Despite the finding of significant changes, these changes cannot be attributed to the intervention because there was no control group. However, the findings do suggest a potential for a positive link between strengths interventions, student self-confidence, and student success that warrants further exploration. In a non-experimental design, Anderson, Schreiner, and Shahbaz (2003) found a similar significant increase in students' self-confidence in a one group pretest/posttest
study of first-year students participating in a course that included 4 weeks of strengthsbased interventions. A questionnaire developed to assess students' self-confidence and a
65
variety of other outcomes was administered to students as a pretest at the beginning of the first-year seminar and then again at the end of the seminar as a posttest. An exploratory factor analysis had established preliminary construct validity of the instrument. The intervention consisted of 4 weeks of class sessions and small group activities utilizing the StrengthsQuest text as a curriculum guide. The results of the paired samples t test were statistically significant, indicating that the change in self-confidence reported by the students across the semester were not due to chance. However, Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) note that designs using only paired sample t tests cannot be conclusive because they do not control for any extraneous variables. A second study conducted by Anderson, Schreiner, and Shahbaz (2004) improved upon the one group pretest/posttest design by adding a waiting-list control group. In this quasi-experimental study, incoming students were randomly assigned to participate in either the treatment group that received a strengths intervention in the first 4 weeks of a first-year seminar or the waiting-list control group that did not receive the strengths intervention until the last 4 weeks of the seminar. The strengths intervention consisted of using the StrengthsQuest text as a treatment guide for 4 weeks of class sessions and small group activities. Students were given the CSF and engaged in individual and group projects designed to bolster strengths knowledge and application. The same questionnaire developed in the 2003 study to assess the impact of the strengths intervention was used as both the pretest and posttest. The scores from students in the treatment group were compared to the scores from students in the control group in an analysis of covariance,
using pretest scores as the covariate. Significant differences were found in students' self-
66
confidence, with higher levels reported by those who had received the 4 weeks of strengths intervention. A final study explored the impact of strengths-based approaches on students' selfconfidence in a social work practicum course (Schreiner, 2004). In this content analysis study, the intervention consisted of multiple one-on-one meetings between the instructor and the students in the class over the course of a semester. These meetings explored specifically how the students might apply their strengths to their assigned practicum setting and responsibilities. Essay responses from students enrolled in the course were used to measure the impact of this intervention. Themes that emerged from the content analysis of the essays indicated that students who knew their strengths reported greater success in their practicum setting, believed they were better equipped to empower their clients, and experienced greater levels of confidence when entering new settings or facing challenges. The positive experiences reported by the students in the study suggest potential for positive impact on the self-confidence of students when using strengthsbased approaches. Academic self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy is a contributor to student selfconfidence, which has been used as a dependent variable in several studies because it is a strong predictor of student success (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Ellas & Loomis, 2000; Gore, 2006; Le, Casillas, Robbins, & Langley, 2005; Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Several studies report findings that lend support to theoretical links between strengths development and academic self-efficacy (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2003, 2004;
Cave, 2003; Cooper, 2004; Estevez, 2005).
67
In a pilot study that was the precursor to her dissertation study, Cave (2003) found that students who attended a course that utilized a strengths-based curriculum made greater gains in personal and academic self-efficacy than those who did not. Estevez's (2005) phenomenological study noted an emergent theme that "underprepared students demonstrated an unexpected high sense of confidence that they can achieve academic success at the college level" (p. 91) after they learned about their strengths and how to capitalize upon them. Nearly all of the participants described a positive impact on their academic self-confidence as a result of the strengths intervention. Similarly, Cooper (2004) reported findings of a positive link between self-efficacy in students and strengths knowledge. Participants who completed the CSF and read the book Now, Discover Your Strengths (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001) reported that their newly-acquired knowledge on strengths would help them perform better in their vocation. The research design was a non-experimental one-shot case study conducted via the internet on a convenience sample of 61 participants. Cooper noted that the study could not be generalized to other populations due to the sample size. In all three studies, the sampling procedures and the absence of a control group limit the inferences that can be made, but the findings suggest a potential positive impact of strengths interventions on academic self-efficacy that merits further exploration. Anderson, Schreiner, and Shahbaz (2003, 2004) explored the impact of a fourweek classroom strengths intervention on first-year students' academic self-efficacy in addition to exploring student self-confidence. In the one group pretest/posttest design, significant increases in students' academic self-efficacy were observed over the course of the semester (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2003). In the waiting-list control group
68
design (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2004), significant differences in academic selfefficacy were found between the students who had participated in the strengths sessions and those who were in the control group. Although the design of the 2003 study limits the findings in that one group pretest/posttest designs only measure change and any changes cannot necessarily be attributed to the strengths intervention, the quasi-experimental nature of the 2004 study lends support to a link between strengths interventions and academic self-efficacy. Career self-efficacy. Career self-efficacy refers to beliefs about one's capability to make good career choices and decisions (Lent & Hackett, 1987). Betz and Hackett (2006) describe self-efficacy in the context of "the domains of Holland's (1997) theory or the process of career decision making" (p. 6) as career self-efficacy. That is, career selfefficacy beliefs fall within the realm of any career-related domain of behavior. According to Hall (2003), there is a strong relationship between academic and career self-efficacy in that academic development is a precursor to career interest. Thus, academic self-efficacy translates into career self-efficacy, which relates to student success. This positive relationship between student success and career self-efficacy has been well documented (Gainor, 2006; Larson & Borgen, 2006; Nauta, 2004; Nauta et al., 2002; Paulsen & Betz, 2004; Reese & Miller, 2006). Interventions that have the potential to positively impact career self-efficacy are therefore desirable because of potential gains in student success. One part of Schreiner's (2004) study focused on the impact of strengths interventions on career self-efficacy. In this study, sophomores' career certainty, career
decision-making self-efficacy, career planning, and awareness of campus resources for career planning were compared between students randomly assigned to participate in a
69
large-group event targeting a strengths-based approach to career planning and those randomly assigned to the control group. The only significant difference that emerged in this comparison occurred in awareness of campus resources for career planning. However, in a second study conducted as part of the same 3-year grant, a comparison of sophomores who participated in a Calling and Vocation course to those who were in the waiting-list control group revealed a significant difference in their career decisionmaking self-efficacy. These findings seem to suggest that a short-term intervention can raise student awareness of campus resources for career planning but that a longer term intervention such as an academic course may be necessary to produce changes in students' career decision-making self-efficacy. Academic motivation. The motivational processes in students have received much attention in the past decade (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). However, empirical research on the impact of strengths-based interventions on academic motivation is limited. Cave (2003) sought to assess the effect of supplementing an existing curriculum with a strengths intervention designed to bolster the academic motivation of students within the context of a first-year seminar. Her research design was quasi-experimental with a non-equivalent control group. The impetus for her research came from a qualitative pilot study that she performed on three first-year seminar groups, each receiving a different curriculum over four class sessions. In this pilot study, one group received an entire strengths-based curriculum using Strengths Quest (Clifton & Anderson, 2002) as a treatment guide, a second group was taught student success methods using a
traditional approach, and a third group included self-awareness exercises in addition to the curriculum used with the second group. Using interviews and journal assignments to
70
assess differences between the groups, Cave found that "the group that utilized the strengths education curriculum made greater gains in personal confidence, academic selfconfidence, academic motivation, and more positive feelings about career possibilities" (p. 102). Cave (2003) expanded her pilot study in her dissertation research, which involved students enrolled in the first-year seminar who were randomly distributed across 12 groups with an average group size of 15-18 participants. Six groups were non-randomly selected to receive treatment. The curriculum used in the experimental group (n— 111) was supplemented with the CSF and instruction regarding the cultivation and implementation of their strengths in various areas using StrengthsQuest (Clifton & Anderson, 2002) as a treatment guide. The control group (n = 109) did not receive the supplements to the curriculum. Cave used the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1992) as a pretest and posttest to measure the impact of the strengths intervention on academic motivation. She hypothesized that academic motivation would be positively impacted by teaching students about their strengths and how to capitalize on them. However, Cave found no significant impact from the intervention when using the scores from the AMS as a measure. Cave (2003) noted that the results of her study cannot be generalized to other populations because the research design did not exercise adequate control of the extraneous variables surrounding the first-year course, such as controlling for the size of the treatment and control groups. Additionally, she notes that the AMS "failed to measure motivation to remain in college in general, and it failed to measure academic motivation specifically" (p. 111). Cave's conclusion about the AMS is congruent with that of
71
Cokley, Benard, Cunningham, and Motoike (2001). Although the AMS was designed for use with college students, it has not been sufficiently validated in the United States. The original instrument, the Echelle de Motivation en Education (EME; Vallerand, Blais, Briere, & Pelletier, 1989), was developed and validated in France. Later, the instrument was translated into English, renamed the AMS, and validated in Canada. However, while validating the AMS for use in the United States, Cokley et al. found construct validity problems when the instrument was used with American students. Additionally, they found that the dimension of the AMS that measured intrinsic motivation in American students was not related at all to academic achievement. Although Cave's results showed no differences in students' academic motivation, the limitations of the instrument she used preclude any definitive conclusions. Estevez's (2005) design was similar to Cave's (2003) in that a strengths-based supplement, using StrengthsQuest as a treatment guide, was applied to an existing firstyear seminar curriculum. Estevez used a phenomenological qualitative research design at a small Midwestern college to investigate the impact of a strengths intervention on a firstyear seminar class of underprepared students. The intervention included the use of the CSF and participation in two focus groups that explored the impact of the CSF results. Several themes that emerged from interviews with students suggested that the intervention contributed to student success, including an increase in academic motivation as a result of heightened awareness of strengths. Estevez found that "students who engaged courses on the premises of their strengths more readily engaged the academic
demands of the course" (p. 72). Although a cause and effect relationship between the intervention and the outcome cannot be established due to the non-experimental design,
72
Estevez's findings lend support to the potential for a positive impact on academic motivation when using strengths-based supplements to existing curriculum. Academic engagement. Academic engagement has been the subject of many empirical studies over the past 4 decades (Brophy & Good, 1986; Harris & Cancelli, 1993; Skinner, Pappas, & Davis, 2005) because it significantly predicts student persistence and learning (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003). Unlike most studies of academic engagement, Cantwell (2005) studied academic engagement in the context of the strengths philosophy. Using a quasi-experimental design, Cantwell studied the impact of a strengths intervention using StrengthsQuest as a treatment guide on students enrolled in two sections of a public speaking course offered at a small Midwestern liberal arts college. A coin flip was used to determine which class would receive the treatment (n = 29) and which would be the control (n = 26). A multivariate analysis of covariance, using pre-existing levels of academic engagement and course-specific knowledge and skills as covariates, indicated significantly higher levels of academic engagement at the end of the semester in those students who were in the treatment group. Although the study has limited generalizability because of its sample size and population, her findings lend further support to a positive link between a strengths-based intervention and academic engagement. Grade point average. Only one study specifically assessed the impact of a strengths intervention on students' GPA. Williamson (2002) used GPA as one of several dependent variables in his investigation of the effects of strengths interventions on
student success. Using a quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group research design, he obtained a convenience sample of 80 students from a pool of 321 students at a
73
small liberal arts college who were enrolled in first-year English writing courses and had completed the CSF. Treatment (n = 41) and control (n = 39) groups were created through random assignment. The treatment group lost some of its members, reducing the size to 32. The treatment, which included a discussion of the CSF results, a 20-minute Power Point presentation on strengths theory, and various exercises designed to cultivate strengths, was administered in group meetings and individual consultations. Williamson compared the high school GPA for all of the students in the study to insure equivalence in ability between the control and treatment groups. A comparison of semester GPA scores was performed using independent t tests. There was a statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group reported in the findings. The retention rate of first-time college students who received the intervention was greater than the students in the control group. Additionally, students who received the strengths-based intervention achieved a significantly higher GPA than those who did not. The population and the small sample size limit generalizing the findings to other populations. However, these findings lend support to a positive link between improved GPA and using strengthsbased interventions in small groups. Student retention. Studies conducted thus far on the relationship between strengths-based interventions and student retention have failed to report significant results. Schreiner (2004) noted that the impact of the strengths interventions used in her study differed between the two participating colleges. One of the institutions realized a 2.8% increase of first-year student retention returning for their sophomore year in her
findings, while the other experienced a 4.5% decline in the retention of first-year students from the freshman to sophomore year. Sophomore to junior retention rates in both
74
institutions for the sophomore-to-junior year increased. Williamson (2002) reported a 10% increase in retention of students in his treatment group compared to the control group. However, this increase was not statistically significant. Although the findings reported in these studies were not statistically significant, Schreiner and Williamson both reported indications of a potentially positive relationship between strengths-based interventions and retention. All of the studies in this section investigated direct relationships between various types of strengths intervention and dependent variables associated with student success. In many cases, the choice and measurement of the dependent variable were key factors in determining the impact of the intervention. In other cases, the level of the intervention contributed to the impact on student success. Despite the design weaknesses in some of these studies, the research collectively lends support to the potential for a positive link between strengths development programs and student success. Cantwell (2006) notes in summarizing the literature that: ... strengths-development programs positively affect many traits: student optimism, strengths awareness, self-confidence, self-acceptance, goaldirectedness, affirmation of others, sense of control, realistic expectations, GPA, avoidance of disciplinary action, quality of effort, school involvement, timely class attendance, ability to effectively collaborate with colleagues, clarity for developing a career path and goals, confidence to assume advanced administrative or leadership roles within public schools, academic self-efficacy, positive selfconcept, positive perception of others, and awareness of others' strengths, (p. 161)
75
Schreiner and Anderson (2005) concur that focusing "on students' natural talents builds the confidence and motivation necessary for achievement and persistence in college" (p. 20). The Use and Effectiveness of Peer Leaders in the College Setting The higher education literature is rich with examples of peer leadership. According to Durlak (1979), students who provide guidance to their peers were initially called paraprofessionals. Today, many terms are used to describe peers guiding peers: peer leader (Muraskin, 1997), peer advisor (Gershman et al., 1988; Koring, 2005), peer counselor (Bacharach et al., 2000; Carty, Rosenbaum, Lafreniere, & Sutton, 2000), peer tutor (Beck et al., 1978; Saunders, 1992), peer mentor (Boice-Pardee, 2005; Budny & Paul, 2004), student guide, and student mentor (Carter & McNeill, 1998). Although these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, they can indicate varying degrees of peer involvement in the life of a fellow student. Peer advisors may offer direction in selecting classes, or they may fill the role of academic advisor, providing direction and strategies for degree completion (Koring, 2005). A peer tutor may be a student who provides teaching support (Beck et al., 1978), whereas a student guide may function as one who leads a peer toward knowledge and understanding. Student mentors may act in the capacity of close friend, providing a means for peers to articulate and share experiences as well as obtain guidance or tutoring (Carter & McNeill, 1998). Peer counselors can act in the capacity of any of these functions, including helping peers with their transition into college (Hill, 1990) or helping them with substance abuse issues (Freeman, 2001).
76
The Use of Peer Leaders Historical Context Peer leaders have been used in the educational setting since the early 1800s (Martin, 1998). Student volunteers provided by honorary or service organizations acted as paraprofessionals whose key function was to provide guidance to first-year students during orientation. After World War II, funding was provided to establish campus counseling centers designed to help students address the problems they faced while transitioning into college. However, counseling services provided to students in higher education were limited to professional staff. The domain of the paraprofessional remained the residence hall, where he or she functioned as administrative and academic counselors. It was not until the 1960s that student participation was incorporated beyond residence halls (Morgan, 1976). In 1956, 147 of the 218 colleges surveyed used peer leaders in freshman orientation programs or residence halls in a variety of roles (Brown, 1972). According to Zunker (1975), in 1974, 76% of institutions employing peer leaders used them as counselors. Pitts (1996) notes a strong and steady growth of the use of peer leaders as counselors, stating that one of the reasons for the popularity of peer leadership programs in higher education is that they "satisfy our four basic human psychological needs to belong and love, to gain power, to be free, and to have fun" (p. 12). There are no recent studies surveying the nearly 6,350 higher education institutions in the United States (HEP, 2006) to indentify the number of institutions using peer leaders. Martin (1998)
posits that the growth of the number of institutions implementing peer counseling programs is an indicator of program success in academia. Thus, the use of peer leaders in
77
first-year student programs is a natural extension of such student involvement in colleges and universities throughout the history of higher education. Rationale and Appropriate Roles A search of the literature reveals that peer leadership in higher education has been used in various methods, styles, and disciplines (Bacharach et al., 2000; Martin, 1998). Practitioners in developmental psychology recognize the strong influence peers have on other students' growth and adjustment to college (Guay et al., 2003; Hartup & Stevens, 1997). Erikson (1968) argues that peer leadership is an effective intervention strategy due to the power of peer groups to influence individuals. Harter (1999) observes that adolescents are more disposed to consult close friends or peers than parents or faculty when addressing personal issues due to existing levels of trust. In campus settings, students often rely on peers more than any other group on campus (Sawyer et al., 1997). Thus, employing peer leaders as counselors, advisors, or mentors leverages a system of trust that is already in place. Carter and McNeill (1998) found that the peer guidance relationship promotes student empowerment by cultivating a belief that they are active participants in planning their own future. According to D'Andrea and Salovey (1983), there is a strong interest among students in becoming peer counselors. They note that an underlying premise behind the use of students as peer leaders is that they have the coping skills essential to help their peers solve problems if given the opportunity. Numerous uses of peer intervention strategies exist within higher education. Students are used to guide group sessions (Gainor & Constantine, 2002; Martin 1998);
are involved in substance abuse programs (D'Andrea & Salovey, 1983; Freeman, 2001); and mentor under-represented peers, minorities, and multicultural groups (Gainor &
78
Constantine; Marable, 1999). Advanced learners are employed as tutors to help their peers in a variety of subjects (Bacharach et al., 2000; Muraskin, 1997). Peers also perform services as academic advisors (Walters, 2003). Students often look forward to filling peer leadership positions, viewing it as an honor to be offered such an opportunity (Tien et al., 2002). The available roles for peer leaders as part of a multifaceted approach to help students succeed broadens "horizons and meets the challenge presented by a new breed of student and an ever changing society" (Gershman et al., 1988, p. 82). Peer leaders assist with the growth and development of students, helping them realize their maximum potential. The use of peer leaders also helps to address the financial shortfalls experienced by many institutions (Morgan, 1976; Sukolsky, 2004). Introducing peer leaders into student services potentially improves satisfaction among students who use the programs by reducing the advisor/advisee ratio. The reduction in this ratio promotes a more personal and individual academic advising experience for the student (Morgan). Positive outcomes related by the current literature demonstrate the effectiveness of peer interventions that target attitudes, classroom behaviors (Carty et al., 2000), student retention (Stockwell & Zahorik, 2006), attendance, GPA (Reardon, 1990), self-efficacy, and academic achievement (Griffin & Griffin, 1997). Peer leaders who function in the role of counselors, advisors, and tutors foster a sense of belonging and social comfort for new students (Beck et al., 1978; McConnell, 2000; Schauer, 2005). Peer leaders who are mentors favorably impact the family support system of students attending higher education (Budny & Paul, 2004). The
use of peer leaders to help families of first-year students understand the support system available to new students and cultivate a sense of belonging for new students creates an
79
environment where students are free to embrace the process of becoming a member of their new community. In summary, the decision to include peer leaders in the first-year seminar programs is not based on this strong historical precedent alone. The benefits, which include the opportunity for students to grow in leadership skills, taking advantage of systems of trust that are already in place, and addressing budget limitations of programs in higher education, also support the decision. Additionally, existing programs that use peer leadership can be analyzed to obtain guidance for the development of other programs, reducing the expenses incurred from developing new first-year student success programs. Training Although the number of empirical studies assessing the benefit of training peer leaders is minimal, some existing peer intervention studies do address the issue to varying degrees. According to Tien et al. (2004) among other sources, training is the key to successful peer intervention. Proper training enhances the efficacy of peer leaders when called upon to address developmental issues. Additionally, it lays the foundation for providing service in recruitment, tutoring, supervision, office administration, program promotion, or counseling and advising peers (Frisz, 1986). Peer Leaders in Strengths-Based Interventions This rationale for training and using peer leaders provides support for the use of peer leaders in strengths-based interventions. The principles found in positive psychology
and the strengths models are exemplified when students take advantage of opportunities to become peer leaders (Pitts, 1996). As noted earlier, Pitts argues that one of the reasons
80
for the popularity of peer leadership programs in higher education is that they satisfy basic human psychological needs. Students are positively impacted when involved in peer intervention programs. In some cases, the beneficial influence of peer intervention exceeds that of professionals (Carter & McNeill, 1998; Durlak, 1979; Topping, 1998). D'Andrea and Salovey's (1983) study explored the impact of using peer leaders as counselors in a student-run drug crisis center. The findings were congruent with those of Durlak's (1979); both noted that students receiving peer counseling services were more satisfied with their peer counseling experiences than with professional counseling. Additionally, the authors found that both the students served and those providing peer leadership benefited by the experience. The student peer leaders reported experiencing a heightened individual confidence, a greater sense of self and heightened self-esteem, and the development of greater social and interpersonal skills. Their favorable experiences as peer leaders generated broad student interest in becoming a peer counselor or advisor. These descriptions of the positive impact of the study are similar to descriptions of optimal human functioning (Fredrickson, 2005; Seligman, 2002). This increase in optimal human functioning, student satisfaction, and the fostering of student interest noted in D'Andrea and Salovey's study suggests that there may be a theoretical link between positive psychology, strengths philosophy, and peer leader success. The literature on the use of peer leaders describes situations where individuals who are drawn to peer intervention activities experience satisfaction when engaged in them. The beneficial impact that peer leaders have on those being served indicates that
peer leaders may be performing at levels of excellence within their role. Being drawn to an activity, experiencing deep satisfaction when engaged in that activity, and performing
81
at a level of excellence are all characteristics that facilitate talent discovery, indicating that the peer leaders may be operating in their strengths (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). Strengths-based interventions described in the literature are often faculty or administratively-driven and represent a variety of models that exist for delivering strengths programming (Anderson, Schreiner, & Shahbaz, 2003, 2004; Cantwell, 2005; Cooper, 2004; Estevez, 2005; Schreiner, 2004). Although faculty-driven models are effective, they are also labor-intensive and costly, prohibiting some institutions from delivering a strengths approach to large groups of entering students. Other effective delivery models, such as the peer intervention models, can complement faculty-driven models. Peer intervention models have been used successfully in various higher education contexts to satisfy the economic limitations of institutions without compromising program effectiveness (Sukolsky, 2004). Thus, a compelling argument for using peer leaders in strengths-based interventions can be made from three perspectives: (a) the theoretical link between positive psychology, strengths philosophy, and the experiences of peer leaders; (b) the potential for student enrichment while serving as a peer leader; and (c) the economic advantages. The Qualities of Effective Peer Leaders According to Ender and Newton (2003), a large percentage of colleges and universities employ various forms of peer intervention. Although literature is available exploring peer leader qualifications, little research has been completed that investigates qualities that contribute to peer leader effectiveness. Although the definitions of peer
leader effectiveness would be expected to be different according to the nature of the tasks
82
assigned, the studies reviewed did not attempt to define such effectiveness or connect it to peer leader attributes. Most of the studies reviewed did not describe the methods used for selecting peer leaders. Of the studies providing selection criteria, noted qualifications ranged from having an interest in assisting incoming freshmen (Budny & Paul, 2004) to having prerequisite training specific to the services that the peer leader would be performing (Tien et al., 2004). Other requirements were specific knowledge or skills, such as information unique to the campus or the ability to actively listen, interpret, and confront (D'Andrea & Salovey, 1983). Peer leaders who functioned as academic mentors were expected to have good writing skills and be able to relate well with others (Treadwell et al., 2006). Frisz (1986) and Hill (1990) noted minimum standards of performance in various areas of academics as prerequisites for candidacy as peer leaders. It is notable that none of the aforementioned studies or articles cited research to justify their selection criteria. These selection criteria are indicators of qualities that exist in individuals who have developed sufficient levels of autonomy, self-regulation, and self-efficacy to meet the needs of those they were serving (Bandura, 1994, 1997; Brown & Ryan, 2004; Guay, Ratelle, Senecal, Larose, & Deschenes, 2006; Murphy, 2005; Tien et al., 2002). The earliest mention of specific qualities as a selection criterion for peer leaders was presented in a study of the impact of peer counselors' time management on freshman GPA and retention (Morgan, 1976). Morgan notes, from a historical perspective, that peer leaders were initially selected based upon their leadership qualities because they were to function as role models while counseling and mentoring other students. Treadwell et al. (2006) described several qualities expected of peer leaders who were selected by
83
professors to participate as peer mentors in the Collaborative On-Line Research and Learning (CORAL) course. In addition to specific skill requirements, peer leader candidates were expected to have the qualities of being responsible, punctual, loyal and committed, and trustworthy and to possess the capacity to foster trust in others. Additionally, they were expected to be assertive and tactful and to possess levels of curiosity sufficient to foster a "willingness to experiment with new ideas and ways of learning" (Treadwell et al., p. 44). These qualities were not empirically derived. The selection of peer leaders in CORAL was solely at the discretion of the CORAL professors, with no mechanism to insure that candidates possessed the qualities expected in peer leaders. Although there is an absence of research literature investigating prerequisite characteristics of candidate peer leaders, there are studies that describe the emergence of leadership qualities that have the potential to contribute to peer leader effectiveness. Mohr (1991) surveyed 21 peer leaders who were employed by the Math, Academic Achievement, and Writing centers as tutors at a Midwestern community college. Although not empirically derived, Mohr noted "patience, a positive attitude, and understanding as the most important personal qualities a peer tutor should possess" (p. 1). Leadership Qualities Peers take a leadership role as they interact with the students who use their services. Therefore, qualities of effective leaders outside the domain of peer leadership in education were investigated. These qualities are often described as abilities and are
dependent upon the follower's presuppositions regarding the concept of leadership. That is, the contribution of a particular quality to leadership success is dependent on the
84
follower's understanding of the term leadership and the circumstances wherein the quality is manifested. Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin (2006) note that a "major change in the leadership literature in the past decade is the rise in use of alternative paradigms to examine leadership. Social constructivism, post-modernism, and critical theory are now applied in studies of leadership, providing new insights" (p. 15). Specifically, the social constructivist paradigm focuses attention to the meaning of leadership in terms of how the "normative beliefs of a culture or organization shape the expected qualities of the leader and create an environment in which only certain individuals are considered leaders" (p. 20). Thus, the term leadership is broad in scope and is context dependent (Vroom & Gago, 2007). For example, people who are known for possessing the quality of leadership in a machine shop may not receive the same distinction in an academic setting (Rost, 1993). Cohen (1990) defines leadership as "the art of influencing others to their maximum performance to accomplish any task, objective, or project" (p. 9). Leaders must have the ability to recognize talent in others and help them develop their talents into strengths that can be applied to their vocation. Cohen's definition suggests that leaders should possess the confidence to take charge of a situation, analyze it, and develop the best route to an objective based on available resources. Therefore, leaders should be capable of strategic planning (Bachiochi, Rogelburg, O'Connor, & Elder, 2000; Davies & Davies, 2004; Maxwell, 1999). In contrast, Drucker (1996) believes "that 'leadership personality,' 'leadership style,' and 'leadership traits' do not exist" (p. xi). "Leadership is not rank, privileges, titles, or money. It is responsibility" (p. xii). Eblin (2006) argues that although a characteristic of responsibility is a prerequisite to leadership, it should be
85
coupled with any qualities that followers are expecting in those who lead them. Drucker believes that the qualities that contribute to leader effectiveness can be acquired through training at a later date. Such qualities would include charisma (Ames & Flynn, 2007); a willingness to serve others (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Greenleaf, 2002); generosity (Van Vugt, 2006); creativity (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005); being ethical (Blanchard, Hybels, & Hodges, 1999); possessing candor and maturity (Bennis, 2003); competence in selfmanagement and high degrees of self-esteem, self-regard, autonomy, self-awareness (Duffy, Shaw, & Stark, 2000; Murphy, 2005); and self-control (Longhead, Hardy, & Eys, 2006). Additionally, Levinson (2005) and Yee (2003) describe effective leaders as those who have "the ability to manage one's emotions and one's relationships effectively" (p. 251), which is an indicator of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995). Bennis adds that leadership qualities include curiosity and daring, trust, passion, integrity, and a "guiding vision" (p. 31), which is a clear idea of goals and objectives. During his elaboration on integrity, Bennis identified three essential constructs of integrity as "self-knowledge, candor, and maturity" (p. 33). The qualities noted by Bennis and the constructs of integrity are indicators of autonomy, which is a quality desirable in leaders (Burpo, 2006). According to Frank and Katcher (1977), leadership can be amoral and may emerge through coercion, charisma, a legitimized process, or consent between the followers and the leader. Leaders who are only responsible or gifted at influencing others need not have qualities that include honesty, integrity, or a concern for the success of
those they are leading. In contrast, Ciulla (1998) argues that leadership is "a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and
86
a shared vision of the good" (p. xv). Thus, qualities such as honesty, trustworthiness, dependability, fairness, empathy, a willingness to serve, and commitment contribute to the effectiveness of a leader by building trust between leaders and their followers. Oyinlade, Gellhaus, and Darboe (2003) concur, noting that good ethics, creativity, and being dedicated and hardworking are important qualities for those who lead. Additionally, they note that relational strengths such as good listening and communication skills; the ability to motivate others; good interpersonal skills; and a sense of fairness, courage, and firmness will foster leadership success. Humility as a positive leadership quality is more thoroughly discussed because it is an indicator of heightened levels of self-awareness, which contributes to other qualities that positively impact leader efficacy (Collins, 2001; Morris, Brotheridge, & Urbanski, 2005). Humility results in "behaviors that parallel those of servant leaders" (Morris et al., p. 1339) and is "consistent with [the] emerging emphasis on authentic leadership" (p. 1339). Drawing from positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004a) and positive organizational scholarship (Cameron et al., 2003), Morris et al. (2005) define humility as a human virtue that results in a "personal orientation founded on a willingness to see the self accurately and a propensity to put oneself in perspective" (p. 1331). Accurate selfassessment is necessary for authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). According to Morris et al. (2005), the dimensions of humility include self-awareness, openness, and transcendence. Additionally, leader humility predicts supportiveness toward others and participative leadership, which are desirable behaviors in the peer leaders who were employed in this study.
87
While reflecting on Greenleaf s (1977) theory of servant leadership, Spears (1995) notes that individuals who possess leadership qualities such as humility, honesty, dependability, responsibility, fairness, or empathy will be committed to the growth of the people they are serving. They will be responsible stewards with a heightened awareness of their surroundings in the context of group goals. They will possess empathy, good listening skills, foresight, and the ability to persuade. All of these qualities contribute to leadership efficacy in various roles. It follows that if these qualities contribute to leader efficacy in general, then they should also contribute to peer leaders' efficacy. Levinson (2005) concurs, noting that any leader with the qualities noted previously would be able to provide the dynamic force that would motivate group members, inspire confidence among them, and influence them to go beyond routine compliance with directives. The source of leadership qualities. Shakespeare succinctly described the sources of leadership ability in Twelfth Night when he wrote that some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness forced upon them (Shakespeare, 1623). Avolio (2005), Murphy (2005), and Yee (2003) note that leadership ability can be something with which someone is born, that some leadership qualities are trained, or that qualities may emerge as a consequence of the demands of various situations. Murphy suggests that leadership ability is an innate trait. Yee identifies charisma, personality, and talent as qualities and types that are inborn and are strong contributors to leadership, adding that not all aspects of leadership ability are inborn. Similarly, Avolio notes that although innate predispositions result in the manifestations of leadership qualities and a desire to engage leadership roles, "... leadership is by no means irrevocably fixed by genetics" (p. 3).
88
The theory that some characteristics of leadership are innate becomes important when one considers self-efficacy in the context of deciding to become a peer leader. Bandura (1997) notes that people who believe that they possess the capabilities to achieve what they seek will "... sustain a sense of efficacy, especially when struggling with difficulties" (p. 101). If students obtain knowledge of their individual talents and strengths and are taught how to capitalize upon them while filling a leadership role, then their sense of self-efficacy will be enhanced. With the exception of some catastrophic event, qualities that are innate cannot be taken away. Thus, people who know they possess qualities that contribute to effective leadership may be more willing to engage leadership roles due to higher levels of self-efficacy (Bandura). Drucker (1996), Bass (1990), and Gardner (1990) disagree with the notion that leadership ability or the qualities of leadership are innate. All three believe that anyone can be trained to perform leadership functions and that qualities of leadership will emerge as a consequence of the training. For example, according to Bass, vision and a sense of mission, the ability to gain trust and respect, and the ability to instill pride in others are all part of the trainable quality of charisma. Separate from the concept of innateness, all the authors who discuss the source of leadership qualities agree that training can positively impact any existing qualities; helping individuals to cultivate existing qualities will enhance leadership effectiveness when opportunities arise to step into a leadership role. Positive psychology and leadership qualities. The debate over the source of effective leadership qualities is also evident in the strengths philosophy and positive
psychology literature (Clifton, 1999; Peterson & Seligman, 2004a). Creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality, fairness, self-regulation, and
89
leadership are among the character strengths and virtues described by Peterson and Seligman (2004b), who believe that character strengths and virtues are learned and not inborn. Peterson and Seligman (2004b) single out leadership as a character virtue that can be learned and developed into a predilection. That is, people can identify leadership as a character that they wish to possess. They can then study it and develop it to such a degree that they are predisposed to exhibit characteristics typical of leadership. Their description of leadership begins with the historical perspectives of Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch, where leadership can be learned, have an emphasis on being virtuous and good, and "is an immutable quality and not driven by situational contingencies" (p. 416). In contrast, Clifton (1999) describes talent as being innate; therefore, finding the relationship between each of Clifton's talent themes and the qualities that contribute to leadership efficacy should be beneficial. That is, self-confidence in the ability to serve as a peer leader should be increased if students can be shown that the themes of talent reported by the CSF and leadership qualities are related. A relationship between themes of talent and the qualities that contribute to leader efficacy emerges when descriptions of the qualities that contribute to leadership efficacy and the descriptions of the talent themes from the CSF are compared. Thus, talent themes can be related to leadership qualities. If students understand the relationship between talent themes and leadership qualities, then their self-efficacy may be bolstered upon learning that they already possess resources that can help them function in a leadership role.
90
Although many of the talent themes relate to specific qualities that contribute to leader efficacy, there is no single set of signature talent themes that uniquely defines a leader. Talents that contribute to leadership strengths are dependent upon the nature of the leadership role (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Vroom & Gago, 2007). Certain talent themes that contribute to leadership success in an engineering firm may be of little use to an individual in charge of a campaign effort during a city election. In summary, the qualities that contribute to leader effectiveness are as diverse as leadership assignments. Despite the differing beliefs between scholars regarding the source of leadership qualities, most note that successful leaders will possess qualities that are general to the constructs of leadership as well as ones specific to the occupied leadership position. Although it is possible for morality to be ignored when considering leadership qualities (Frank & Katcher, 1977), doing so removes from consideration specific qualities that significantly contribute to leader efficacy, such as integrity (Bennis, 2003), honesty, or a concern for the success of those being led (Oyinlade et al., 2003). The relationship between each of Clifton's talent themes and the qualities that contribute to leadership efficacy suggests the potential for an increase in peer leader self-efficacy. That is, if students find that they possess talent themes that relate to the qualities that contribute to peer leader effectiveness, then they may be more willing to engage leadership positions and have confidence that they will be an effective leader in that role. The relationship between talent themes and leadership qualities is not limited in application to peer leaders. Whether the individual leads self (Rima, 2002) or others, the role of leadership cannot be avoided.
91
Theoretical Contributors to Peer Leader Effectiveness In addition to the qualities of peer leaders that have been described but not empirically tested, there are qualities that may be specific to effective peer leadership in a strengths-based first-year program. Such qualities as strengths awareness, academic and career self-efficacy, the level of comfort that peer leaders have in their role, and their satisfaction with their preparation as peer leaders could potentially contribute to their effectiveness in such a role. Evidence to support the hypothesis that strengths awareness contributes to peer leaders' effectiveness in a strengths-based first-year program can be found in self-awareness theory (Wehmeyer et al., 1998), self-determination theory (Ryan & Brown, 2003), and social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Self-Awareness Theory and Motivation Self-awareness is "the extent to which people are conscious of various aspects of their identities and the extent to which their self-perceptions are internally integrated and congruent with the way others perceive them" (Hall, 2004, p. 154). Self-awareness theory provides the framework for understanding the changes that occur when people find, through introspection, that they do not meet standards of behavior or correctness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972). The theory posits that individuals who find themselves as incongruent with accepted standards will experience negative emotions and be motivated to change. They have the option to respond in one of three ways: change their behavior, change the standard, or avoid focusing on the subject causing the incongruence. For individuals to change their behavior, they need to be aware of their own capabilities, which requires significant levels of self-knowledge and self-awareness (Hies et al., 2005).
92
Self-awareness is a prerequisite for leader effectiveness in all leadership roles (Delmhorst, 2006). It allows leaders to assess their impact as well as the way in which they are perceived (Fabian, 2004). Goldberg et al. (2003) include self-awareness among six key attributes that undergird individual success. The participants in their study who had low levels of self-awareness had difficulty choosing a satisfying career because their focus on weaknesses kept them from discovering their strengths, this focus influenced the participants' success "across multiple contexts" (p. 226). Participants in the study with high levels of self-awareness reported that an awareness of self helped them to see their strengths, which fostered choosing a satisfying career. Morris et al. (2005) note that without self-awareness it is impossible for people to objectively appraise their abilities and limitations. Thus, increased self-awareness makes it easier for individuals to choose paths that lead to success because they can capitalize on their strengths and learn to manage their weaknesses (Murphy, 2005). Self-awareness is a strong predictor of student success (Goldberg et al.) because it leads to an understanding of one's separateness and uniqueness in terms of strengths, weaknesses, interests, and abilities (Wehmeyer et al., 1998), and it contributes to one's ability to "resist weak persuasive arguments" (Hutton & Baumeister, 1992, p. 68). This knowledge and ability to persist when confronted with various challenges improves student preparation when responding to new circumstances (Amundson, 1995). The qualities that emerge as leaders become increasingly self-aware contribute to authenticity in their behavior. One of the functions of a peer leader is that of being a role
model. If peer leaders are authentic in their behavior and communication, then they will foster authenticity in their followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). The relationship between
93
self-awareness and authentic leadership is reciprocal. That is, self-awareness is a prerequisite to authentic leadership, which promotes "greater self-awareness and selfregulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive selfdevelopment" (Luthans & Avolio, 2003, p. 243). According to Bourner (1996), selfawareness is crucial for effective leadership because it underpins values clarification, the ability to communicate well, acceptance, the expanding of comfort zones, the ability to recognize profound knowledge, behave with integrity, and accept responsibility. The positive impact of possessing heightened levels of self-awareness provides an additional reason for seeking this quality in potential peer leaders. Individuals who are more self-aware are more comfortable around others (Bourner, 1996) because they are aware of their strengths and how to use them in prospective situations (Wehmeyer et al., 1998). Self-Determination Theory and Types of Motivation Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) provides the framework for better understanding the relationship between qualities and peer leader effectiveness. Selfdetermination theory explores self-motivation in the context of personality development and psychological needs. This theory posits that there are three basic psychological needs that must be satisfied during development: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to volition and initiative in behavior devoid of any type of control or coercion. Competence refers to being able to effectively impact one's environment and relates to self-efficacy constructs; and relatedness refers to the need for belonging. The need for belonging results in individuals seeking a connection with others; this connection fosters inclusiveness (Ryan & Brown, 2003).
94
According to Ryan and Deci (2000a), the focus of research guided by selfdetermination theory is on self-motivation and healthy psychological development. Specifically, factors of interest are those that impact intrinsic motivation and selfregulation, which contribute to leadership success and well-being. Research findings within the framework of self-determination theory suggest that satisfying the psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness will enhance selfmotivation and mental health. Self-determination theory delineates two types of motivation: intrinsic, which is a type of motivation fostered by inherent interests or enjoyable experiences, and extrinsic, which is a type of motivation driven by a "separable outcome" (Ryan & Deci, p. 55) or external influence. Before self-determination theory, extrinsic motivation was believed to have limited influence on student development. Students who were obligated to regulate themselves to achieve a goal imposed upon them would abandon it as soon as the impetus was removed. Self-determination theory introduced the notion that self-endorsed extrinsic goals can be beneficial because they are adopted with a sense of volition rather than obligation (Ryan & Deci). Ryan and Deci (2000a) explain that intrinsic motivation contributes to curiosity and results in quality learning. It can be enhanced by any positive experience when not seen as a form of behavioral control. They report that individuals who are intrinsically motivated are operating in a state of optimal functioning and health. Intrinsically motivated individuals display the following: ... a ubiquitous readiness to learn and explore and they do not require extraneous
incentives to do so. This natural motivational tendency is a critical element in
95
cognitive, social, and physical development because it is through acting on one's inherent interests that one grows in knowledge and skills, (p. 56) However, "most of the activities people do are not, strictly speaking, intrinsically motivated" (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 60), which leaves the option of extrinsic motivation. The authors note that extrinsic motivational methods can be inherently uninteresting to students. If the student is to experience optimal learning, then it becomes necessary to create an environment that will facilitate the transformation of extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. Organismic integration theory, a sub-theory of self-determination theory, provides a suitable model for achieving this transformation. Organismic integration theory can be used to shape the behavior of individuals who are introduced into a new group or society. The theory begins with a state of inaction due to a lack of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Some form of external motivation to act is induced, such as satisfying a demand or the promise of a reward; this type of motivation is known as external regulation. A second type of extrinsic motivation, introjected regulation, reflects one's desire for approval from others, self-esteem, and the individual's sense of pride. Even though one may perceive the motivation as being external, completing the goal may either maintain or enhance his or her self-esteem. If one can be brought to believe in the importance of the behavior, then he or she may identify with it and consider the behavior as an act of his or her own volition. The final step, integrated regulation, occurs when identified regulations have been assimilated fully into the self, which "occurs through self-examination and bringing new regulations into
congruence with one's other values and needs" (Ryan & Deci, p. 62). A progression
96
through the differing types of extrinsic motivation is a progression toward autonomy and the potential for becoming an intrinsically motivated leader. Ryan and Deci (2000a) explain that it is intrinsic motivation that provides much of the impetus for engaging new behaviors and self-regulation. Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, and Deci's (2004) study supports Ryan and Deci's (2000a) view that student success is positively impacted by climates that foster autonomy and access intrinsic motivation. Analyses of variance confirmed that manipulating the dependent variable, intrinsic vs. extrinsic goals, produced more autonomous motivation for learning, better academic performance, and greater persistence of students taking advantage of campus-wide initiatives to learn more about the subject matter. Ryan and Brown (2003) note that group situations provide an excellent environment for implementing organismic integration theory. Individuals are willing to engage in new behaviors because those behaviors are valued by other members in the group. The reward becomes acceptance, which bolsters self-esteem and fosters the development of a sense of autonomy. However, this method of developing autonomy comes with risks. Group membership may contain people who are preoccupied with their own self-worth. Such a preoccupation can be problematic in that it may be an indicator of some psychological vulnerability. Specifically, self-worth in some individuals is contingent upon reaching standards and goals established by their peers. Consequently, "high contingent self-esteem leads people to be engaged in ongoing acts that at best temporarily reassure them of their worth" (Ryan & Brown, p. 74), thus, thwarting the
development of autonomy and psychological health. It then becomes necessary for the peer leader to ensure that members of the group focus "not only on what others approve
97
of, but also on one's own abiding values, pressing needs, and the true demands of the situation" (Ryan & Brown, p. 75). A peer leader with sufficiently developed leadership qualities should be able to accomplish this. Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy is an individual's belief in his or her own "capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (Bandura, 1999, p. 2). Self-efficacy impacts the constructs of motivation described in selfdetermination theory. Extrinsically, self-efficacy contributes to individuals' willingness to adopt goals that did not originate with them. From an intrinsic point of view, motivation is positively impacted or maintained due to perceived competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The constructs of self-efficacy stem from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy constructs contribute to the theoretical framework supporting the use of peer interventions in higher education. According to Bandura, the cognitive process, vicarious experiences, self-regulation, and self-reflective processes all play a central role in human adaptation and change by contributing to selfefficacy. Luszczynska, Scholz, and Schwarzer (2005) note that self-efficacy is linked to self-regulation and autonomy. In their study involving nearly 2,000 respondents in three countries, Luszczynska et al. reported findings that suggest that individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are more deliberative when planning for the future, develop possible success scenarios of their actions, and have high levels of self-regulation. These
findings stand in contrast to previous theorists who described humans as individuals who
98
are reactive in nature, having reflecting behaviors that are shaped by their environment (Pajares, 2002). Bandura (1986) posits that environmental factors are not the only contributor to human behavior. Biological events and personal factors, such as cognition and affective processes, are contributors as well. Hence, Bandura's social cognitive theory has three components that affect change: behavior, personal factors, and environmental factors. Each of these components interacts with the other two, forming a triadic reciprocity. That is, behavior is influenced by environmental and personal factors; environmental factors are influenced by behavior and personal factors; and personal factors influence environmental factors and behavior (Pajares, 2002). When people recognize that their behavior influences environmental and personal factors, the notion that they can be proactively involved in their own development and contribute to environmental changes becomes easier to accept (Bandura, 1986). Understanding that behavior is impacted by personal and environmental factors can result in the realization that one can learn vicariously by observing and relating to situations experienced by their peers, which can foster an interest in group activities. Comprehending the notion that personal factors are impacted by behavior and environmental factors can lead to recognition that behaviors that elicit responses from peers can foster positive change. Hence, peer group leaders can contribute to and receive from their peers in many ways when seeking to accomplish common goals. Self-efficacy represents a core aspect of social cognitive theory, in that self-
efficacy beliefs are linked to the constructs of motivation (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). There are four contributors to self-efficacy: (a) "enactive mastery experiences" (Bandura,
99
1997, p. 80), which produce the strongest influence due to the authentic nature of experiencing personal success or failure; (b) "vicarious experiences" (Bandura, p. 86), which are mediated through the observation of people's successes or failures; (c) "verbal persuasion" (Bandura, p. 101) from significant others affirming or questioning one's capabilities to achieve what they seek; and (d) "physiological and affective states" (Bandura, p. 106), exemplified by peoples' belief that they may or may not be able to handle the physical and psychological demands essential to achieve personal goals. Increases in self-efficacy result in increases in one's likelihood of engaging aspirations, increases in the amount of effort one puts into governing personal development, and increases in one's confidence when engaging activities (Bandura, 1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Peer leaders who believe they have the potential to cause or influence events will be more active and self-determined when making choices. Greenglass (2002) notes that constructs of self-efficacy are sufficiently complex to justify describing self-efficacy as a personality attribute or a state of being. It therefore becomes advantageous to choose peer leaders with high levels of self-efficacy due to the potential for greater confidence, motivation, self-regulation, and stability. Rhodes (1997) reported findings of a strong trait component to self-efficacy, which suggests that it would be difficult to change self-efficacy levels in individuals. Accordingly, when selecting peer leaders as part of any intervention, it would be better to select individuals who already possess high levels of self-efficacy rather than placing them in a program that targets an increase in self-efficacy. If the four contributors to self-
efficacy noted by Bandura (1997) foster increased self-efficacy, then it is feasible that individuals who possess high levels of self-efficacy may possess any or all of the
100
following: (a) a history of mastery experiences; (b) a belief that they can succeed where they have seen others succeed or fail; (c) a peer support system sufficiently undergirding their choice to engage in their chosen activity; and (d) one's belief that he or she is physically and psychologically capable of meeting the demands of the chosen activity. Research in self-efficacy is diverse, ranging from studies of general self-efficacy (Luszczynska et al., 2005) to those in relation to specific domains (Lent & Hackett, 1987). According to Luszczynska et al., general self-efficacy is the belief in one's competence to cope with stressful or challenging demands across several domains, whereas specific self-efficacy is constrained to a particular domain, such as students' confidence in their ability to complete an academic program. According to Bandura (1986), research on self-efficacy should be conducted in the context of specific selfefficacy to increase the accuracy of prediction. Instruments have been developed and validated for measuring self-efficacy within specific domains (Elias & Loomis, 2000). Research literature singling out these domains has shown positive relationships between self-efficacy and academics (Chemers et al., 2001; Pajares & Schunk, 2001) as well as career decision-making (Lent & Hackett, 1987; Nauta et al., 2002). It is beyond the scope of this literature review to address all of the domains impacted by changes in self-efficacy; therefore, this study examined only academic and career self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy is a term used to describe judgments of personal efficacy as it relates to academic choice and adjustment (Pajares, 2001). In a study of 629 firstyear college students enrolled in a freshman orientation class at a large Midwestern university, Gore (2006) notes, "The first semester of college is a critical time for
101
promoting the academic self-efficacy beliefs of incoming first-year students" (p. 112). Academic self-efficacy can have various levels of accuracy or authenticity, suggesting that "students' academic efficacy beliefs are likely to be more accurate to the extent to which the students have experience in the academic arena" (p. 110). Elias and Loomis (2000) concur, adding that academic failure can undermine self-efficacy and suggest that educators must reflect on the notion that very high expectations can thwart academic selfefficacy and demoralize students. Zimmerman (1995) described domains of functioning, such as mathematics, English, or any of the arts, as a property of academic self-efficacy. That is, levels of selfefficacy are not the same across all disciplines. Students experience differing levels of academic self-efficacy when engaging in various subjects (Caballero De Cordero, 2006; Gore, 2006; Hackett, Betz, & Casas, 1992; Rowland, 2005). Although students may experience low levels of academic self-efficacy in one subject, Elias and Loomis (2000) found that general academic self-efficacy beliefs remained consistent among 99 introductory psychology students. They suggest that generalizing their findings to other populations may be reasonable; however, their study should be replicated in other academic subjects to validate the generalization. Literature suggests that academic self-efficacy can be used as a predictor of GPA, persistence, academic performance, engagement, levels of commitment, goal setting, and self-regulation. In a meta-analysis of literature relating self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes, Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) found "positive and statistically significant relationships between self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance and persistence outcomes across a wide variety of subjects, experimental designs, and assessment
102
methods" (p. 30). Vrugt, Langereis, and Hoogstraten's (1997) study of 438 first-year psychology students affirmed Multon et al.'s (1991) research, noting findings that suggested that students with high academic self-efficacy perform better in academics and have greater academic self-confidence than those with low academic self-efficacy. Additionally, students with high academic self-efficacy tend to attribute external causes, rather than their lack of ability, for their failures, whereas students with low academic self-efficacy tend to attribute the failures to their lack of ability. If students do not believe they have the talent required to achieve their goals, then they may abandon them. Elias and Loomis (2000), in addition to finding that GPA relates positively to academic selfefficacy, found that students with low self-efficacy changed majors more often than students with high self-efficacy, which suggests low levels of academic self-confidence in their ability to succeed in their previously chosen major. According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy correlates directly to effective selfregulation. Self-regulation is a cyclical process to attain goals through manipulation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and actions. Self-regulation operates through the subfunctions of goal-setting, self-evaluation, self-monitoring, time planning and management, and strategy use. The links between self-efficacy, goal-setting, and selfevaluation were investigated in two studies by Schunk and Ertmer (1999) in which students in an introductory college course on computers in education self-evaluated their learning progress. The researchers reported findings of a statically significant link between goal-setting and self-efficacy. Although the sample size of each of these studies
was small, the findings are congruent with existing literature. Kennett and Keefer's (2006) study of 270 volunteer undergraduate students in a psychology course at a
103
Canadian university supports a linkage between self-efficacy, goal-setting, and selfregulation. Additionally, their findings suggest a strong correlation between academic self-efficacy and year-end grades, as well as positive links between self-evaluation and self-efficacy. Although the population in this study was limited to a specific subject, the researchers cited similar studies using students enrolled in various subjects when examining the generalizability of their research to other populations. In summary, over 2 decades of research on academic self-efficacy provide substantial evidence of its significant relationship to various indicators of academic success (Bandura, 1986; Greenglass 2002; Kennett & Keefer, 2006; Laird, 2005; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Vrugt et al., 1997; Zimmerman, 1995). Thus, candidates for peer leadership roles ideally should exhibit high levels of academic self-efficacy and have some history of academic success. Self-efficacy beliefs "determine the goals people set for themselves; how much effort they expend; how long they persevere in the face of difficulties; and their resilience to failures" (Bandura, 1994, p. 74). These attributes translate to self-regulation, autonomy, discipline, commitment, and dependability. Students with high levels of academic selfefficacy are more likely to be persistent and successful in academics. However, it is possible that some peer leader candidates might possess high levels of academic selfefficacy simply because of statements made to them by their peers that have no basis in fact. Academic self-confidence.
According to Rhodes (1997), academic self-confidence
is a contributor to academic self-efficacy, although the concept of academic selfconfidence is infrequent even in current literature. Rhodes defines it as "a
104
multidimensional construct that implies that a student believes he or she is well prepared for meeting the challenges of academic life at a particular developmental and/or schooling level" (p. 2). Chiu (2005) defines academic self-confidence as "students' confidence in academic learning" (p. 5). Although the definitions are similar to that of academic self-efficacy, self-efficacy and academic self-confidence are not the same. Academic self-efficacy is a conditional state (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1989), whereas academic self-confidence is a broader construct comprised of both state and trait elements. It includes the state of academic self-efficacy and various personality trait variables such as hope, optimism (Rhodes, 1997), and strengths (Rath, 2007). Rhode's findings suggest there is a distinction between academic self-confidence and academic self-efficacy, in that academic self-confidence in the study was positively impacted by the treatment while academic self-efficacy was not. The construct of academic selfconfidence, which follows a continuum that begins with learning how to learn and concludes with mastering how to learn (Rhodes, 1997) encompasses more than selfefficacy. Using a multi-component intervention on 78 university students to create a change in academic self-confidence, Rhodes (1997) reported findings that hope, optimism, and academic locus of control, which moderate academic self-efficacy, have a significant impact on academic self-confidence. In similar studies, Hodges and Clifton (2004) discussed two empirical studies offering evidence that strengths-based interventions positively impact hope and potentially can impact academic selfconfidence. One study involved business students; the other involved hospital employees. The studies began with an assessment of hope, self-awareness, and subjective well-being.
105
The intervention included the CSF, access to online learning modules about strengths, and one-on-one counseling sessions with an individual trained to administer strengths feedback. The business students received a second administration of the hope assessment 2 months after the end of the treatment, whereas the hospital employees did not receive their second assessment until 1 year later. Findings indicated a statistically significant increase in hope among both the student and hospital employee groups. A third study related by Hodges and Clifton, which involved 212 UCLA students, supports the theoretical link. Rather than considering hope as the dependent variable as noted in the previous studies, the UCLA study focused on academic self-confidence as the dependent variable. The independent variable was a strengths-based intervention that began with a pretest, followed by a strengths-based developmental intervention and a posttest identical to the pretest. The findings indicated a significant positive impact on academic selfconfidence. In the first two studies, academic self-confidence was impacted by strengthsbased interventions targeting levels of hope assuming a positive relationship between levels of hope and academic self-confidence. In the last study, academic self-confidence was directly impacted by the strengths intervention. These studies suggest that there is a theoretical link between strengths-based interventions and academic self-confidence along multiple paths. An additional contribution to the literature from Rhode's (1997) study was the suggestion that students with high levels of academic self-confidence would have characteristics that would increase their potential for success as peer leaders. The students in the study were able to recognize that they have mastered the subject material they are learning, possessed a desire to master academic tasks, expected positive outcomes as a
106
consequence, and were more likely to have higher levels of preparation when engaging academic tasks. However, the sample size was a limitation of the study. Due to the design of the study, the sample was taken only from marginally at-risk students; thus, generalizing to other populations may not be appropriate. During an interview with Pajares by Madewell and Shaughnessy (2003), Pajares noted the importance of nurturing academic self-confidence. After sharing an experience with a student who discovered that it was just as important for the professor to believe in students' performance ability as it was for students to believe in themselves, Pajares noted that "educational practices should be gauged not only by the skills and knowledge they impart for present use but also by what they do to students' beliefs about their capabilities, which affects how they approach the future" (Madewell & Shaughnessy, p. 378). In a qualitative study of 14 premedical students at the University of South Alabama, Pennerman (2003) reports findings that support Pajare's statement. Academic selfconfidence emerged as a factor in the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students. That is, academic self-confidence is a predictor of academic achievement. The indicators of academic self-confidence in Pennerman's study were achievement scores, final course grades, and reports of student satisfaction and levels of preparation during interviews. Schreiner and Anderson (2004) note that helping students to explore their strengths will bolster their identity and build their confidence. Thus, it is possible that the use of peer group leaders who approach mentorship with the goal of nurturing academic self-confidence through the vehicle of the strengths-based philosophy
will increase the potential of program success.
107
Findings that further develop the theoretical constructs underpinning academic self-confidence are presented by Culpepper (2004) relative to doctoral students and Martin and Marsh (2006) relative to high school students. In both studies, academic selfconfidence was found to contribute to academic resilience. In a qualitative case study of 10 women exploring what made women successful doctoral students, Culpepper noted the emergence of academic self-confidence as one of the main factors that contributed to academic resilience in all the women in her study. Using path analysis in a study of 402 Australian students attending 11th and 12th grades, Martin and Marsh found that academic resilience significantly predicted general self-esteem, class participation, and enjoyment of school. The authors also reported findings that self-efficacy, control, planning, low anxiety, and persistence are all predictors of academic resilience. According to Martin and Marsh, the factors that contributed to academic resilience in their study are also indicators of competence in mastery learning. The peer leaders who possess the ability to recognize they have mastered the subject material being studied are able to help others learn to do the same. The modeling behavior of peer leaders who have the desire to master academic tasks, along with the enthusiasm resulting from outcome expectancy, can help to motivate students under their leadership. Additionally, the literature suggests that peer leaders high in academic selfconfidence possess higher levels of academic resilience than those who do not. Thus, the potential for the existence of higher levels of self-efficacy, persistence, composure, coordination, and planning ability and lower levels of anxiety is realized, enhancing
leadership success (Martin & Marsh, 2006).
108
The literature on academic self-efficacy and academic self-confidence notes a positive impact on these constructs when strengths-based interventions are used during training (Austin, 2005; Gillum, 2005; Schreiner, 2002; Williamson, 2002). It is likely that peer leaders who attended training programs using strengths-based interventions experience greater levels of academic self-confidence than those who do not. As a result, they may have greater potential for success in terms of credibility as they confidently relate strengths-based concepts to first-year students. Career self-efficacy. Career self-efficacy is self-efficacy as it relates to peoples' belief that they can choose and successfully function in a suitable career (Lent & Hackett, 1987). High levels of career self-efficacy bolster career decision-making (Betz & Hackett, 1981). The search for a career is among the reasons students choose to attend college (Kiener, 2006), yet many first-year students face career indecision. Selfdetermination theory can be used as a framework to understand career indecision (Guay et al., 2003). According to self-determination theory, autonomy is a core psychological need of the individual that contributes to intrinsic motivation, which is a contributor to decisiveness (Ryan & Brown, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). In a study of 230 undergraduate students, Kiener found that autonomy orientation significantly predicts self-exploration. When students engage in self-exploration, they become more self-aware, discovering attributes that influence direction when making career decisions. Autonomy not only contributes to intrinsic motivation, but it also contributes to the career decisionmaking process. Because self-efficacy is a contributor to autonomy, a theoretical link between career self-efficacy and career decision-making can be established. Gainor
109
(2006) and Hackett (1995) both have noted that career self-efficacy is a significant predictor of student success during the career decision-making process. The relationship between career self-efficacy and career decision-making cannot be reduced to simple cause and effect. In a study of 104 college students directed toward determining the antecedent in the relationship between career interests and self-efficacy, Nauta et al. (2002) found the association to be largely reciprocal. As part of the research model, the construct of career self-efficacy was divided into six subcategories of selfefficacy keyed to the interest types of Holland's (1992) theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Using a 3-, 4-, and 7-month time lag, three sets of data were collected using the Strong Interest Inventory (Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996). The results of the study were congruent with a previous longitudinal study of the reciprocal nature between interest and self-efficacy beliefs of elementary and middle school students (Tracey, 2002). The similarity in results between the two studies suggests that the reciprocal relationship between career self-efficacy and career interests is not age dependent. The inclusion of Holland's (1992) theory in the previous studies suggests a connection between the constructs of self-efficacy, personality factors, and career interests. Nauta (2004) published the results of a second study that substantiated the connection while seeking to replicate Rottinghaus, Lindley, Green, and Borgen's (2002) research on self-efficacy and interests of students. Unlike the original study in which
participants were students enrolled in large Midwestern university psychology classes with no indication of major or career aspirations, the students in the replicated study were
110
from a variety of academic majors. Both studies reported findings linking self-efficacy, personality factors, and career interests. However, Nauta's study contributed to a deeper understanding of self-efficacy constructs, noting that "self-efficacy is a mediator of the relationship between personality factors and career interests" because "self-efficacy is an extension of personality and that interests in turn are an extension of self-efficacy" (p. 391). Larson and Borgen (2006) sought to discover the impact of personality factors on career self-efficacy without investigating reciprocity. Their study was comprised of four samples totaling 1,173 students from introductory psychology classes across four successive semesters at a large upper Midwestern university. The instruments used in this study were the Skills Confidence Inventory and the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Tellegen, 2000). Results of the study significantly linked many aspects of career self-efficacy to personality. For example, social potency explained as much as 45% of the variance in enterprising confidence. Larson and Borgen noted that the results of their study "show that personality matters tremendously in many aspects of career selfefficacy" (p. 307). The use of a different instrument to measure personality contributed to the validity of conclusions drawn by previous researchers noted in this review. Kiener's (2006) findings support Larson and Borgen's (2006) conclusion, emphasizing the reciprocal nature of the relationship between personality and career selfefficacy when they note, "Individuals who have a well-defined knowledge of their motivations will take adaptive steps to explore their personality, thus having a better chance of matching their personality to their future work environment" (p. 357).
Ill
In summary, self-awareness theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) provide the theoretical framework underpinning the belief that strengths awareness, academic and career self-efficacy, and level of comfort should contribute to peer leader effectiveness. The literature notes that students with high levels of academic and career self-efficacy experience heightened levels of self-awareness, which should translate to higher levels of self-knowledge and increased comfort levels. Additionally, students with high levels of academic and career self-efficacy should have a better understanding of self, be more autonomous, and find it easier to make career decisions, which should result in increased competence in the academic and career decision-making domains. Ultimately, strengths awareness, academic and career self-efficacy, and comfort level should enable peer leaders to be effective role models to first-year students. Conclusion Hodges and Clifton (2004) assert that strengths-based human development is foundational to positive psychology in practice. Strengths-based human development has interdisciplinary foundations as evidenced by the appearance of the strengths philosophy in clinical psychology, through strengths classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004a); in social work, through the cultivation of strengths used to enhance resilience (Saleeby, 1997); in business, through the identification and cultivation of talents into strengths used to foster individual success and happiness (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001); and in education, as evidenced by the development of programs that help students identify and
develop their talents into strengths toward improved academic success and career decision-making (Cantwell, 2005; Cave, 2003; Clifton & Harter, 2003; Schreiner, 2004;
112
Williamson, 2002). Although each discipline takes a different approach to strengths, all of them agree that strengths are an internal resource that can bolster the confidence needed to accomplish the demands of the moment. While considerable research has focused on the subject of strengths, much remains to be done (Hodges & Clifton; Peterson & Seligman, 2004b; Saleeby), especially in the academic setting (Cantwell; Cave; Clifton & Harter; Schreiner; Williamson). The present study is an effort to determine if a peer leader's self-efficacy and commitment to a strengths philosophy will positively impact first-year college students' success, as measured by first-year students' strengths awareness, academic selfconfidence, cumulative GPA after the first year, and ratings of their peer leaders' effectiveness. In the studies of strengths interventions thus far, only one study assessed the use of peer leadership to help with advising or counseling (Schreiner, 2004). However, the design of the study did not include an investigation of the qualities of peer leaders or their commitment to a strengths philosophy. This study sought to contribute to the existing literature by investigating the extent to which characteristics of peer leaders who functioned as strengths counselors contributed to first-year student success. The theoretical constructs described in selfawareness theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) provide a framework that fosters the belief that strengths awareness, academic and career self-efficacy, and level of comfort should contribute to peer leader effectiveness when functioning as strengths counselors to
first-year students.
113
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This research study sought to determine if certain characteristics of peer leaders who functioned as strengths counselors were predictive of their effectiveness in providing strengths counseling to entering students participating in a first-year seminar at a private liberal arts university in California. The characteristics examined in the peer leaders included academic self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, awareness of their strengths, and self-reported comfort level with their assigned task of providing strengths counseling to first-year students. Because two of the primary goals of the strengths counseling program within the first-year seminar were to increase students' awareness of their strengths and to increase their ability to apply those strengths to academic tasks, the effectiveness of peer leaders was defined both in terms of the extent to which these seminar goals were met and in terms of the first-year students' ratings of peer leader effectiveness. Research Questions The following four questions were used as a framework for the research design. 1. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness predict changes in strengths awareness within the first-year students they counsel in the first-year seminar?
114
2. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness predict changes in academic self-confidence within the firstyear students they counsel in the first-year seminar? 3. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness predict the ratings of strengths peer counseling effectiveness by the first-year students they counsel in the first-year seminar? 4. To what extent do peer leaders' self-efficacy, perception of the adequacy of their preparation as strengths counselors, and level of strengths awareness, along with the first-year students' own strengths awareness, academic self-confidence, and perception of strengths counseling effectiveness, predict first-year cumulative grade point average of the firstyear students who had been enrolled in the first-year seminar? Design The research design is a correlational study using a series of hierarchical multiple regressions as the method of analysis. Hierarchical multiple regression was chosen as the appropriate statistical analysis because it allows the researcher to statistically control for demographic differences while estimating the unique variance explained by the predictor variables. Because correlation designs do not manipulate the independent variables, the term predictor
variable is used in regression analyses to designate the independent
variables that are used to predict variation in the dependent variables. The dependent
115
variables are designated criterion variables, as they represent outcomes (Gall et al., 1996). A correlational design was selected because the environment in which the research was performed was not amenable to experimental manipulation. That is, the first-year and peer leader student participants could not be randomly assigned to conditions because of their class schedules. However, because pre and posttesting of the first-year student participants was possible, the design enabled prediction of the changes in first-year student outcomes over the course of the semester. Although causation cannot be determined with this type of design, the findings can point to relationships that can be explored in further studies. Participants The participants were students attending a private liberal arts university in California. There are two types of participants: peer leaders who have been trained to provide strengths counseling to the first-year students throughout the semester and the first-year students enrolled in a one-credit first-year seminar. Peer Leader Participants The peer leaders who participated in this study were students who volunteered as peer leaders and functioned as strengths counselors for the first-year seminar. Any students who completed an application, had a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.5, were enrolled as full-time students, and had previously attended the university for a minimum of one semester were eligible to be strengths counselors. All of the students who volunteered for the position were required to commit to a standard of accountability and leadership ethics. Prior to the start of the semester, the peer leaders attended a 2-week
116
strengths counselor training program. None of the students who volunteered and met the selection criteria were excluded from participation. There were 115 students who volunteered to be peer leaders. However, after removing the cases that could not be included in the analysis because of missing data and violations to normalcy, 68 peer leaders remained. Table 1 reports the peer leader demographics. The majority of the peer leaders were female and Caucasian, half were campus residents, and nearly all of them had a class level of sophomore or above. First-Year Student Participants The first-year student participants were attendees of a 10-week strengths-based first-year seminar who agreed to participate in the study. Four of the 20 seminar sessions were used to provide instruction on strengths and how one's strengths can be used to promote academic success. There were no restrictions imposed on first-year students who chose to be part of the study other than attendance in the seminar and signing an informed consent form. As part of the seminar procedure, the first-year students were divided into 100 groups based on their schedule of availability. Each group received an assigned peer leader who served as a strengths counselor who met with first-year students in both group and individual settings. There were 925 students enrolled in the first-year seminar who agreed to participate in the study. After removing cases that could not be included in the analysis because of missing data or violations to normalcy, 472 first-year students remained.
117
Table 1 Peer Leader Demographics Number
Percentage
9
13.2%
Female
59
86.8%
Total
68
Gender Male
100%
Campus Residency Resident
41
60.3%
8
11.8%
Did not respond
19
27.9%
Total
68
Non-Resident
100%
Class Level Sophomore
31
45.6%
Junior
18
26.5%
Senior
18
26.5%
Did not respond
68
100%
African American
0
0%
Asian/Pacific Islander
3
4.41%
57
83.82%
Hispanic
2
2.94%
Multicultural
2
2.94%
Other
3
4.41%
Missing
1
1.47%
Ethnicity
Caucasian
Total
68
118
100%
Of the 472 first-year students who participated in the study, most were female and Caucasian. Table 2 reports the demographic information for first-year student participants included in the analysis. Measures There were three primary instruments used in this study to collect data. Specific scales from each of the instruments were used as criterion variables, and some were used as predictor variables. Each of the instruments is described and followed by a description of the criterion and predictor variables that were measured by partiailar scales on the instruments.
Table 2 First-Year Student Demographics Number
Percentage
Gender Male
140
29.7%
Female
332
70.3%
Total
472
100%
Ethnicity African American
13
2.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander
24
5.1%
371
78.6%
Hispanic
26
5.5%
Multicultural
32
6.8%
Other
6
1.3%
Total
472
Caucasian
119
100%
The Self-Reporting Scale for First-Year Students The instrument used to assess outcomes in the first-year students was the SelfReporting Scale for First-Year Students (SRS-F) that was developed by The Gallup Organization (2004) to research the impact of The Clifton StrengthsFinder on UCLA students (Clifton & Harter, 2003). It contains 29 items utilizing a 5-point Likert scale response of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate is a = .92 for the instrument as a whole. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation resulted in seven factors that accounted for 60.47% of the variance: Positive SelfConcept, Career Self-Efficacy, Strengths Ownership, Academic Self-Confidence, Strengths Awareness, Academic Applications, and Weakness Focus. The coefficient alpha reliability for each factor ranged from a = .69 to a = .87. The test-retest reliability has not been assessed (Schreiner, personal communication, June 6, 2007). The posttest version of the SRS-F was adapted to provide space to enter the group assignment number in the heading of the questionnaire. All of the items on the pretest and posttest versions were exactly the same. The SRS-F can be found in Appendix A. The Self-Reporting Scale for Peer Leaders The Self-Reporting Scale for Peer Leaders (SRS-PL) was created for this study by utilizing items from two instruments with established validity and reliability. The 46 items utilized a 5-point Likert scale response of strongly disagree to strongly agree. Thirteen items were taken from the Self-Reporting Scale for First-Year Students, which has been described in previous paragraphs and measures positive self-concept, academic self-confidence, strengths awareness, and career self-efficacy. An additional 33 items that measure strengths awareness, academic applications of strengths, leadership applications
120
of strengths, academic self-confidence, career self-efficacy, and academic self-efficacy were adapted from instruments used in previous studies at UCLA (Clifton & Harter, 2003). Subscales of the instrument were created via a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Six components accounted for 66.04% of the total variance in the instrument: strengths awareness, academic applications of strengths, career self-efficacy, leadership application of strengths, academic self-efficacy, and a final component containing items that also loaded highly on other components and were therefore eliminated. The entire instrument can be found in Appendix B. Table 3 presents each predictor followed by the items measuring that predictor. The Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale The Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES) was appended to the questionnaire administered to the peer leaders (Appendix C). It is used to assess two constructs: educational requirements self-efficacy and job duties self-efficacy. The OSES employs 40 items using a 10-point Likert scale response from no confidence at all to complete confidence to assess occupational self-efficacy. It is divided into two sections of 20 items each. The first section assesses educational requirements self-efficacy, which is one's belief that he or she can accomplish the educational requirements undergirding a career choice. The second section assesses job duties self-efficacy, which is one's belief that he or she can perform the job duties required in a career if he or she possesses the necessary educational foundation (Betz & Hackett, 1998). Internal consistency reliability for the OSES is a = .89 for the educational requirements self-efficacy subscale and a = .92 for the job duties self-efficacy subscale. Cronbach's Alpha for the entire instrument is a = .94. Concurrent validity was explored
121
Table 3 SRS-PL Predictor-Item Map Predictor Strengths Awareness
Academic Applications of Strengths Comfort with Level of Preparation
Leadership Application of Strengths Career Self-Efficacy
Academic SelfEfficacy
Item 1. 2. 3. 5. 40. 17. 42.
I like to learn about myself. Understanding my strengths helps me to do what I do best. I have a plan for developing my strengths. I can see other people in light of their strengths. I can easily relate what I am learning to who I am as a person. I know how to apply my strengths to achieve academic success. I know how to arrange my study habits so that I am capitalizing on my strengths. 43. I know how to learn with my strengths. 25. I feel I am able to help students connect their strengths to a sense of God's calling in their life. 27.1 believe I can help students see how to apply their strengths to achieve academic success. 29.1 feel well prepared for having one-on-one conversations with first-year students. 23. I see myself as having many positive leadership qualities. 26. I believe God is calling me into positions of leadership. 28. I am aware of how my strengths prepare me to be an effective leader. 15. I see a clear connection between my strengths and the type of career that might be right for me. 30. I know how to apply my strengths in order to produce career success. 35. I know how to select a career that is right for me. 36. I have identified a profession, occupation or calling that will use my strengths. 38. I am confident of the process I need to follow to plan for my career. 32. I am confident that I will achieve in completing the educational requirements for any career I choose. 39. I am capable of getting good grades in all of my classes this semester. 46. I can easily picture myself getting very good grades in college.
by comparing the OSES with an instrument using job relevant tasks from each of the 20 occupations listed in the OSES. Statistically significant correlations (r = .73) between title and task measures were found (Betz & Hackett, 1998). Criterion Variables Four criterion variables were utilized in this study, all of which were measured
within the first-year student participants. They included changes in strengths awareness and academic self-confidence over the course of the first-year seminar, perceived
122
effectiveness of the peer leaders at the end of the seminar, and cumulative grade-point average at the end of the first year. Because the SRS-F has been used primarily in pilot research, the scales to be used to measure the criterion variables in the first-year students have been confirmed through components analysis. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was employed to find the fewest components that explain the greatest amount of variance in the criterion variables. This approach works well because the principal components are presented in rank order by level of impact while reporting an accumulated total of variance. A varimax rotation was conducted because it results in the greatest possible isolation between the components while maximizing component variance (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Table 4 outlines the items in the SRS-F and how they measure each of the criterion variables.
Table 4 SRS-F Criterion-Item Map Criterion Strengths Awareness
Academic Self-Confidence
Perception of Counselor Effectiveness
3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 14. 15. 24. 2. 6. 10. 11. 18. 19. 23.
Item I like to learn about myself. Understanding my strengths helps me do what I do best. I have a plan for developing my strengths. I can see other people in light of their strengths. Behaviors that I used to see as irritating I now see as strengths. I am planning my future around my strengths. I see a clear connection between my strengths and the type of career that might be right for me. I know how my strengths impact my relationships. I can easily relate what I am learning to who I am as a person. I can picture myself getting good grades in college. I know what I can do at levels of excellence. I am confident I can succeed in college. I know how I learn best. I know how to apply my strengths to achieve academic success. The one-on-one strengths counseling session was very helpful to me in better understanding my strengths. I am satisfied with the experience I had with my strengths counselor.
123
Changes in Strengths Awareness Changes in strengths awareness were calculated as the difference between the pretest and posttest strengths awareness subscale scores from the SRS-F and were stored as a new variable. The mean scores from nine items in the SRS-F form the subscale score: / like to learn about myself, Understanding my strengths helps me do what I do best, I have a plan for developing my strengths, I can see other people in light of their strengths, Behaviors that I used to see as irritating I now see as strengths, I am planning my future around my strengths, I see a clear connection between my strengths and the type of career that might be right for me, and I know how my strengths impact my relationships. A reliability analysis of the data collected using the SRS-F as a posttest resulted in a coefficient a = .85. Changes in Academic Self-Confidence Changes in academic self-confidence were calculated as the difference between the pretest and posttest academic self-confidence subscale scores from the SRS-F and were stored in a new variable. Academic self-confidence is a subscale in the SRS-F that is measured using five items from the SRS-F: I can picture myself getting good grades in college, I know what I can do at levels of excellence, I am confident I can succeed in college, I know how I learn best, and / know how to apply my strengths to achieve academic success. The academic self-confidence score is calculated by taking the mean value of the five items. A reliability analysis of the data collected using the SRS-F as a posttest resulted in a coefficient a = .71.
124
Perceived Counselor Effectiveness The mean score of two items from the SRS-F posttest was utilized as a measure of perceived counselor effectiveness. The two items include: The one-on-one strengths counseling session was very helpful to me in better understanding my strengths, and / am satisfied with the experience I had with my strengths counselor. The coefficient alpha reliability of the subscale is a = .81. It was obtained using a reliability analysis of the data collected using the SRS-F as a posttest. Cumulative Grade-Point Average The final criterion variable was first-year student cumulative grade-point average (GPA) after the first year. It was assessed by obtaining students' cumulative grade-point averages after 2 semesters from the registrar at the university. Predictor Variables There were eight peer leader predictor variables utilized in the first three multiple regressions to ascertain their contribution to the variation in first-year students' outcomes. The fourth multiple regression used all eight of the peer leader predictor variables, as well as the following first-year student variables: changes in first-year students' strengths awareness, changes in first-year students' academic self-confidence, and first-year students' rating of counselor effectiveness. The predictor variables for each regression analysis were selected based on the literature regarding peer leader effectiveness and first-year student success. They were operationalized as the mean scores of scales from an existing instrument (the OSES) or as the mean scores of scales that resulted from a principal components analysis of either the Self-Reporting Scale for Peer Leaders (SRS-
125
PL) or the Self-Reporting Scale for First-Year Students (SRS-F). Each predictor variable is described, along with its method of operationalization. Peer Leader Educational Requirements Self-Efficacy The peer leader educational requirements self-efficacy was taken from an OSES scale which was already created (Appendix C). Betz and Hackett (1998) note that the subscale has a coefficient a = .89. The subscale measured students' perceptions of selfefficacy with respect to the educational requirements of 20 occupations: mathematician, probation/parole officer, dental hygienist, lawyer, physician, social worker, drafter, x-ray technician, physical therapist, home economist, engineer, secretary, art teacher, medical technician, elementary school teacher, travel agent, school administrator, scales manager, highway patrol officer, and accountant. This variable was operationalized as the mean value of the scale items. Peer Leader Job Duties Self-Efficacy The peer leader job duties self-efficacy was also taken from the OSES scale (Appendix C). The subscale has a coefficient a = .91 (Betz & Hackett, 1998). The subscale measured students' perceptions of self-efficacy with respect to the job requirements of 20 occupations: mathematician, probation/parole officer, dental hygienist, lawyer, physician, social worker, drafter, x-ray technician, physical therapist, home economist, engineer, secretary, art teacher, medical technician, elementary school teacher, travel agent, school administrator, scales manager, highway patrol officer, and accountant. This variable was operationalized as the mean value of the scale items.
126
Peer Leader Academic Self-Efficacy Peer leader academic self-efficacy was a subscale of the SRS-F. It measured one's belief that he or she can be academically successful. Three items were used to measure this construct: / am confident that I will achieve in completing the educational requirements for any career I choose; I am capable of getting good grades in all of my classes this semester; and / can easily picture myself getting very good grades in college. A principal components analysis was performed on the SRS-F after it had been administered to the peer leaders who attended the strengths counselor training that yielded this scale. This variable was operationalized as the mean score of the items. Peer Leader Career Self-Efficacy Peer leader career self-efficacy was a subscale of the SRS-F. It measured one's belief that he or she can confidently select a satisfying career. This scale was created by conducting a principal components analysis after the SRS-F had been administered to the peer leaders who attended strengths counselor training. Five items from the SRS-F were used for this subscale: I see a clear connection between my strengths and the type of career that might be right for me; I know how to apply my strengths in order to produce career success; I know how to select a career that is right for me; I have identified a profession, occupation, or calling that will use my strengths; and / am confident of the process I need to follow to plan for my career. The mean score of the items was used to operationalize this variable. Peer Leader Strengths
Awareness
Peer leader strengths awareness was a subscale of the SRS-F comprised of the following five items: / like to learn about myself, Understanding my strengths helps me
127
to do what I do best; I have a plan for developing my strengths; I can see other people in light of their strengths; and / can easily relate what I am learning to who I am as a person. It measured awareness of one's strengths. A principal components analysis was used to create this scale after the instrument had been administered to peer leaders who attended the strengths counselor training. This variable was operationalized as the mean score of the items. Peer Leader Academic Applications of Strengths Peer leader academic applications of strengths was a subscale of the SRS-F. It measured one's understanding of strengths application in academics. After the questionnaire was administered to peer leaders attending the strengths counselor training, a principal components analysis of the data was performed. The scale was the result of the analysis and had the following three items: I know how to apply my strengths to achieve academic success; I know how to arrange my study habits so that I am capitalizing on my strengths; and / know how to learn with my strengths. The variable was operationalized as the mean score of the items. Peer Leadership Applications of Strengths Peer leadership applications of strengths was a subscale of the SRS-F. It measured one's awareness of how strengths impact his or her leadership potential. This three-item scale was created from the principal components analysis of the SRS-F that was administered to the peer leaders who attended the strengths counselor training. The scale items were: I see myself as having many positive leadership qualities; I believe God is calling me into positions of leadership; and / am aware of how my strengths prepare me
128
to be an effective leader. The variable was operationalized by taking the mean score of the items. Peer Leader Comfort with Level of Preparation Peer leader comfort with level of preparation was a subscale of the SRS-F. It measured one's comfort level with respect to preparation as a strengths counselor. A principal components analysis was used to create this scale after the questionnaire had been administered to peer leaders who attended the strengths counselor training. The three scale items were: Ifeel I am able to help students connect their strengths to a sense of God's calling in their life; I believe I can help students see how to apply their strengths to achieve academic success; and Ifeel well prepared for having one-on-one conversations with first-year students. The variable was operationalized as the mean score of the items. First-Year Student Predictor Variables In the fourth multiple regression, all peer leader predictor variables remained as predictor variables: peer leader educational requirements self-efficacy, peer leader job duties self-efficacy, peer leader academic self-efficacy, peer leader career self-efficacy, peer leader strengths awareness, peer leader academic applications of strengths, peer leadership applications of strengths, and peer leader comfort with level of preparation. Additionally, the first-year student criterion variables used in the first three multiple regressions were included as predictor variables: changes in strengths awareness, changes in academic self-confidence, and counselor effectiveness. Each of these variables was operationalized by computing the mean score of the items measuring each construct.
129
Procedures Protection of Participants There were no identifiable physical, emotional, or social risks to anyone who participated in the study, as the questionnaires were identical to those typically given to the students during the normal course of instruction. All data collected remained confidential. Students' privacy and confidentiality were protected by tracking them using their student identification numbers only. Participants in the study were permitted to leave the study at any time without the threat of any impact on their grades or standing with the university. Data were collected by the seminar instructors, locked in storage, and destroyed at the end of the study. At no time were the names of the participants reported. Informed Consent All of the participants in the study were required to complete an informed consent form. The students were provided with a clear description of the risks and benefits of participating in the study. Additionally, they were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without the risk of penalty. The informed consent forms were stored with the data and will be destroyed 3 years after the end of the study. Data Integrity Two internet-based database software applications were developed for entering the survey results into databases after the questionnaires were collected from the participants. One database was used to track the peer leader data. The second was used to track the first-year student data. This method was chosen for its ease of inputting data while maintaining accuracy. The software interface included features to insure data
130
integrity. Each time a survey page was inputted, data for that page was displayed on a new screen, and a second person was required to validate the data before the program permitted the operators to proceed to the next survey page. Once the entire survey was inputted into the database, it was re-inspected for errors. The data were then exported into a format usable by SPSS. Once imported, the resulting SPSS files were merged into a single file that linked peer leader data with first-year student data using group numbers. The data were then tested to insure that no errors occurred during the process of merging the data. Data Collection There were two sources of data: the peer leaders who function as strengths counselors, and the students enrolled in the first-year seminar. In the first-year seminar, students were divided into 100 groups based on their schedule of availability. In addition to each group having a group leader, each group received an assigned peer leader who served as a strengths counselor and met with the first-year students in both group and individual settings. Peer leaders were assigned to groups based on their availability. Peer Leader Data Data were collected from peer leaders using the SRS-F while they attended strengths counselor training. The survey was administered by the instructor to the peer leaders who volunteered to participate in the study at the end of the seminar. Before peer leaders received the survey, instructions for completing it and the option to discontinue participation in the study were provided by the class instructor. Peer leaders were tracked using their student identification numbers to maintain confidentiality. Once the surveys were completed, they were collected by the training instructor.
131
First-Year Student Data At the beginning of the first-year seminar, informed consent forms were distributed and completed by students who agreed to participate in the study. Data were collected from students who completed an informed consent form using the SRS-F as a pretest. Prior to receiving the questionnaire, instructions for completing it and the option to discontinue participation in the study were provided by the class instructor. Completed pretests were then collected by the seminar instructor. At the end of the first-year student seminar, the same questionnaire that was used as a pretest was administered as a posttest. Prior to receiving the posttest, students were given the option to discontinue participation in the study. Completed posttests were collected by the class instructor. Student Tracking The students were tracked using their student identification numbers to maintain confidentiality. Additionally, students' group numbers were used to track the association between the peer leaders and the first-year students they counseled. The leaders of each group provided rosters of the students in their respective group for input into the database. A roster listing the peer leader group assignments was provided for input into the internet database. This chapter outlined the research design that was used in this study, along with the sample and measures used to collect the data. The instruments used to collect data have been described, including the methods for operationalizing and coding each variable. Chapter 4 presents the procedures that were used for data analysis and the
findings from the study.
132
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This research study sought to determine if certain characteristics of peer leaders who functioned as strengths counselors were predictive of their effectiveness in providing strengths counseling to entering students participating in a first-year seminar at a private liberal arts university in California. The characteristics examined in the peer leaders included academic self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, awareness of their strengths, and self-reported comfort level with their assigned task of providing strengths counseling to first-year students. Because two of the primary goals of the strengths counseling program within the first-year seminar were to increase students' awareness of their strengths and to increase their ability to apply those strengths to academic tasks, the effectiveness of peer leaders was defined both in terms of the extent to which these seminar goals were met and in terms of the first-year students' ratings of peer leader effectiveness. Data Analysis Coding of Variables First-year demographic data were dichotomized and coded into the variables of gender and ethnicity. Because the Self-Reflection Survey for First-Year Students (SRS-F), which was used to measure the criterion variables, was administered as a pretest and a posttest, the item names from that instrument include a prefix to identify whether they represent items from the pretest or posttest. The Self-Reflection Survey for Peer Leaders
133
(SRS-PL) was administered as a posttest only. Table 5 presents the data code assignments. Table 5 Data Coding of Variables Coding
Variables Demographic Gender Ethnicity
1 = male, 2 = female Dummy variables coded 0 = non-Caucasian, 1 = Anglo
Criterion [Pre/Post]FYS-SA
First-year students' strengths awareness. Two composite variables (one for the pretest, one for the posttest) using the mean of nine items: / like to learn about myself; Understanding my strengths helps me do what I do best; I have a plan for developing my strengths; I can see other people in light of their strengths; Behaviors that I used to see as irritating I now see as strengths; I am planning my future around my strengths; I see a clear connection between my strengths and the type of career that might be right for me; and / know how my strengths impact my relationships. Measured with a 5-point Likert scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree. (Cronbach's a = .85)
[Pre/Post]FYS-ASC
First-year students' academic self-confidence. Two composite variables (one for the pretest, one for the posttest) using the mean of five items: I can picture myself getting good grades in college, I know what I can do at levels of excellence, I am confident I can succeed in college, I know how I learn best, and / know how to apply my strengths to achieve academic success. Measured with a 5-point Likert scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree. (Cronbach's a = .71)
FYS-CE
First-year students' perception of counselor effectiveness. Composite variable using the mean of two items from the SRS-F posttest only: The one-on-one strengths counseling session was very helpful to me in better understanding my strengths, and / am satisfied with the experience I had with my strengths counselor. Measured with a 5-point Likert scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree. (Cronbach's a == .81)
FYS-GPA
First-year students' cumulative first year GPA. The cumulative grade point average for the first year as reported by the registrar.
FYS-SA
First-year students' changes in strengths awareness. Calculated variable by subtracting pretest mean value from the posttest mean value for first-year student strengths awareness.
FYS-ASC
First-year students' changes in academic self-confidence. Calculated variable by subtracting pretest mean value from the posttest mean value for first-year student academic self-confidence.
134
Table 5 cont'd. Variables
Coding
Predictor Variables PL-ERSE
Peer Leader Educational Requirements Self-Efficacy. Composite variable using the mean of 20 items that are comprised of job titles in the context of prerequisite education from the OSES. The data were recoded into a 5-point Likert scale per manual instructions (Betz & Hackett, 1998): 0 = 1; 1, 2, 3 = 2; 4, 5 = 3; 6, 7 = 4; 8, 9 = 5. (Cronbach's a = .89)
PL-JDSE
Peer Leader Job Duties Self-Efficacy. Composite variable using the mean of 20 items that are comprised of job titles in the context of required job duties from the OSES. Measured with a 10-point Likert scale, no confidence at all to complete confidence. The data were recoded into a 5-point Likert scale per manual instructions (Betz & Hackett, 1998): 0 = 1; 1, 2, 3 = 2; 4, 5 = 3; 6, 7 = 4; 8, 9 = 5. (Cronbach's a = .91)
PL-ASE
Peer Leader Academic Self-Efficacy. Composite variable using the mean of three items from the Self-Reflection Survey for Peer Leaders (SRS-PL): I am confident that I will achieve in completing the educational requirements for any career I choose; I am capable of getting good grades in all of my classes this semester; and / can easily picture myself getting very good grades in college. Measured with a 5point Likert scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree. (Cronbach's a = .76) Peer Leader Career Self-Efficacy. Composite variable using the mean of five items from the SRS-PL: I see a clear connection between my strengths and the type of career that might be right for me; I know how to apply my strengths in order to produce career success; I know how to select a career that is right for me; I have identified a profession, occupation or calling that will use my strengths; and / am confident of the process I need to follow to plan for my career. Measured with a 5-point Likert scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree. (Cronbach's —«4 Outcomes Each Item From tiatSRS-F
Figure 1. Flowchart for Analysis of Variance Procedures
166
The least effective peer leaders had significantly higher levels of academic application of strengths (rj2 = .02) and career self-efficacy (rj2 = .05), but their effect sizes were small. In terms of peer leaders' overall effectiveness, there was no significant difference. Because of the small effect size on session effectiveness and the absence of a difference on counselor effectiveness, the conclusion is that the peer leader characteristics chosen to be measured in this study were not characteristics that contributed to first-year students' perceptions of their effectiveness as strengths counselors. As a result, further research is necessary to determine which characteristics are significant predictors of their effectiveness. The Peer Leaders' Effectiveness in Terms of Increased Strengths Awareness One of the six goals of the first-year seminar was to foster an increase in strengths awareness in the first-year students. The results of a paired samples t test conducted on first-year students' strengths awareness and academic self-confidence from pretest to posttest revealed a significant increase in the first-year students' strengths awareness and academic self-confidence. This finding suggests that the seminar goal was achieved. Further exploration of the data suggests that the most effective peer leaders contributed to the achievement of this goal. An analysis of variance conducted on strengths counseling session effectiveness and overall peer leader effectiveness indicated that there were significant differences in first-year students' strengths awareness and academic self-confidence between students who were led by the most effective and least effective peer leaders, with the largest effect sizes on the items that related to strengths
awareness.
167
The upper quartile peer leaders led groups of first-year students who were significantly more likely to report that: (a) they are planning their future around their strengths; (b) they can see people relative to their strengths; (c) they have a plan for developing their own strengths; (d) they can easily relate what they are learning to who they are as a person; (e) they are able to see irritating behaviors of others as strengths; (f) understanding strengths helps them do what they do best; and (g) they know how to apply their strengths to achieve academic success. These findings suggest that the most effective peer leaders were instrumental in helping the students improve their strengths awareness both in the general sense and in specific areas. Although none of the peer leader characteristics investigated in this study seemed to contribute to their ability to foster changes in the first-year students' strength awareness, the difference between the least effective and most effective peer leaders suggests that there are characteristics that contribute to their ability to foster changes in first-year students' strengths awareness. This finding is an important first step to discovering what characteristics contribute to peer leader effectiveness in conducting strengths counseling with first-year students, as no other studies have explored characteristics that contribute to peer leader effectiveness to date. However, further research will be necessary to determine other specific characteristics within peer leaders that may contribute to their effectiveness. Limitations The research design used in this study was a correlational design using hierarchical multiple regression analyses that enable one to predict the amount of
variation in a criterion variable that can be explained by the variation in the predictor variables. However, such a design by its nature does not allow conclusions regarding
168
causation. Because no control group or intervention was utilized in this study, there are a number of other factors that may be responsible for any observed variation that exists (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). The participants were an entire class of first-year seminar attendees at a single liberal arts university during 1 semester. Therefore, the implications of the findings from this study are appropriate only for other liberal arts universities with strengths-based firstyear programs that are conducted in the same manner as in this study (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). A final limitation of this study was a lack of variation in both the students' ratings of the peer leaders and the peer leaders' ratings of themselves. Frequency analyses indicated that the majority of the peer leaders rated themselves very highly on almost all of the predictor scales. This limitation is typical of self-reporting scales. The social desirability effect introduces a bias into the data that can affect the results (Gall et al., 1996). Implications for Practice This study revealed that peer leaders' comfort with their level of preparation was a significant predictor of changes in first-year students' strengths awareness. Existing research notes that training is the key to any successful peer intervention (Tien et al., 2004). Training that includes an examination of one's own strengths has been used elsewhere to foster academic success, (Anderson, 2005; Austin, 2005; Laird, 2005), career decision-making (Schreincr, 2004), and career success (Black, 2001). It is
important that all peer leaders receive adequate training and that the training should include an examination of participants' own strengths and how to apply those strengths to
169
academics, career decision-making, and their role as peer leaders. In light of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986) and current research (Anderson; Cantwell, 2005; Hodges & Clifton, 2004), it is possible that as the peer leaders gain expertise in strengths awareness and application, their comfort with their level of preparation and their level of academic self-efficacy will increase, fostering positive perceptions of their effectiveness as strengths counselors by others. Some of the peer leaders were more effective at fostering positive change in the first-year students' strengths awareness than other peer leaders. Specifically, the first-year students who were led by the most effective peer leaders were more likely to report that they understood how their strengths contributed to their success. These same students were more likely to report that their new understanding of strengths fostered plans for developing their strengths and using them to promote success in academics and career decision-making. Because the most effective peer leaders were better able to foster strengths awareness in the first-year students, the implication is that there are other characteristics besides comfort level that enhance peer leader effectiveness as strengths counselors. If characteristics that contribute to peer leader success can be empirically identified, then the presence of such characteristics can be used to determine which peer leaders will most likely be effective as strengths counselors. Moreover, training can be tailored to foster the development of such characteristics toward promoting peer leader success. This study found that the first-year students who were led by the most effective
peer leaders saw greater gains in their academic self-confidence than the students who were led by the least effective peer leaders. This finding implies that the positive impact
170
of effective peer leaders who function as strengths counselors for first-year students is not limited to fostering positive change in strengths awareness alone. This finding implies that providing opportunities for qualified peer leaders to help first-year students experience gains in academic self-confidence and strengths awareness will be highly beneficial to the students involved. Academic self-confidence helps to advance gains in academic self-efficacy as well as variables such as hope and optimism (Rhodes, 1997). Increased academic self-confidence also translates to gains in academic resilience (Culpepper, 2004), self-esteem and persistence (Martin & Marsh, 2006), autonomy and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Brown, 2003, Ryan & Deci, 2000a), engagement (Astin, 1993), and career decision-making (Larson & Borgen, 2006), all of which are known to promote academic success. Determining the peer leader characteristics and the specific types of interaction that encourage effective modeling by first-year students is a critical next step in this process In the findings, career self-efficacy and job duties self-efficacy were negative predictors of the first-year students' perception of peer leader effectiveness. A comparison of the most effective peer leaders with the least effective peer leaders provided no insight into this unexpected result. However, the findings of Heppner and Hendrix (1995) and Kaplan and Brown (1987) suggest an explanation for this unexpected finding that has implications concerning the best time to offer the first-year seminar to first-year students. According to these authors, first-year students are sometimes difficult to counsel because of their lack of expertise to make career and academic choices or
because their levels of anxiety eclipse their ability to choose a vocation. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) explain that first-year students have many adjustments to make during
171
their first year of college; these adjustments can foster anxiety and indecision. In addition, many first-year students are not academically focused or willing to investigate potential vocations because of negative habits they developed in high school (Smith & Wertlieb, 2005). Thus, focusing on strengths awareness early in the first semester of a student's career may be unwise. Such strengths exploration may be more beneficial later in the semester. It is even possible that a strengths-based approach to career decisionmaking is best delayed to the sophomore year, as found by other researchers (Schreiner, 2004). Recommendations for Further Research Further research is needed to explore the impact of positive peer leader characteristics on their effectiveness using a more diverse sample of students with a research design that will allow more control. The sample should include students from different types of institutions of higher education from the private and public sector in different geographical locations. If possible, additional background characteristics of the participants should be obtained and included in the analysis to further isolate the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables. The findings from this study suggest a positive link between the peer leaders' comfort with their level of preparation and their ability to foster increased strengths awareness in first-year students. However the design did not investigate the impact that the peer leader training had on their comfort with their level of preparation. Further research using experimental or quasi-experimental methods is recommended to explore
the impact of training on peer leaders' comfort with their level of preparation. In one possible design of this nature, the candidate peer leaders would be given a pretest that
172
would assess their level of comfort and peer leader characteristics that theoretically contribute to comfort level, such as self-efficacy in academics, career decision-making, and leadership. Additionally, their strengths knowledge and their belief in their ability to capitalize upon their strengths in academics and career decision-making should be assessed. The peer leaders would then be randomly assigned to two groups: one that would receive training and one that would not. The training would progress over the period of one semester to allow time to integrate the use of their strengths into their behavior. Part of the training should include an internship so that the peer leaders have the opportunity to develop their skills as strengths counselors. Once training is complete, the pretest would be re-administered as a posttest to all of the peer leaders from the control and treatment groups. Using the data collected from the instruments, multivariate analysis of variance would be used to explore the impact of the treatment. The findings from this suggested research could disclose a deeper understanding of how comfort level can be fostered in peer leaders who are to function as strengths counselors. The effect sizes reported in the regression analyses conducted in this study were small. Moreover, the differences between the extreme quartile peer leaders in this study suggest that none of the peer leader characteristics explored in this study specifically contributed to their effectiveness. A study of additional peer leader characteristics using an experimental or quasi-experimental design is suggested because of the potential for increased explanatory power and clarification of the relationship between peer leader characteristics and their effectiveness. The literature suggests that autonomy (Murphy,
2005), self-awareness (Hall, 2004), humility (Morris et al., 2005), intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a), and academic self-confidence (Rhodes, 1997) might be possible
173
characteristics to explore as independent variables. The same student outcomes that were explored in this study, such as strengths awareness, academic self-confidence, career decision-making ability, and cumulative GPA would continue to be utilized as appropiate dependent variables. Finally, the similarities between the descriptions of specific leadership qualities that potentially contribute to leadership effectiveness and the descriptions of Clifton's themes of talent (Rath, 2007) suggest that they may be related. Research is warranted to advance the understanding of this relationship. There have been no published studies empirically linking specific leadership qualities with Clifton's themes of talent. If it could be empirically verified that they are related, then it could promote the success of students in programs designed to prepare them for leadership by solidifying the credibility of the relationship. Students who believe they possess talent themes that are directly related to qualities that foster leadership in their career choice may experience increased levels of career and leadership self-efficacy that contribute to their success. Conclusion This research study sought to determine if certain characteristics of peer leaders were predictive of their effectiveness in functioning as strengths counselors to entering students participating in a first-year seminar at a private liberal arts university in California. The characteristics examined in the peer leaders included academic selfefficacy, career self-efficacy, awareness of their strengths, and self-reported comfort level with their assigned task of providing strengths counseling to first-year students.
Peer leaders' comfort with their level of preparation was the only significant positive predictor of their effectiveness in terms of fostering increased strengths
174
awareness. Further exploration of the data found that the first-year students who were led by the most effective peer leaders reported significantly greater gains in academic selfconfidence and strengths awareness than their peers. Specifically, these same students were more likely to report a significant understanding of their strengths and plans to cultivate them to promote success in academic achievement and career planning. The implication from these findings is that proper training may promote an increased comfort level as peer leaders provide guidance to first-year students and may have a positive impact on their effectiveness as strengths counselors. Effective peer leaders appear to be able to foster an increase in the first-year students' beliefs about their capabilities, which affects their success as students and how they approach the future.
175
References Adler, M. (1978). Aristotle for everybody: Difficult thought made easy. New York: Simon & Schuster. Aldwin, C. M., Sutton, K. J., & Lachman, M. (1996). The development of coping resources in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 64, 837-871. Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307-324. Amundson, N. E. (1995). An interactive model of career decision making. Journal of Employment Counseling, 32, 11-21. Anderson, E. C. (1997). Advising for excellence. In M. Hovland, E. Anderson, W. McGuire, D. Crockett, J. Kaufman, & D. Woodward (Eds.), Academic advising for student success and retention (pp. 161-168). Iowa City, IA: Noel-Levitz. Anderson, E. C. (2005). Strengths-based educating: A concrete way to bring out the best in students - and yourself. Educational Horizons, 83, 180-189. Anderson, E. C , & Clifton, D. O. (1998). StrengthsFinder self-reflection survey. Unpublished survey instrument. University of California, Los Angeles. Anderson, E. C , & McGuire, W. G. (2004). Academic advising for student success and retention: An advising perspective. In M. Hovland, E. Anderson, W. McGuire, D. Crockett, J. Kaufman, & D. Woodward (Eds.), Academic advising for student success and retention (1st ed., pp. vii-xiii). Iowa City, IA: Noel-Levitz.
176
Anderson, E. C , & Schreiner, L. (2003). StrengthsFinder self-reflection survey for freshmen. Unpublished survey instrument, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA. Anderson, E. C , Schreiner, L., & Brodersen, D. J. (2003). StrengthsFinder
self-reflection
survey for counselors. Unpublished survey instrument, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA. Anderson, E. C , Schreiner, L. A., & Shahbaz, P. (2003). Research and evaluation of strengths counselors in a new beginnings course. Unpublished raw data, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA. Anderson, E. C , Schreiner, L. A., & Shahbaz, P. (2004). Research and evaluation of strengths counselors in a new beginnings course. Unpublished raw data, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA. Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions andfuture directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Astin, A. W. (1961). The environmental assessment technique: A way to measure college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 308-316. Astin, A. W. (1964). Some characteristics of student bodies entering higher educational institutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 267-275. Astin, A. W. (1965). Effect of different college environments on the vocational choices of high aptitude students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 28-34. Astin, A. W. (1968). The college environment. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
177
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1983). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886-924. Austin, D. B. (2005). The effects of a strengths development intervention program upon the self-perceptions of students' academic abilities (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(05A), 16311772. Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338. Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & McKinney, V. (2000). Boundary management tactics and logics of action: The case of peer-support providers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 705-736. Bachiochi, P. D., Rogelburg, S. G., O'Connor, M. S., & Elder, A. E. (2000). The qualities of an effective team leader. Organization Development Journal, 18, 11-27.
178
Baker, W., Cross, R., & Wooten, M. (2003). Positive organizational network analysis and energizing relationships. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 328-342). San Francisco: BurrettKoehler. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (1999). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300-326. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Bateman, T. S., & Porath, C. (2003). Transcendent behavior. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 122-137). San Francisco: Burrett-Koehler. Beck, P., Hawkins, T., Silver, M., Bruffee, K. A., Fishman, J., & Matsunobu, J. T.
(1978). Training and using peer tutors. College English, 40, 432-449. Bennis, W. G. (2003). On becoming a leader (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
179
Berg-Weger, M., McGartland, R., & Tebb, S. S. (2001). Strengths-based practice with family caregivers of the chronically ill: Qualitative insights. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82(3), 263-272. Berkane, M., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Estimation of contamination parameters and identification of outliers in multivariate data. Sociological Methods & Research, 17,55-66. Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2004). Shape up or ship out: The effects of remediation on students at four-year colleges (Working Paper No. 10369). Paper presented at the meeting of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=520662 Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). Skills Confidence Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25,399-410. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1998). Manual for the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy theory: Back to the future. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 3-11. Black, B. (2001). The road to recovery. Gallup Management Journal, 1, 10-12. Retrieved April 7, 2006, from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=772 Blanchard, K., Hybels, B., & Hodges, P. (1999). Leadership by the book. New York: William Morrow.
180
Boice-Pardee, H. (2005). Assessing peer education: What can we learn? Retrieved June 15, 2006, from The National Resource Center Web Site: http://www.se. edu/fye/resources/assessment/newessay/author/boice-pardee.html Bourner, T. (1996). Effective management and the development of self-awareness: A plan manager's guide. Career Development International, i(4), 14-18. Bracken, J. E. (2004). Advisors' attitudes toward developmental placement and the academic performance and perceived success of their underprepared community college advisees (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(11A), 4081-4225. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Fostering healthy self-regulation from within and without: A self-determination theory perspective. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 105-124). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Brown, W. F. (1972). Student to student counseling: An approach to motivating academic achievement. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Buckingham, M. (2007). Go put your strengths to work: 6powerful steps to achieve outstanding performance. New York: Free Press. Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York: The Free Press. Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York: Simon & Schuster.
181
Budny, D., & Paul, C. A. (2004). Integrating peer mentoring into the freshman curriculum. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 29-36. Buote, V. M., Pancer, M. S., Pratt, M. W., Adams, G., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Polivy, J., et al. (2007). The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among lst-year university students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 665-689. Burpo, J. F. (2006). The great captains of chaos: Developing adaptive leaders. Military Review, 86, 64-70. Caballero De Cordero, A. (2006). Self-efficacy perceptions and their impact on Latino and White community college student persistence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(9-A), 3227. Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational virtuousness and performance. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 766-790. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Burrett-Koehler. Cantwell, L. (2005). A comparative analysis of strengths-based versus traditional teaching methods in a freshman public speaking course: Impacts on student learning and academic engagement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(2), (n.p.). (UMI No. AAT 3207574) Dissertation retrieved October 14, 2006, from ProQuest Database. Cantwell, L. (2006). Creating the teaching-learning environment you've always dreamed of'. Educational Horizons, 84, 161-169.
182
Cantwell-Wilson, B. (2002). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Computer Science Education, 12, 141-164. Carter, K., & McNeill, J. (1998). Coping with the darkness of transition: Students as the leading lights of guidance at introduction to higher education. Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 26, 399-415. Carty, L., Rosenbaum, J. N., Lafreniere, K., & Sutton, J. (2000). Peer group counseling: An intervention that works. Guidance and Counseling, 15(2), 2-8. Cave, S. L. R. (2003). The effects of strengths education on the academic motivation of first-year college students (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02A), 417-570. CCCU. (2005). CCCU: News | Strengths Quest. Retrieved August 22, 2005, from http://www.cccu.Org/news/newsID.219,parentNav.Archives/news_past_detail.asp Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55-64. Chiu, C. (2005). New immigrant readers: The role of young adult literature in literacy development and academic self-confidence (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(02A), 469-715. Ciulla, J. B. (1998). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. C. (1999). Soaring with your strengths student workbook. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.
183
Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. C. (2002). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths in academics, career, and beyond. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization. Clifton, D. O., Anderson, E. C , & Schreiner, L. A. (2006). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths in academics, career, and beyond (Rev. ed.). New York: Gallup Press. Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 111-121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Clifton, D. O., & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with your strengths. New York: Dell. Cohen, B. (1999). Intervention and supervision in strengths-based social work practice. Families in Society, 80, 460-466. Cohen, W. A. (1990). Art of a leader. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cokley, K. O., Benard, N., Cunningham, D., & Motoike, J. (2001). A psychometric investigation of the Academic Motivation Scale using a United States sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 109-119. Coleman, L. J. (2002). A shock to study. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 3953. Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 79, 67-77. Compton, B., & Gallaway, B. (1999). Social work processes
CA: Brooks/Cole.
184
(6th ed.). Pacific Grove,
Connelly, J. (2002). All together now: If you want to build effective work teams, do as Toyota did at its Ontario, California warehouse: Identify each team member's unique strengths. Gallup Management Journal, 2, 12-18. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=763 Conti, R. (2000). College goals: Do self-determined and carefully considered goals predict intrinsic motivation, academic performance, and adjustment during the first semester? Social Psychology of Education, 4, 189-211. Cooper, K. L. (2004). An examination of agricultural education pre-service student teachers' explanatory style, beliefs and expectations about teaching, and StrengthsFinderprofiles.
Unpublished master's thesis, Montana State University,
Bozeman. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Finding flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial. Culpepper, A. S. (2004). Women graduates' academic resilience and their personal strategies for doctoral success (Doctoral dissertation, Florida International University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(02A), 508-677. D'Andrea, V., & Salovey, P. (1983). Peer counseling: Skills and perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Davies, B. J., & Davies, B. (2004). Strategic leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24, 29-38. Deci, E. L., & Gagne, M. (2005). Self-determination theory and work. Journal
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
185
of
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Delmhorst, F. P. (2006). Self-awareness and leadership development: Examining the impact of self-subordinate agreement on perceptions of leadership (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(03B), 1739-1894. Drucker, P. F. (1996). Forward: Not enough generals were killed. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future (pp. xi-xv). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Drucker, P. F. (2000). Managing knowledge means managing oneself. Leader to Leader, 16, 8-10. Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: When and how does self-esteem make a difference. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 772-782. Durlak, J. A. (1979). Comparative effectiveness ofparaprofessional and professional helpers. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 80-92. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). Theory of objective self-awareness. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Early, T. (2001). Measures for practice with families from a strengths perspective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82, 232. Eblin, S. (2006). Training the next level. T+D, 60(3), 55-58.
186
Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2000). Using an academic self-efficacy scale to address university major persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 450454. Ender, S. C , & Newton, F. B. (2003). Students helping students: A guide for peer educators on college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Epstein, M., Harniss, M., Pearson, N., & Ryser, G. (1999). Behavioral and emotional rating scale: Test-retest and inter-rater reliability. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 50,319-327. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Estevez, E. F. (2005). The role of strengths-based case management strategies in the promotion of social capital and academic success of underprepared students (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66/08, 2852-2975. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-Dibrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fabian, N. (2004). Leadership - what is it and are you headed for it? Journal of Environmental Health, 67(3), 52, 54. Frank, H. H., & Katcher, A. H. (1977). The qualities of leadership: How male medical students evaluate their female peers. Human Relations, 30, 403-416. Fredrickson, B. L. (2005). Positive emotions. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook
of positive psychology
(pp. 120-134). New York: Oxford University
Press.
187
Freeman, M. S. (2001). Innovative alcohol education program for college and university judicial sanctions. Journal of College Counseling, 4, 179-185. Frisz, R. H. (1986). Peer counseling: Establishing a network in training and supervision. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 457-459. Gagne, F. (2004). An imperative, but, alas, improbable consensus! Roeper Review, 27, 12-14. Gainor, K. (2006). Twenty-five years of self-efficacy in career assessment and practice. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 161-178. Gainor, K. A., & Constantine, M. G. (2002). Multicultural group supervision: A comparison of in-person versus web based formats. Professional School Counseling, 6, 104- 111. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Gallup, Inc. (1999). The Clifton StrengthsFinder. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press. Gershman, E. S., Anchors, S., & Robbins, M. A. (1988). A multidisciplinary faculty and peer advising program for residentially based freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 167-168. Gillum, W. M. (2005). The effects of strengths instruction on under-performing high school students in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University,
2005). Dissertation Abstracts International,
