Revitalizing Your Leadership Program!

A CACUSS Presentation by Terri Budek and Jude Butch

Excerpt from CACUSS 2012 Conference  Booklet:

The University of Buffalo transformed its leadership program, increasing both awareness and participation, without creating a single new program. Simple marketing and repackaging of current leadership and service programs created a renewed sense of enthusiasm and a more comprehensive and meaningful experience for students. The TORCH Leadership Certificate Program model for how to re-energize and refocus your leadership program by simply packaging your program to meet the needs and desires of a diverse student body.

The session began with Jude Butch sharing with the group that he was from Pennsylvania, and attended Slipper Rock University. He is responsible for leadership programming development at the University of Buffalo campus. Terri Budek joined in and shared that she was from Markham, Ontario (crowd applause), and that she went to the University of Guelph (even bigger crowd cheering). Terri went to Western Illinois University first, and has recently spent the last five years at U of Buffalo. Terri shared with the group that they were going to highlight the Torch Program for the session, a leadership certificate program that was meant to "ignite your leadership potential!"

The two presenters shared with the audience that the University of Buffalo had a total enrollment of 24,049 with 19, 395 undergraduates and 9653 grad and professional students. The Center for Student Leadership & Community Engagement where they worked had a total of 22 staff members. The center had adopted the use of the Social Change Model of Leadership Development, focusing classes on the individual, group and society.

In discussing the evolution of the past "Students and Organizations Understanding Leadership" (SOUL) certificate program, the two presenters discussed the progression towards Torch. "Students in the millennial generation love certificates. They are tangible , and students can show others and say look what I learned." In using this notion to their advantage, they created the LCP Leadership Certificate Program, which modified to TORCH afterwards. Before they created the program however, they bench marked other programs in order to pick and chose portions from a school down the road that was doing certificate programs. One unique aspect to Torch, was that it expanded upon their existing programs such as the Life and Learning Workshops. They made these preexisting workshops the first level of their certificate program. Next, they added other current programs and made them the other level. The presenters emphasized that in the process of creating Torch, they didn't create any new programs - they had simply "...repackaged them and marketed them differently. This changed the culture and the leadership program significantly."

Terri and Jude indicated that they had largely based the program on the TED Model (Training, Education, Development) (CAS, 2003, Roberts & Ullorn, 1989, 1990) and the Comprehensive Leadership Model (Students, Structures, Strategies, Scope). The final stage of the program "...involves a Leadership Philosophy Paper reflection on what the courses taught them, and what they got out of it. Students must do this in order to get any certificate." The presenters indicated that it was interesting to see the level of reflection as it changed from 1st year students to 3rd year students. As an additional piece to the program, they also ask students to write down their current definition of leadership is. "These are students who consider them to be leaders...the majority have never articulated what they feel to be leadership." In doing this, the presenters shared that the student can see how their definition has evolved over time.

In learning more about the Torch leadership program, the presenters shared that the program has an initial consultation component. This is carried out by the Leadership Service Educators do the initial consultation. Next, student can attend either the Leadership Training Camp 4 workshops. There is no timeline for completion, however the goal is for it to take a year. The final stage involves a meeting Process where a leadership philosophy statement and student organization membership reflection is reviewed. Tracking is maintained through their student voice collegiate link (students track this, which results in zero administration on part), a site built by the University of Buffalo IT department.

Terri and Jude have accessed campus partners such as Intercultural & Diversity Center (IDC), Career Services, and Intercollegiate Athletics. There are typically 25-30 participants for inter-campus collaborative workshops, with around 10 people for other workshops. The first year of the program saw 80 total participants, with the program growing to 1280 participants after five years. "It’s not going to be like this from day one, you are going to want to grow this." Considering the number of students who completed the program after the first year, the number is 15, with the programming growing to 313 completions after five years. The Life & Learning Workshops saw 262 students after the 1st year 262 with a total of 3174 after five years. In terms of community engagement hours, the program's first year saw 8870 hours completed, with a total of 127, 248 hours after five years. The University of Buffalo Leadership Week saw 47 people after its first year, growing to 1803 after five years. Finally, their Women Empowered to Lead (WE Lead) program had 89 in its first year, with 983 after five years.

The University of Buffalo has learning outcomes for every program, outcomes that are reviewed at the beginning of every semester. There is an overall assessment at the end of the program. When asked about some challenges to the program, the two presenters offered that tracking was one area. The presenters "...don’t tell the students that they track their progress, we expect that it comes from them". The program sees sign in sheets at the start of our sessions in order to track attendance. There are also space limitations for the program, as they have a nearby classroom with a capacity for 30, and sometimes as many as 80 people show up.

Student Leadership Institute - "Inspire Change"

The weekend of May 25th saw the realization of the 2^nd Annual Student Leadership Institute at Humber College - a three day weekend conference for students that was the effort of several months work! The institute was geared towards students who were genuinely interested in learning more about leadership knowledge and practice. One of the great aspects of the weekend, was that it was created in delivered in collaboration with some of Humber’s truly great leaders as part of the SLI Steering Committee and academic community. As part of Humber's academic community, faculty members such as Arthur Lockhart, Alanna Turco, Debra Basch, Ken Wyman, and Rick Simone were all involved in bringing the event to fruition.

The weekend was designed to offer students more opportunities, workshops, and leadership experience. Students had the chance to meet and interact with new people – creating what would become a significant piece of the Humber leadership community. 

Important to know, is that the Student Leadership Institute (SLI) is offered in a series of three related events each year, with each event building on previous leadership concepts. Largely based on the “Social Change Model of Leadership Development,”¹ each of the SLI events were created with a focus on individual, group, and community leadership. 

This year’s Student Leadership Institute theme was “Inspire Change.” With an emphasis on the individual, we wanted to ensure that students were continually reminded of the significance of change. Change is referred to as “...improving the status quo, creating a better world, and demonstrating a comfort with transition and ambiguity.”² As the students embarked on their leadership experience, we were continually reminding them of the importance to stop and reflect on how they could Inspire Change!

As a new addition to the program, we encouraged both new and seasoned Twitter users to consider using the social media platform as an educational tool to enhance their learning experience at the Student Leadership Institute. All events, keynote speakers, workshops, and roundtables, featured specific default hashtags which encouraged occasional session tweeting. Attendees could post useful comments about programs that they were attending, and could also learn from others in different sessions by searching for an SLI hashtag on Twitter!

Here were a couple of the Student Leadership Institute Highlighted Programs!

Opening Keynote Speaker - Blake Fly

Blake has been a TEDx conference host, a featured TEDx speaker, and has shared the stage with CBC’s Rick Mercer. He is the author of “Campus Gets Wasted” and Co-Author of “The Art and Science of Success.” He uses music and message to address the needs of students at all levels. He provides ignition for students to do their best in every transition. He shares the power of positive peer pressure to combat that otherwise negative social force (peer pressure).
 

Aboriginal Opening Event

The Aboriginal Opening Event was brought to the students by Aboriginal Student Services at Humber College.  The event intended to teach students about Aboriginal culture through MC narration, as well as to showcase cultural dancing and drumming. 

Closing Keynote Speaker - Joel Hilchey

Joel Hilchey

Leadership expert Joel Hilchey is the founder of The Beanstalk Project, an organization offering schools and communities creative, project-based programs to get more students more involved. He teaches at McMaster University, and he has spoken at conferences, schools, and events across North America, creating social change by juggling, storytelling, and playing with mousetraps. Seriously.

I would like to thank all of the members who formed this year’s Steering Committee and the Student Life Programs Team who worked so hard to bring the Student Leadership Institute to fruition! We couldn’t have done it without the support of our sponsors – The Humber Students’ Federation, Peer Programs, Aboriginal Student Services, and The Department of Student Success & Engagement – Thank You for all of your contributions, hard work, and inspiration!

If you have questions about the Student Leadership Institute program at Humber College, please contact Phil Legate at:

Phil Legate, BSc, BEd

Coordinator, Student Leadership Programs

Student Success & Engagement

Humber College, Toronto, ON

416-675-6622 ext. 4816, D149

phil.legate@humber.ca

References

¹ Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A Social Change Model of Leadership Development. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California.

² Komives, S.R. (2009). Leadership for a Better World: Understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Design Credit

"Inspire Change" Design - Neil Sangani

"Thank You" Word Cloud - Timothy Brilhante and Wordle software

Inside the Studio with Dr. George Kuh - Hosted by Dr. Mike Coomes

Moderator – Dr.Mike Coomes, Bowling Green State University

Panelists – Dr. George Kuh, Indiana Bloomington

“Based on the popular television series “Inside the Actors Studio”, this session will explore the life and ideas of Dr. George Kuh. Kuh is Director of the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) and Indian University Chancellor’s Professor Emeritus.  A prolific author of more than 250 publications including such major works as Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Personal Development Outside the Classroom and Student Success in College: creating Conditions That Matter.  Dr. Ku is an expert on student engagement. In addition, his ideas have greatly influenced our understanding of the student affairs profession. He will reflect on his childhood, his life as an undergraduate and graduate student, and his roles as teachers and scholars. In keeping with the theme of the Convention, special attention will be given to exploring how colleges can foster student success” (ACPA Convention Program Description).

The interview with Dr. George Kuh began with Dr. Mike Coomes showing the audience a picture of Kuh in Chicago, Illinois, growing up as a kid.  Kuh shared with the audience that his father was pushing him in a stroller at 2 years old.  Kuh’s father was a truck driver, and left formal schooling at an early age during elementary school.  “He was a very street smart guy – Rudolph G was his name – Rudy Kuh” (Kuh, 2012). Kuh also had a brother – Warren R (for Rudolph), who was 5 years younger and had been retired for 3 years.  Coomes turned to Kuh and said, “as the older brother – were you nice to him growing up? “I think he’d say I was… would get him into trouble at the dinner table” (Kuh, 2012). At this point, Coomes asked Kuh what brought him from Chicago to Luther College.  Kuh shared that he had very few role models. “I was going to be a teacher and a coach, I was enrolled in Northern Illinois University – many of my peers were there – in May of my senior year – Dick Weiner – got in his pickup and got into Decorah, Iowa and it was just gorgeous. I was the president of the Luther league in my church. When it was announced I was going to Luther – there was shuddering. I flat out fell in love with the place” (Kuh, 2012). At this point, Kuh shared with the audience that he played basketball at Luther College. A picture was put up of Kuh as part of the 1968 Luther College Pioneer Yearbook.  As part of his high school biography, Coomes noticed that the word “Chips” was mentioned as being important to Kuh.  “What is Chips? (Coomes, 2012).  “Chips is the Luther newspaper. I wrote a column called the Headless Norsemen (Norse is the mascot). For reasons unbeknown to me – you wrote anonymously – you could write slanderously – I did! If we talk about high impact practices later this is relevant.  I spent more time and effort and was more engaged in the Valentine’s day article than any other project at Luther.  I was doing the research for this - they actually went to libraries - and I had this wonderful spinning yarn and the editor cut it by 1/3 to make it fit – I said ‘I’m done – you can’t take this art…(trails off)” (Kuh, 2012).

Dr.George Kuh (Left) & Dr. Mike Coomes (Right) at the ACPA Convention - Louisville, Kentucky

At this point Kuh shared with the audience that he was at Luther College around the time of Vietnam. “There were some people on campus who were very aware of Vietnam – it was not the hot button issue that it later became – I remember more about the advancements the college made about trying to create racial diversity [than Vietnam]. Luther was a bubble – we didn’t use the term there” (Kuh, 2012).

Coomes proceeded to take the discussion back towards Kuh and his career direction at the time.  “I was going to teach and coach – in fact the first interview at Ripon Wisconsin – five minutes into the interview they handed me a contract! There was discussion about hiring me as an admissions rep – college car and $6000.00 salary” (Kuh, 2012).

 Coomes - “You got married shortly after college and you moved to Chicago…”

 “That was my admissions territory – visit with the schools, cut down on travel – on the weekends you were supposed to drive some high school seniors and drive them to see the campus. One Friday afternoon I picked up five African American guys and we drove to Decorah and they began to wake up and the sky was lit brilliantly with the stars – I heard them talking about the constellations – which is not something you see in the centre of Chicago” (Kuh, 2012). Kuh commuted and did his Masters at St. Cloud State University. “I had never intended to go beyond a Bachelorette degree – after I got involved in the masters, found out I could do this stuff, got tired of selling – got the proverbial bee in the bonnet. There was a visiting faculty member at St. Cloud who put the idea in my head - the topic - Counselling the Transfer: Does it make a difference” (Kuh, 2012).  Kuh suggested that this was published 40 years ago in the Journal of National College Admissions Council and was his first publication (if you didn’t count his Norseman articles).

At this point, Coomes questioned Kuh about the shift from Iowa to Indiana University. “I applied for some faculty jobs and got into Indiana. Seemed like it would be better for everybody to go somewhere different. I did not know how strong the student affairs program was at Indiana” (Kuh, 2012).  There is where Kuh met two prominent people in his life, Betty Greenleaf and Bob Shaffer.  Kuh suggested that they were “giants in the field”, and made him feel comfortable from day one. Kuh remembered that Greenleaf had a slogan in her office - “get it done, get it done right, Have some fun getting it done” (Kuh, 2012). 

At this point, Coomes reminded Kuh that the majority of the audience were new professionals, and likely did not know much about Greenleaf and Shaffer.  Kuh enlightened the audience. “Both Betty and Bob - their homes were like sieves – they would have big events several times a year – Bob a very giving spirit – he exuded this in my presence – bob in the 60s he was the dean of students in Indiana University.  There are stories about Bob and pictures of him eating an ice cream cones with people. The faculty had such respect for him dealing with those issues (issues not mentioned). They voted him to be the President of the Faculty Council – it is a high honour, and typically held for faculty members! I remember one of his retirement parties – I gave the toast, if I could pick one person that I wish my son to emulate, it would be Bob Shaffer” (Kuh, 2012).  At this point, Kuh spoke more about his immediate family, citing times at Willy Nelson concerts, skiing, rafting, an Alaskan trip, and holding a baby alligator in Darwin Australia.

At this point, Kuh was asked to share more about the works that he was known for.  In regard to Cultural Perspectives in Student Affairs, Kuh mentioned that the work came out of a seminar.  He suggested that at the time the group felt that there was not a lot of stuff to read that was directly applicable to student affairs. They decided to change that by creating this piece. Kuh then discussed Student Affairs 2001 – Paradigmatic Odyssey. “it was in my coming of age world when we were exploring alternative perspectives – that cover is the old cover – if you get close enough you can see Dorothy, Tin man, Scare crow…when it was printed, ACPA got cold feet and thought MGM would sue us” (Huh, 2012)!

Kuh shared that Involving Colleges was about connecting people outside of the classroom, and that he personally felt that this was “his story”. Student Success in College had a much broader focus, and had “more information and more ideas about intentional interventions to engage and involve students” (Kuh, 2012). 

Kuh was then asked by Coomes to explain what a High Impact Practice was. “We were goofing one day in the NSSE shop – carving things up different ways – there is a scale in NSSE called ‘Enriching Educational Practices’ – List of activities like research abroad, etc. Anyways, we thought it would be useful to take a look at what difference participating in those things made – low and behold it makes a huge positive difference. If you’ve done a Learning Community in the first year – you are much more likely to report higher levels of faculty interaction in the later years - and then as we began to talk about things – they were finding what different data says and found similar things – with our colleagues – we began to talk about this – and they said participating in these things have compensatory effects –make up for a shortfall in one area and there you go! Students who come in with lower precollege achievement measures actually get a bump in their performance if they participate. If you haven’t done one (High Impact Practice) at Northridge 38% of them finish in 6 years – if you’ve done one - 50%, if you’ve done two – 2/3rds! We’ve written about it and talked about it – so I’m writing the headless Norsemen column –high impact practices” (Kuh, 2012).

The interview ended with Coomes asking Kuh a variation of the standard 10 closing interview questions developed by Bernard Pivot.

Coomes – “what’s your favourite word?” Kuh – “propinquity.”

Coomes – “what’s your least favourite word?” Kuh – “gnome.”

Coomes – “Who makes you smile?” Kuh – “My son especially – my brother – when we’re all together it’s...”

Coomes – “What makes you proud?” Kuh – time passes. “Pass.”

Coomes – “what sound do you love?” Kuh – “The trickling stream.”

Coomes – “what sound do you dislike?” Kuh – “I don’t like static on the line – that doesn’t sound right.”

Coomes – “what’s your favourite curse word?” Kuh – “I have so many favourites!”

Coomes – “What profession, other than your own, would you liked to have done?” Kuh – “I would have loved to write well thought of popular fiction – I don’t think I would have been a very good basketball coach but a possibility perhaps? I would have been an awful minister which is what my parents thought when I chose Luther – I would have been good for the pulpit.”

Coomes – “What profession would you not have wanted to do?” Kuh – “Surgeon.”

Coomes – “If you could have dinner with 3 people…” Kuh – “JFK, Obama – just to tell him keep the faith, George Bush would be interesting – when they get out of that maelstrom of having to defend, I think it will be interesting to see the two of them doing things for the good together.”

Creating Positive Sustainable Change through a Service Leadership Transition Program - Interest Session

Antron Mahoney, Nathan Bunch & Virginia Byrne - Florida State University

This session was all about how you can develop first year transition leadership programs by integrating service leadership, and specifically focused on Florida State University’s “Service Leadership Seminar (SLS)”, as part of the great Center for Leadership and Civic Education. If students are selected to attend the SLS, then there is no cost. The presenters began the session by sharing a brief overview of their Service Leadership Seminar.  Established in 2001,  this program boasts a four and a half day seminar that takes place the week before the start of fall semester.  The seminar has just expanded to offer spots for 42 incoming first year students who self identify interest in service and leadership. The seminar focuses on transition to college, service, and leadership learning, introducing students to the servant leadership approach. When asked why they only allowed up to 42 students into the program, the presenters responded that it was a purposeful decision to keep the seminar small.  “We were starting to notice some capacity with 42 students, and we think it’s our limit – students like the smaller groups, the attention. There was a limit of 8 people per group in order for purposeful discussions to take place” (Byrne, 2012).  The presenters shared with the audience that they emphasized models such as the Social Change Model (HERI) as it looks at leadership as more of a process.  The presenters suggested that they were noticing that many of the students were coming in with an understanding of leadership as a positional based concept.  “The social change model really serves as an awakening for them – they are leaders, followers, there are interactions, the person at the front isn’t always the most critical piece” (Mahoney, 2012).

The SLS has been a student led student lead and student facilitated program.  They’ve educated students about the Social Change Model, and they’ve taken ownership of the SLS program. They teach coordinators and participants about the model on day one.  FSU works closely with other departments and areas such as Res Life, their student union (helps purchase Strength’s Quest codes), the Student government association, etc. There is a dedicated program planning committee that is composed of student coordinators, facilitators and participants.

In regards to marketing initiatives, the presenters mentioned that they’re institution’s strategic goals are two-fold, in that they are meant to represent the diversity of the FSU population, but to also attract students who are not enrolled in FSU programs as well.  They have extensive partnerships and affiliations with admissions, high school counselors and high school service groups.

At this point, Byrne mentioned that the program’s assessment is based off of Astin’s Input-Environment-Output Model. This is paired with a Social Responsibility Leadership scale.  As part of their session administration, they ensure that facilitators take many notes during the week to aid with the overall assessment.  When asked about the slogan for the program (I create +∞∆, or, “I create positive infinite change”), Byrne suggest that this was “the magic….what is special about this program is that students take ownership of the theory, model, etc.  They really take control, and are passionate about the theme.” The presenters informed us that 99% of SLS alumni complete their first year and return for a second year to FSU.  Through FSU’s ServScript program, alumni of the SLS program have registered, on average, 3213 hours of service - a total of 51, 968 hours. 

Using CAS Standards for Program Development and Assessment - Interest Session

Gavin Henning – Dartmouth College, Susan Komives – University of Maryland

Laura Bayless – St. Mary’s College of Maryland, Heather Gasser – University of Idaho

This session was developed in order to inform participants of the standards developed by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.  Susan Komives began the session, by asking the audience if they had ever used the CAS Standards before – several hands went up.  As Komives continued, she informed the group with background information on the standards.  The committee recognized in 1979 that there was a need to develop and promote standards in higher education. At this point, there was a consortium of 41 member organizations, and 43 standards, along with self-assessment guides (SAGs) have been created.  Komives indicated that “professionals in the field are always informing us that they have a need” for certain standards” (Komives, 2012). Currently under development are two standards pertaining to Campus Media and Financial Aid.  Under revision and review are aspects related to academic advising, college honour societies, commuter and off campus living programs, education abroad, orientation programs, housing and Residential life, alcohol tobacco, and other drug programs, master’s level prep programs, as well as disability support programs. Finally, Komives suggested that there were some standards that were set to be approved, and simply needed voter support at this point – Campus Police and Security programs (new), Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence Prevention Programs (new), Fraternity and Sorority Advising programs, as well as Transfer Student Programs and Services (new).  For those interested in obtaining a copy of the standards, there is set to be a new book published this upcoming August 2012.

At this point, Gavin Henning took over the conversation, and suggested that the standards included several “general standards” as part of their design.  For example, they pertain to standards in mission, program, leadership, human resources, ethics, legal responsibilities, equity & access, diversity, organization & Management, campus & external relationship, financial resources, technology, facilities & Equipment, as well as assessment & evaluation.  At this point, a member from the audience asked ‘how the CAS standards were determined.  How are they verified? Henning suggested that there was a formal process for CAS standard development.  At this point, Komives jumped in to explain this process. “Taking any given standard, a standards drafting team is comprised of 4-6 people (experts).  They take the general standards, write specific standards for that area (such as campus media), then it goes down to expert review.  We would go to the experts, and they would do an expert review, at this point they may even take it back to their own experts.  Then it’s all consolidated - the team takes the changes and tries to resolve them – if there’s too much confliction than it’s probably a guideline.  That’s the process we go through – it’s shared with all of the directors of CAS and they all have an opportunity to input on the standards, then they all agree by consensus that it reflects the best interest of everyone” (Komives, 2012).

Henning’s then explained that a standard is a “must” statement.  If you have a program in this area, you must follow the standards that are set out.  The presenters suggested many great features of CAS at this point, suggesting that you could adapt CAS to fit your culture and environment. As far as assessment is concerned, there are some particular key steps in order to do this effective – assemble a team, educate your team, compile & review evidence & conduct ratings, complete a report with an action plan, and finally prepare a descriptive report making sure to “close the loop”. As a final tidbit of information, the presenters suggested that the CAS standards could be more available to you then you think.  “Member affiliations are allowed to post the standards for their functional areas on their website.” (Komives, 2012).  This session was one of 3 presentations on the implementation and usages of the CAS standards. 

Another Survey?!? Alternative Assessment Data Collection Methods

Linda L. Scheu - University of Arizona

Linda Scheu began the presentation by informing the attendees that although we love surveys “sometimes they can break our hearts”. Scheu explained that there are several reasons why it may be beneficial to look to alternative methods of assessment.  Some of these reasons include survey fatigue, timing, practicality, knowledge, and even a term that she created - “situation-ality”. There are other great qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data.  Here they are:

Use Existing Data (Quantitative)

In 1995, Nichols estimated that between 30-35% of the assessment data needed by an institution is already available on campus (Scheu, 2009, p.39). So where is this data located? Scheu suggested that it was everywhere - filing cabinets, libraries, admissions, archives, even our own data servers. 

Document Review (Qualitative)

Scheu suggested that documents that may be important to review pertain to public records (what’s in the newspaper, annual reports, etc.), personal documents (Departmental/Divisional Facebook posts, blogs, twitter, Educational Sanction papers, etc), as well as physical evidence (posters, handouts, etc.). One example Scheu provided related to the recycling program at her institution, where the students suggested that people weren’t recycling. What did they do? They photographed the containers that they were using, and compared them to the other recycling documents that were next to them.   The conclusion was that they had “very random recycling paradigms across campus”; there was no consistent messaging (Scheu, 2012). The students wanted to do a survey, but Scheu suggested that it was not necessary as they had already gathered very strong evidence.

Focus groups & Interviews (Qualitative)

In this component, Scheu shared a plethora of information on these two techniques, suggesting that both are good for understanding, gaining insight, pilot testing, and preliminary related steps. For focus groups, they are structured, conversational, non-judgmental, confidential, private, safe, comfortable, neutral and provide a familiar space. They can be used for many purposes – qualitative info on its own, pre study, post study, test assumptions of data analysis, as well as to test assumptions of recommendations. Interviews on the other hand, offer the nature of being either structured, unstructured (allows you to probe further), or in-depth (allow you to dig as deep as you want).

Observations (Qualitative)

Observations “…allow you to gather firsthand data on behaviours, interactions, relationships, processes, context and settings, and things participants can’t discuss” (Scheu, 2012).  Scheu noted that there were several methods for observing, such as field notes, as well as structured observations – checklists, recording sheets, and observation guides.

One-minute Assessments

The last assessment method related to one-minute assessments.  Examples of these are those “little slips of paper at the end of the session” (Scheu, 2012).  Scheu explained that they give you results such as a one sentence summary.  

Teaching Leadership through Storytelling and Narrative - Interest Session

Thomas A. Murray – University of Arizona, Dani Barker – Davidson College

This session began with Thomas Murray sharing a story with the group.  Murray revealed to the audience that he was once selected to work as part of a grand jury as part of a 4 month responsibility. Murray suggested to the group that what was so powerful about the experience, was that it provided him with one of the strongest personal experience examples of Bruce Tuckman’s Theory of Group Development (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning). As Murray continued with the aid of a diagram of the room he had spent four months in, he shared with the audience each of the stages that the jury group had gone through.  There was the forming stage, and the introduction of what he later referred to as the “Sunflower Seed Lady”.  Next there was the norming stage, a pattern of bizarre repeated behaviour that took place with the selection of each individual’s seat each day.  As Murray moved through the story and stages, he even mentioned that someone in the group had gone to the effort of planning a closing BBQ event for the new group of acquaintances. This was not something that Murray wanted to attend – he never wanted to see these people again!

In discussing the research on narrative approaches, the presenters mentioned that the research suggested that it was not a highly valued practice.  “It’s because it’s not scientific, nor academic” (Murray, 2012). However, Murray continued to explain that storytelling was a great way to connect models and concepts to the real world.  “It connects formal knowledge with reality” (Murray, 2012). The presenters further outlined other benefits of storytelling, including its use as a way to enhance personal growth, help people understand the “whole vs smaller” components, and that it makes those in authority positions more relatable.  At this point, the presentation shifted to outlining the appropriate framework for developing stories as part of your leadership teachings.  Murray suggested that in order to do this effectively, you need to include a learning outcome, theme, impact statement (an attention “grabber”), as well as a story that provides a new way to look at content.  Stories further need to use appropriate and authentic humour, while working to maintain dramatic impact.  Finally, stories need to have closure – a method to bring it all back to your learning goals that you originally intended to achieve.  

Discovering my Invisible Disability: Exploring “Re Learning to Learn” - Interest Session

Andrew M. Beverly, California State University & Erika Heffernan, Rochester Institute of Technology

This session provided an opportunity for participants to engage, explore, and better understand learning disabilities and how they can affect college students. Both presenters opened up to the group at the beginning of the session, informing participants that they had been diagnosed with learning disabilities for several years. Although they recognized that they had experienced the difficulties of dealing with this invisible disability during college, the two presenters reminded the audience that they were not experts. The session was meant to begin the conversation and dialogue on this topic. Erika Heffernan started by introducing herself as having a BA in photography, ceramics and film.  Hefernan indicated that in her struggles with both reading and writing growing up, she learned how to “get around the system” as much as possible.  Andrew Beverly informed the group that he was working on an MA in Student Affairs Administration.  Beverly was diagnosed at a young age, but despite the support that Hefernan sought out during her post secondary education, did not get tested in college due to the high costs associated with the tests.  Beverly decided that he “wasn’t going to have a learning disability” any more.  As the two presenters suggested later however, this is not something that you can fix, it’s with you for life.  For the purposes of the presentation, Beverly asked the group what they knew about learning disabilities.  LD Online defines a learning disability as “… a neurological disorder. In simple terms, a learning disability results from a difference in the way a person's brain is ‘wired’…they may have difficulty reading, writing, spelling, reasoning, recalling and/or organizing information if left to figure things out by themselves or if taught in conventional ways. A learning disability can't be cured or fixed; it is a lifelong issue” (LD Online, 2012). Beverly continued by providing the group with an example from his childhood where he was presented with a new word to the learn – white. In order to understand and read this word, Beverly was taught techniques to identify words like this at first glance. “You learn to recognize what you don’t recognize” (Beverly, 2012).   Heffernan agreed with this point, and shared that she had similar troubles with last names, and often could not pronounce last names. On the other hand, Heffernan indicated that because other strengths were required to overcompensate, she was actually ranked in the 99^th percentile when it came to visual and spatial related tasks.

At this point, Heffernan began to share with the group her art and thesis work that she had done, titled “Re Learning to Learn.” Heffernan had set up the room with her artwork, and began to flip through slides as well of some of her works.  The first was titled “Observations”, and was her first attempt to talk about her disability.  Heffernan mentioned that she enjoyed art and pieces like this, as she felt that “it didn’t have a right or wrong answer” as part of it’s interpretation and meaning. This led Heffernan to display other works such as “Last Aisle Second Shelf” (2004) and “End of Aisle 3” (2004).  The next exhibit was called “For Puzzles”, which began to portray how a learning disability would look like to someone without one. It consisted of pairings of symbols and their associated terms, but would have a misspelled version for each one. In the piece “To Exsamples” these words were “example” and “exsample” (Heffernan revealed this was how she frequently spelled the word).  The next exhibit featured a similar notion, where a computer was located and allowed users to type a message into the computer. However, the computer and art involved a program that would take common words and phrases and output a message that was not what the user had intended to communicate.  At this point Beverly chimed in to agree that this was a common experience for him growing up with a learning disability.  He further gave the analogy of the professor handing back his paper in red ink, after he was certain that it was completed flawlessly.  “It looked right, but it wasn’t.  You don’t see the letters the same way that other do” (Beverly, 2012). 

In order to further communicate and express herself, Heffernan shared with the audience her piece entitled “Match” – a game with two sides, and a piece that was positioned in the middle. The middle piece, she explained, represented her.  “I didn’t feel like I had any moves – it’s like your always in this middle position and I didn’t know where to go next” (Heffernan, 2012). Moving on in the presentation, Heffernan further shared videos that she had created such as “Metacognition”, a piece representing the overflow of information which can happen for people with learning disabilities.  The ceramic work involved in the creation of the video was later reproduced into a later piece called “please take”.  

"Match" - Erika Heffernan

The next video was reminiscent of John Cage’s work, and was entitled “2 Minutes”. In this somewhat silent video, the audience was found staring blankly at a timer until after much time, it went off.  Heffernan indicated that the ticking was meant to display the anxiety and anxiousness that is often felt by students with learning disabilities.  You are waiting for that next thing to happen, much like the analogy Beverly provided of the teacher asking students to read various passages from books in school out loud to their peers.
The final video clip that was shown was called “Learning How to Build”.  The video showed four screens of different participants attempting to accomplish a list of tasks aimed at producing a single block building.  Heffernan indicated that in noticing that a few people struggled with the task, the majority of the group actually did not produce the correct outcome.  Heffernan suggested that this was important, and emphasized the need for educators and supervisors to continually check in with everyone, as we all get lost at some point along the way. 

28 Attempts at "Learning How to Build" - Erika Heffernan

The session concluded with a few tips on what you can do to support college students with learning disabilities.  At the top of the list was ensuring that you are educating both your staff members and yourself. By doing this, you are better able to support students with understanding their own disability.  “Now I’m more open about it – but you have to get to that point first” (Beverly, 2012). Heffernan and Beverly discussed the importance of connecting students with others experiencing similar difficulties, and to continue to educate yourself and others on the resources available for these students. 

You can check out Erika Heffernan's videos and artwork at http://www.erikaheffernan.com!

*Above photos taken by Phil Legate, permission received from Erika Heffernan March 26, 2012 at the ACPA Convention in Louisville, Kentucky

Meeting the Demand for Leadership Development - Interest Session

Thomas A. Murray & Stacie Schultz - University of Arizona

This presentation discussed primarily the evolution of one particular program (ATLAS) within the University of Arizona’s leadership program. Thomas A. Murray began the session by informing the audience that his department was an ancillary service, requiring them to charge students for their offered programs.  After a lengthy history on the development of their certificate based program, Murray suggested that a resolution was beginning to form with their new ATLAS program, aimed at offering a smaller certificate program as part of their already robust leadership experiences.  At the beginning of ATLAS, the program offered 7 different certificates, 3 different levels, and one free option for students.  This was unsuccessful Murray indicated, as students wanted progression and structure, as opposed to the “choose your adventure” style of the program.  It is Murray’s hope that their ATLAS program will eventually have no more levels, and that experiential components will be mandatory aspects of each certificate.  This is because they found that service and experiential components have not been well attended as they have been largely optional “extras”. 

One of the more notable accomplishments of the ATLAS programs Murray discussed was the variety and selection of “workshops on demand” for the local organizations, campus faculty members, and associations.  These workshops are only $25.00 each for up to 30 participants. Part of their success they have found is due to the extremely low cost for these individuals to obtain these workshops.  The leadership program and curriculum is based on 61 total leadership outcomes, and is comprised of 4 overall competencies – knowledge, attitude, ability and behaviour.  Learning outcomes are assessed for all programs, workshops and events.  In their recent years, the program has served 820 distinct students, with 111 certificates being awarded.  Before the recent addition of the workshops on demand, the department had only produced 46 certificates to that point. There have been a total of 1496 contact hours accumulated, and 13 interdepartmental relationships developed.  Murray ended the presentation by emphasizing the importance of strategic partnerships, noting that there is a great bond and connection between the department and IBM.  IBM has recently signed a 3 year contract with Murray’s area, and is heavily invested in the Coop program there and the outcomes the students have acquired while participating in the many aspects of the program.

ACPA Opening General Session – Keynote Van Jones

The ACPA opening general session took place in the Kentucky International Convention Centre and involved a large audience. Prior to this, in a Convention Orientation session for first time ACPA attendees, the current President of ACPA (Heidi Levine) indicated that this year’s conference was said to have approximately 3500 ACPA members in attendance. There are approximately 10 countries represented at the conference with attendance from nations such as Liberia, Jamaica, Canada, Qatar, etc. (apparently Jen Gonzales and I were the only international attendees in the room at the time!).  After a brief opening Louisville trumpet fanfare presentation, the conference began with several opening addresses from the ACPA governing board members.  Much later, ACPA was pleased to announce that they were awarding the association’s first ever award for humanitarian efforts.  The recipient of the award went to none other than one of the greatest boxers of all time, Muhammad Ali.  Although Ali was not able to make the event to accept the award, a brief speech and video was hosted on his behalf to inform the crowd of the achievements of this remarkable individual. The crowd burst into applause to celebrate Ali and his many accomplishments.

Opening Trumpet Solo

The Kentucky Kai Five Bluegrass Band

Afterwards, the crowd was introduced to the guest speaker and environmental advocate, Mr. Van Jones. Jones opened his keynote address by saying to the crowd “Thank you.  Thank you for all that you do”.  At this point, Jones informed the crowd that it was always a pleasure to speak to a crowd of this nature, as we were “the people that encouraged the people who encourage”.  Jones’ discussion raised concern and dealt with issues related to a variety of topics – global warming, the economy, our education system, as well as thoughts on the link between diversity and prosperity.  “We could be living in a world soon where we are increasing diversity but decreasing prosperity – this is a formula for a battleground”. With an analogy of the state of gay marriage rights in America, Jones began to share with the audience that he felt that we need to be a “rainbow nation by restoring prosperity”.  Jones further shared with the group his vision for how this could be achieved – the Green Economy or Agenda.  “We need to change how we power America”. Jones suggested that with a shift if how the nation is simply wired, the economy (through increased jobs) could begin to flourish. “Everything that is good for the environment is a job”. 

Van Jones - Opening Keynote

As Jones has worked firsthand with Obama and the pentagon, he shared with the audience that he knows for a fact that the Pentagon is concerned with topics such as global warming. Jones ended his talk by having the audience reflect on the wisdom of our ancestors, and the meaning that they believed and attempted to convey to us in our land.  Jones further suggested that the way in which we can make a difference, is to recognize that we all need to understand the totality of the situation – not just one issue such as racism.  Jones thanked the audience, and reminded them that we were doing great work and that if we could just continue to “hold that ladder” for our students, we will help our generation answer correctly some of the most important questions – who are Americans? What makes someone American? According to Jones, “our country can’t afford to send people away from campuses unenlightened.” The audience applauded Jones, and then left to check out the 4^th Street Live reception, and to begin the search for dinner. 

4th Street Live Concert!