There are a number of strengths-based intervention strategies that are effective with college students. Before deciding on which one to use, however, it's important that you know what outcome you want your intervention to affect.
Some of the outcomes of strengths-based interventions that have been measured so far include: (1) academic self-efficacy; (2) academic performance--either GPA or exam grades in a course; (3) retention from one year to the next; (4) academic engagement; (5) meaning in life; (6) satisfaction with college; (7) satisfaction with the particular strengths-based experience, such as advising or a specific course; (8) hope; and (9) strengths awareness and ownership. Significant results have been found in each instance, although the research designs vary. Some are quasi-experimental studies and some are correlational studies utilizing multiple regression to predict the particular outcome.
One of the best studies was conducted by Dr. Linda Cantwell in 2005 as part of her dissertation research at Azusa Pacific University. She utilized a strengths-based approach to her first-year Public Speaking class for an entire semester and compared students' academic engagement, exam scores, and public speaking performances (rated blindly by qualified observers) to those of students whose section of the course had been randomly selected as a control group. She found significant differences between the two groups on all her outcomes--and on academic engagement in particular. She also found significant differences in students' perception of the entire campus climate--and this was after controlling for their entering levels of academic engagement.
For more information on the impact of strengths-based interventions, plan to join me at 11 am Pacific time on Wednesday, September 5th, for a live webinar -- free! Contact Irene Burklund at the Gallup Organization (irene_burklund@gallup.com) for more information on how to sign up.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Best Strategies for Strengths Interventions Part I
I've gotten a few e-mails lately that have asked me what I think is the best strategy for introducing first-year students to their talents and then helping them develop their strengths. We've been doing quite a bit of research over the years with first-year students, but there isn't a simple answer to this question! No particular study has been done yet that has compared different exposure times, although there are a few studies that have compared strategies. Today I'll focus just on the time element. Next posting I'll address the strategies!
When Chip Anderson was still alive, he always said that strengths development takes time -- the exposure of students to their talents and to strategies for developing strengths is a process that is best distributed over time. So he always suggested 90 minutes of class time each week for an entire semester. But some studies have been done that show successful results with four 90-minute class sessions or workshop sessions; others have found some success with even a 30-minute one-on-one counseling session around students' strengths.
We think the best strategy is one that gives students exposure over time with a continuing application and development. It doesn't end the first year but becomes a process over all four (or more!) years of a student's college education. Each year should build on the previous learning, so that it is not repetitive but keeps advancing students' skills and knowledge in developing their strengths.
Two questions to ask before starting: (1) what do you mean by a "strengths intervention"? and (2) what outcomes do you hope to see in your students?
I'll deal with the second question this time and save the first question for next time, when I will focus on strategies.
In deciding what to measure as an outcome, you need to think about what you are hoping to accomplish in your students. If your context is a first-year experience program, you might want to measure student adjustment to college, engaged learning, or academic self-efficacy (one of the best predictors of student success). If your context is a student leadership development program, you might want to measure emotional intelligence or leadership skills. Career centers might measure career decision-making self-efficacy; chaplain's programs might measure sense of meaning and purpose; advising programs might measure goal-orientation or hope. The point is that you need to think ahead of time what your program wants to see developed in your students--and why!
Once you've done that, you can select appropriate measures. The Strengths Impact Measure is available from The Gallup Organization by contacting Irene Burklund at Irene_Burklund@gallup.com; it is one measure that assesses strengths awareness and ownership, sense of meaning and purpose, hope, academic self-efficacy, and academic engagement. The Engaged Learning Index--a new validated measure containing 15 items that assess the extent to which students are engaged in deep learning in their classes (a key predictor of learning gains and graduation) -- is available from the Noel Academy for Strengths-Based Leadership and Education (www.apu.edu/strengthsacademy).
There are some great studies in process right now that are examining specific strategies for strengths interventions. There are also some very good studies that have already been done. Next time I'll focus on these!
When Chip Anderson was still alive, he always said that strengths development takes time -- the exposure of students to their talents and to strategies for developing strengths is a process that is best distributed over time. So he always suggested 90 minutes of class time each week for an entire semester. But some studies have been done that show successful results with four 90-minute class sessions or workshop sessions; others have found some success with even a 30-minute one-on-one counseling session around students' strengths.
We think the best strategy is one that gives students exposure over time with a continuing application and development. It doesn't end the first year but becomes a process over all four (or more!) years of a student's college education. Each year should build on the previous learning, so that it is not repetitive but keeps advancing students' skills and knowledge in developing their strengths.
Two questions to ask before starting: (1) what do you mean by a "strengths intervention"? and (2) what outcomes do you hope to see in your students?
I'll deal with the second question this time and save the first question for next time, when I will focus on strategies.
In deciding what to measure as an outcome, you need to think about what you are hoping to accomplish in your students. If your context is a first-year experience program, you might want to measure student adjustment to college, engaged learning, or academic self-efficacy (one of the best predictors of student success). If your context is a student leadership development program, you might want to measure emotional intelligence or leadership skills. Career centers might measure career decision-making self-efficacy; chaplain's programs might measure sense of meaning and purpose; advising programs might measure goal-orientation or hope. The point is that you need to think ahead of time what your program wants to see developed in your students--and why!
Once you've done that, you can select appropriate measures. The Strengths Impact Measure is available from The Gallup Organization by contacting Irene Burklund at Irene_Burklund@gallup.com; it is one measure that assesses strengths awareness and ownership, sense of meaning and purpose, hope, academic self-efficacy, and academic engagement. The Engaged Learning Index--a new validated measure containing 15 items that assess the extent to which students are engaged in deep learning in their classes (a key predictor of learning gains and graduation) -- is available from the Noel Academy for Strengths-Based Leadership and Education (www.apu.edu/strengthsacademy).
There are some great studies in process right now that are examining specific strategies for strengths interventions. There are also some very good studies that have already been done. Next time I'll focus on these!
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Strengths Development
I've been at The Gallup Organization's conference on Becoming a Strengths-Based Campus this week. What a great time to meet up with old friends, but also an amazing time to meet the surprisingly large number of people who are "new" to the strengths movement! As we talked together over these past few days, it has caused me to think even more about what it takes to really develop one's talents into strengths. I'm more and more convinced that simply identifying talents isn't enough--it may give a temporary boost to one's self-confidence or may help increase self-awareness, but without an effort to multiply the talents with skills and knowledge--and without the accountable relationships in which to do so--we've done little more than given people a pat on the back. Not that we all couldn't use a pat on the back now and then!
Tom Rath talked about vital friends and the role that friendships play in engaging people at work. Work is a lot more fun when enjoy the people we work with. And the same can be said for developing one's talents -- I'm much more likely to do so when there are people who care about me and are committed to helping me grow.
So at a time like this, I'm deeply grateful for the people with whom I work -- Eileen, Karen, Anita, Paul, Shawna, Susette -- they hone my strengths in a major way! But I also feel an even greater responsibility for the students whose lives intersect with mine. Hopefully by spotting some of their talents and helping them see how they can reach excellence by developing those talents, they will go on to do great things. I think that's why I've chosen to teach--to touch people's lives and make a difference in the world through my students.
Tom Rath talked about vital friends and the role that friendships play in engaging people at work. Work is a lot more fun when enjoy the people we work with. And the same can be said for developing one's talents -- I'm much more likely to do so when there are people who care about me and are committed to helping me grow.
So at a time like this, I'm deeply grateful for the people with whom I work -- Eileen, Karen, Anita, Paul, Shawna, Susette -- they hone my strengths in a major way! But I also feel an even greater responsibility for the students whose lives intersect with mine. Hopefully by spotting some of their talents and helping them see how they can reach excellence by developing those talents, they will go on to do great things. I think that's why I've chosen to teach--to touch people's lives and make a difference in the world through my students.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Putting Your Strengths to Work
At the end of May I had the opportunity to be at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom with some of the doctoral students from Azusa Pacific University's Higher Education program. Alex Linley, Director of the Centre for Applied Positive Psychology, met with us and updated us on what was happening in his part of the world.
There are a number of threads that are beginning to weave together around issues of strengths-based teams. While Marcus Buckingham's new book Go Put Your Strengths to Work emphasizes how an individual can capitalize on his or her strengths so that more time at work is spent doing the things that are energizing, the work that Alex is doing seems congruent with not only what The Gallup Organization does with strengths-based teams, but also with my own experience in the Noel Academy as we have tried to practice what we preach and become a model of a strengths-based team ourselves.
Alex told the story of a large company whose executive team members were each delegated to specific tasks that would enable the company to meet its goals and fulfill its mission. After months of listing these tasks at each meeting, Alex came in and worked with them on how to become a strengths-based team. He pointed out that there were a number of items that remained on this "snag list" (as he called it) month after month and never got done. So he challenged the whole team to examine the list together and see whose strengths were better suited for managing some of those tasks.
Sounds simple and even rather obvious, right? If a job isn't getting done, find a person who can do it. But we tend to be confined to our job descriptions, afraid to step on others' toes by offering to do something that clearly isn't in their area of strength but happens to be something that energizes us. We may even believe that they should do that task because it's their job and they're getting paid for it -- no one else should do it for them. But if we really believe in strengths-based organizations, wouldn't we look at the task list as our list--something that collectively we hope to accomplish? When we do, amazing things happen. As Alex pointed out, the 12 or so tasks that had languished on the snag list for month after month were all completed within one month of the meeting in which people volunteered to take them on because they fit their strengths.
When we tried this in the Noel Academy, not everything on the snag list was grabbed by others eager to utilize their strengths to get them done, however! As I've thought about that, I think there were a couple of key differences in our situation--differences that might be useful for other teams to think about as they endeavor to become strengths-based.
First, the strengths constellations among the five faculty who are associated with the Noel Academy are remarkably similar! We ALL have Achiever (which can be dangerous at times!), we all have Learner, and many of us are Strategic as well. So there wasn't a lot of differentiation among our strengths--meaning we all enjoy doing many of the same things and are energized in somewhat similar ways. A good team probably has a little more variety in the strengths represented--and in searching for team members when an opening becomes available, this is something to remember.
Second, many of the things we put on our snag list were not necessarily important tasks that were crucial to accomplishing the mission of the Academy. The list tended to include items that simply had to be done by someone. But I think if we had started with mission (instead of starting with just what energized us and what "weakened" us, in Buckingham's terms), we would have had a different list--and a list of things that we all realized were vital to our success as a team. Then perhaps some of us would've realized ways our strengths could've been leveraged to accomplish those tasks.
In thinking about putting our collective strengths to work, then, there are a couple of lessons I think I've learned: (1) start with mission -- what is vital to our collective success as a team? (2) Create teams that have a variety of strengths represented. And if those don't exist on the team, then think creatively about who can be brought in for particular projects or who else within the organization might be a good partner on some tasks. (3) Emphasize collective success and goals, rather than getting hung up on job descriptions and titles. (4) Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do--and that no one else wants to do, either! Hopefully, that's not the majority of your job, but sometimes you just have to dig in and do it.
Because the strengths philosophy is such a paradigm shift for most of us, it will take time to reframe our work in this way. But I think in the long run it will pay off with higher morale, higher productivity as a team, and a better product at the end.
There are a number of threads that are beginning to weave together around issues of strengths-based teams. While Marcus Buckingham's new book Go Put Your Strengths to Work emphasizes how an individual can capitalize on his or her strengths so that more time at work is spent doing the things that are energizing, the work that Alex is doing seems congruent with not only what The Gallup Organization does with strengths-based teams, but also with my own experience in the Noel Academy as we have tried to practice what we preach and become a model of a strengths-based team ourselves.
Alex told the story of a large company whose executive team members were each delegated to specific tasks that would enable the company to meet its goals and fulfill its mission. After months of listing these tasks at each meeting, Alex came in and worked with them on how to become a strengths-based team. He pointed out that there were a number of items that remained on this "snag list" (as he called it) month after month and never got done. So he challenged the whole team to examine the list together and see whose strengths were better suited for managing some of those tasks.
Sounds simple and even rather obvious, right? If a job isn't getting done, find a person who can do it. But we tend to be confined to our job descriptions, afraid to step on others' toes by offering to do something that clearly isn't in their area of strength but happens to be something that energizes us. We may even believe that they should do that task because it's their job and they're getting paid for it -- no one else should do it for them. But if we really believe in strengths-based organizations, wouldn't we look at the task list as our list--something that collectively we hope to accomplish? When we do, amazing things happen. As Alex pointed out, the 12 or so tasks that had languished on the snag list for month after month were all completed within one month of the meeting in which people volunteered to take them on because they fit their strengths.
When we tried this in the Noel Academy, not everything on the snag list was grabbed by others eager to utilize their strengths to get them done, however! As I've thought about that, I think there were a couple of key differences in our situation--differences that might be useful for other teams to think about as they endeavor to become strengths-based.
First, the strengths constellations among the five faculty who are associated with the Noel Academy are remarkably similar! We ALL have Achiever (which can be dangerous at times!), we all have Learner, and many of us are Strategic as well. So there wasn't a lot of differentiation among our strengths--meaning we all enjoy doing many of the same things and are energized in somewhat similar ways. A good team probably has a little more variety in the strengths represented--and in searching for team members when an opening becomes available, this is something to remember.
Second, many of the things we put on our snag list were not necessarily important tasks that were crucial to accomplishing the mission of the Academy. The list tended to include items that simply had to be done by someone. But I think if we had started with mission (instead of starting with just what energized us and what "weakened" us, in Buckingham's terms), we would have had a different list--and a list of things that we all realized were vital to our success as a team. Then perhaps some of us would've realized ways our strengths could've been leveraged to accomplish those tasks.
In thinking about putting our collective strengths to work, then, there are a couple of lessons I think I've learned: (1) start with mission -- what is vital to our collective success as a team? (2) Create teams that have a variety of strengths represented. And if those don't exist on the team, then think creatively about who can be brought in for particular projects or who else within the organization might be a good partner on some tasks. (3) Emphasize collective success and goals, rather than getting hung up on job descriptions and titles. (4) Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do--and that no one else wants to do, either! Hopefully, that's not the majority of your job, but sometimes you just have to dig in and do it.
Because the strengths philosophy is such a paradigm shift for most of us, it will take time to reframe our work in this way. But I think in the long run it will pay off with higher morale, higher productivity as a team, and a better product at the end.
Monday, May 28, 2007
My Strengths Journey
These last few weeks I have had a lot of opportunities to interact with people who are new to the strengths philosophy. Some are faculty, some are researchers, some are career counselors, some are administrators. It has reminded me of my own "strengths journey," as I have seen myself in some of the persons I've encountered.
When I was first introduced to the strengths philosophy by Chip Anderson almost ten years ago, I guess you could say I was a skeptic. It sounded too touchy-feely, Pollyannish, and seemed way too similar to some of the things that came out of the ill-fated self-esteem movement from the 80's. I remember asking Don Clifton what the coefficient alphas were for each of the scales--and in fact I really wanted to see all of the StrengthsFinder factor analysis results! Give me empirical evidence that it works--that was what would convince me (and I don't even have Analytical in my top five!).
At the time, StrengthsFinder had just been piloted (it even had 35 themes then) and the empirical evidence was sketchy. Promising, but sketchy. So I joined with some other universities in collecting some evidence over the next couple of years. One thing about higher education is that it is difficult to randomly assign students to conditions--or even to have a control group. So the evidence we collected was quasi-experimental at best. But it, too, was promising. First-year students appeared to be more confident, got better grades, enjoyed their classes more, and even were more likely to stick around for a second year when they had participated in a strengths-based first-year seminar.
But it was the student focus groups that changed my own view of the power of the strengths approach. Hearing students' voices articulating how they saw life differently--how they saw themselves and others differently--was what eventually "sold" me on the strengths philosophy. Even though Chip had distributed those wacky "strengths-colored glasses" to remind us that the strengths approach was a different lens through which to view the world, it was hearing students talk about how they saw their relationships, their majors, and their academic goals in a whole new light that was most convincing for me.
And I suppose that's connected to why I'm a faculty member. I live for those "aha" moments when students' eyes light up, when they really get it in a whole new way. That's what makes my job rewarding and meaningful--knowing I've opened a door for students. As Sonja Gravett from South Africa says, "informative learning changes WHAT students know; transformative learning changes HOW they know and WHO they are." That's what I've always wanted to happen in my classroom--I want to change students from the inside out in ways that are valuable and important to them. And the strengths approach does just that. Watching their eyes light up when they realize they have the seeds of success already inside them, that they have something to contribute to our mutual learning, that what college will add is the knowledge and skills to move them to levels of excellence--THAT is why I use a strengths approach to teaching. It energizes me; it makes my job much more fun and rewarding--and it changes my students in ways that matter for a lifetime.
It took me about three years to really get this idea (I'm a slow learner!). I still want the empirical evidence, I still love to read about coefficient alphas and principal components analysis, and I still push universities to randomly assign students to a control or experimental group when they are starting to using StrengthsQuest on their campus. But the bottom line is that I've seen lives changed--and in fact, my own approach to teaching has changed as a result. And that is what makes all the difference.
When I was first introduced to the strengths philosophy by Chip Anderson almost ten years ago, I guess you could say I was a skeptic. It sounded too touchy-feely, Pollyannish, and seemed way too similar to some of the things that came out of the ill-fated self-esteem movement from the 80's. I remember asking Don Clifton what the coefficient alphas were for each of the scales--and in fact I really wanted to see all of the StrengthsFinder factor analysis results! Give me empirical evidence that it works--that was what would convince me (and I don't even have Analytical in my top five!).
At the time, StrengthsFinder had just been piloted (it even had 35 themes then) and the empirical evidence was sketchy. Promising, but sketchy. So I joined with some other universities in collecting some evidence over the next couple of years. One thing about higher education is that it is difficult to randomly assign students to conditions--or even to have a control group. So the evidence we collected was quasi-experimental at best. But it, too, was promising. First-year students appeared to be more confident, got better grades, enjoyed their classes more, and even were more likely to stick around for a second year when they had participated in a strengths-based first-year seminar.
But it was the student focus groups that changed my own view of the power of the strengths approach. Hearing students' voices articulating how they saw life differently--how they saw themselves and others differently--was what eventually "sold" me on the strengths philosophy. Even though Chip had distributed those wacky "strengths-colored glasses" to remind us that the strengths approach was a different lens through which to view the world, it was hearing students talk about how they saw their relationships, their majors, and their academic goals in a whole new light that was most convincing for me.
And I suppose that's connected to why I'm a faculty member. I live for those "aha" moments when students' eyes light up, when they really get it in a whole new way. That's what makes my job rewarding and meaningful--knowing I've opened a door for students. As Sonja Gravett from South Africa says, "informative learning changes WHAT students know; transformative learning changes HOW they know and WHO they are." That's what I've always wanted to happen in my classroom--I want to change students from the inside out in ways that are valuable and important to them. And the strengths approach does just that. Watching their eyes light up when they realize they have the seeds of success already inside them, that they have something to contribute to our mutual learning, that what college will add is the knowledge and skills to move them to levels of excellence--THAT is why I use a strengths approach to teaching. It energizes me; it makes my job much more fun and rewarding--and it changes my students in ways that matter for a lifetime.
It took me about three years to really get this idea (I'm a slow learner!). I still want the empirical evidence, I still love to read about coefficient alphas and principal components analysis, and I still push universities to randomly assign students to a control or experimental group when they are starting to using StrengthsQuest on their campus. But the bottom line is that I've seen lives changed--and in fact, my own approach to teaching has changed as a result. And that is what makes all the difference.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Research Webinar this Tuesday
This Tuesday at 11 am Pacific time Gallup is hosting a webinar on research that has been done and is currently underway to test the impact of strengths-based interventions. Contact Irene Burklund at irene_burklund@gallup.com for information on how to join me for this. I'll be talking about the types of outcomes that a strengths-based intervention OUGHT to produce, will describe some of the research results we have found so far, then will focus on how you can design powerful research projects on your own campus to determine whether or not the strengths-based intervention you implement actually makes a difference!
So many campuses are adopting a strengths-based approach to various programs -- advising, first-year seminars, student leadership programs, residence life education programs -- yet few are determining in advance what outcomes they want to see. Even fewer design the most powerful interventions and test them with powerful research designs. So this is your chance to get in on the ground floor and collect the kind of evidence that your Provost and faculty will want to see before deciding to adopt a full-scale strengths program.
I look forward to hearing your voice on Tuesday!
So many campuses are adopting a strengths-based approach to various programs -- advising, first-year seminars, student leadership programs, residence life education programs -- yet few are determining in advance what outcomes they want to see. Even fewer design the most powerful interventions and test them with powerful research designs. So this is your chance to get in on the ground floor and collect the kind of evidence that your Provost and faculty will want to see before deciding to adopt a full-scale strengths program.
I look forward to hearing your voice on Tuesday!
Noel Academy Grand Opening
A few weeks ago the Noel Academy for Strengths-Based Leadership and Education celebrated its Grand Opening. What a great time that was! There were three separate symposia that were held during the three-day event: one on Positive Psychology on Campus, one on Strengths, Calling, and Vocation, and one on K-12 Education. Shane Lopez was the keynote speaker for the Grand Opening and did a terrific job of painting a picture of where the strengths movement is heading in the next few years.
The Power Point slides from the various sessions are available on the Academy's website at www.apu.edu/strengthsacademy.
If any of you are interested in being put on the mailing list for either the Positive Psychology on Campus group or the Strengths and Calling group, let Shawna Lafreniere know by e-mailing her at slafreniere@apu.edu. I will be sending out a survey to all on the Positive Psychology mailing list to determine the level of interest in continuing to communicate with one another and work together on a possible research project--and to see who can connect with us again at the Summit in DC this fall. If you are planning to attend the Positive Psychology Summit (now called the Global Well-Being and Engagement Summit) at The Gallup Organization's headquarters in Washington, DC this October, Shane Lopez will be organizing a Positive Psychology on Campus track during that conference. Knowing who you are and that you are interested in connecting with like-minded others will help us get the word to you about conference plans.
The Power Point slides from the various sessions are available on the Academy's website at www.apu.edu/strengthsacademy.
If any of you are interested in being put on the mailing list for either the Positive Psychology on Campus group or the Strengths and Calling group, let Shawna Lafreniere know by e-mailing her at slafreniere@apu.edu. I will be sending out a survey to all on the Positive Psychology mailing list to determine the level of interest in continuing to communicate with one another and work together on a possible research project--and to see who can connect with us again at the Summit in DC this fall. If you are planning to attend the Positive Psychology Summit (now called the Global Well-Being and Engagement Summit) at The Gallup Organization's headquarters in Washington, DC this October, Shane Lopez will be organizing a Positive Psychology on Campus track during that conference. Knowing who you are and that you are interested in connecting with like-minded others will help us get the word to you about conference plans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)