Search results

This study combines multiple national datasets on leadership educator demographics, education, positions, and experiences, in order to answer the question: Who teaches leadership? Comparing leadership educators across both curricular and co-curricular contexts allows a snapshot of the diverse perspectives of leadership educators and informs a set of critical questions and challenges for the field. Questions about the preparation and socialization of leadership educators, the development of pathways for faculty from traditionally underserved backgrounds, and the multiple roles and identities of leadership educators merit further investigation.

This global, quantitative study explores the instructional and assessment strategy use of leadership educators who teach online, academic credit-bearing leadership studies courses at graduate- and undergraduate-levels. Participants include 81 graduate-level and 37 undergraduate- level instructors who taught an online leadership studies course within two years of completing the web-based survey used in this study. Findings suggest that discussion-based pedagogies, most commonly facilitated in online discussion boards, were the most widely used strategies. And, while reflection, case studies, and group or individual projects were also used frequently, instructors teaching graduate-level courses used ungraded formative quizzes significantly more often than undergraduate instructors. Findings also suggest that instructors attached the most weight to their students’ overall course grades to discussion boards, major writing projects or term papers, and participation.

The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to identify the best pedagogical practices of leadership educators by obtaining quantitative data from surveying 836 leadership educators about their instructional and assessment strategy choices and then following up with qualitative interviews of 13 leadership educators recommended as “exemplary” by their peers to explore those results in more depth. In the first, quantitative phase, discussion-based pedagogies, case studies, and group projects/presentations were found to be the most frequently used instructional and assessment strategies. In the qualitative follow up phase, rich data related to specific pedagogical groups and five themes related to participants’ pedagogical choices emerged. The quantitative and qualitative findings from the two phases are integrated and discussed with reference to prior research and implications and recommendations are provided

This study compares the differences in instructional and assessment strategy use between instructors who teach undergraduate- and graduate-level face-to-face, academic credit-bearing leadership studies courses. Findings suggest that, overall, discussion-based pedagogies, case studies, and self-assessments are the most frequently used instructional strategies, while instructors attach the most weight in their courses to term papers, group projects, and class participation/attendance. Further, undergraduate-level instructors use service learning far more in their instruction, while graduate instructors attach much greater value to term papers.

While scholars recognize that digital technology is a major tool employed by contemporary learners to access knowledge, its full capacity is yet to be utilized. This paper investigates opportunities to increase individual learning engagement and knowledge retention in higher education and corporate environments through integrating educational content with innovative digital technology. Currently, within commonly adopted e-learning platforms, the most utilized online content delivery and student progress assessment tools in leadership education appear to be discussion-based instruction, along with written assignments, and research projects (Jenkins, 2016). To inform leadership educators’ choice in innovative tools for increased effectiveness of instruction, this paper shares an experience of delivering integrated global leadership education pedagogical content (i.e., cross-cultural competency instruction for graduate management class at a U.S.-based public university) within a gamified real-time multiuser learning platform—MyAltis—and discusses implications for leadership education.

Little is known about the leadership educators who work in more than 2,000 leadership programs worldwide. This phenomenological study of 13 experienced leadership educators from four states and 11 universities explored the lived experiences of becoming and being a leadership educator in higher education. Four sub themes emerged from participants’ understanding of becoming a leadership educator: (a) Impact; (b) Serendipity; (c) Fake it till you make it; and (d) Developing others. And, six sub themes emerged from participants’ understanding of being a leadership educator: (a) Being a helper; (b) Being experimental; (c) Being an advocate; (d) Being a role model; (e) Being passionate; and (f ) Being an agitator.

This study describes the development of a grounded theory of applied critical thinking in leadership studies and examines how student-centered experiential learning in leadership education bridged critical thinking with action. Over three semester undergraduate students in an upper level leadership studies course at a large four-year public institution in the southeastern United States completed a written assignment in which they were asked to define the concept of “leading critically.” A grounded theory of critical leadership – utilizing critical thinking skills to make decisions about leadership actions in different situations – emerged after completing a qualitative document analysis of these papers and incorporating the researchers’ existing knowledge of leadership and student development theory. The hope is that this research will create dialogue concerning new approaches to leadership education and encourage practices that apply critical thinking skills to leadership.

We conducted a national study of the Collegiate Leadership Competition (CLC), which since inception in 2015, has included over 75 higher education institutions. The CLC brings students together in collaborative institution-based teams to compete with other teams in competitions to achieve goals and practice effective leadership skills. Our goal was to assess leadership capacity growth over the course of a four-month team practice period through the daylong inter-team competition and evaluate participant leadership assessed several months later. Results suggested students made significant and sustainable gains in leader-self-efficacy and short-term gains in leadership skill and motivation to lead. Our results also indicated the team’s coach played a significant role in student leadership development.

Leadership development programs for students in educational settings are proliferating in number and design. Curricular programs range from academic minors and certificates to doctoral programs in a variety of academic homes (e.g., education, business, healthcare). Co-curricular programs often take the form of drop-in workshops, day-long experiences, alternative spring breaks, service-learning trips, and other programs housed in student affairs and administrative offices (Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018). Moreover, the number of programs has steadily increased over the last 15 years from just under 1,000 in 2006 (Brungardt, et al., 2006) to more than 2,000 (ILA Program Directory, 2021). And while there is some commonality among the approach of these leadership programs in terms of content and delivery (see Harvey & Jenkins, 2014), vast differences exist in the structure and learning goals of student leadership programs compared to other social science disciplines. A potentially fruitful area in which to explore its effectiveness in supporting leadership development is the environment of competitive teams, where individuals work together as a group to compete against other teams. The purpose of our research was to investigate the degree to which such a competitive environment might support or detract from student leadership group, employing a potentially effective example of a formal program that utilizes the innovative approach of team competitions to motivate learning (the CLC).

Little has been written about the use of skill sheets in leadership education and this paper demonstrates how they have been implemented in one specific context. Used in a number of domains (e.g., karate, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) skill sheets are checklists or rubrics that record skill performance. The use of skill sheets in leadership learning and education is a critical step in our efforts to grow as a discipline. Founded in 2015, the Collegiate Leadership Competition has incorporated the use of skill sheets in skill development, assessment of learning, and curriculum design.

This perspective piece addresses specifically future lines of inquiry and practice that advance the goals of the agenda through an interdisciplinary approach to leadership studies. Here, the authors explain in-depth the contexts of an interdisciplinary approach to the agenda and address specific challenges therein. In order to provide clarity to this approach, considerations are made with respect to the language, contextual reference points, and tensions regarding measurement of learning. The authors provide impetus for inclusion of particular, salient priorities from the agenda, and address opportunities for practice and future research. Suggestions reveal unique opportunities within an interdisciplinary perspective such as the integration of diverse content and perspectives as well as collaboration across disciplines.