Running head: CASE STUDY #21

CASE STUDY #28

Case Study #2: Comparison of Leadership Studies Syllabi Brett StachlerLoyola University Chicago

Syllabi Descriptions The syllabi I am using for my case study are leadership courses, using the comparisons for my syllabus project in creating a Queer Transformational Learning Leadership program. Few programs like it exist, the closest being a program run out of the LGBT Resource Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, so I am using comparative syllabi to draw out examples. Among the syllabi I selected are service leadership, leadership for change, critical perspectives, and a few Queer leadership programs. All of these programs were found using the database of the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. University of Arizona Service Leadership The University of Arizonas Leadership Studies and Practice program is housed in the School of Education, and is eligible for students to minor in. EDL 271: Leadership for Social Change, is one of the courses taken in a cohort model. Students enrolled will seek to: learn about service learning as it relates to social change, develop understanding of strength-based community development, learn different strategies for engaging in various methods of service, and critically analyze a social issue and develop a proposal to address the issue. There are three different assignments associated with this course, the majority of which are group projects. During the beginning of the class, when readings are assigned, students answer reflection based questions. The largest project of the class is the social change project, a group project that spans the length of the course, focusing on a community the group wants to learn more about. The different pieces of the social change project are: a community interview report (5 pages), social change education paper (5-7 pages), and a social change individual project (3 page reflection, social change in-class debate, and social change presentation [20 minutes]. Students are also required to attend a government meeting in Tucson, and write a three page reflection paper. In addition to the mentioned assignments, students are also assessed on their class participation and attendance. University of Arizona Critical Perspectives on Leadership in Society EDL 370: Critical Perspectives on Leadership in Society, is similarly housed in the University of Arizonas Leadership studies and practice program. Students enrolled seek to be exposed to common historical and contemporary narratives of leaders and leadership in the United States, understand the how and why particular narratives of leaders and leadership are built into institutions, understand how societal privilege and oppression can assist or hinder a person from attaining a leadership role, and critically examine messages and images of leaders and leadership. The course is split between these three different outcomes, however a critical analysis of leadership is present throughout. Students complete six different assignments during the course. Similar to the previous course, students begin the class by answering reflection questions related to the readings. Students are given a list of leadership orientated books to read and analyze, are required to pick one to read, write a 6-8 page paper analyzing and critiquing the book, and a 7 minute presentation. In class, students debate the impact of a persons religion on ones presidential candidacy, with one side arguing U.S. citizens would not consider religion as a factor if they were non-Christian, and vice versa. Students are also required to analyze a media issue (i.e. global warning, health care), and the leadership positions taken by the media. Students are assigned to analyze and critique a social institution, and lead a class discussion on their particular topic. Students are also required to complete an in-class final exam, a single essay question integrating all the class material. Goucher College Leadership for Change Although Goucher has a leadership based student affairs program, there is a leadership-based program in the Political Science department, POL 268. Students enrolled seek to self-understanding, become engaged in the world, to reflect, think critically about course work, and examine the various communities and contexts where learning occurs. Students are assigned five assignments, including a shadow assignment with a community service leader (for 16 hours, including a project), weekly journals, a midterm exam with short essay questions, a course paper, and attendance and participation. Although not as detailed a syllabus as the other examples, it is a course catered to students in the beginning of their leadership development. University of Maryland Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Leadership nThis UW course is housed under the School of Educations Educational Counseling and Personnel Services graduate curriculum as a special topic in leadership studies. Students enrolled in EDCP 418D will be able to rise their level of critical consciousness in how their personal identities oppress or liberate, use frameworks of social justice, oppression/privilege, and democracy, understand the influence of institutions on societal issues, ad develop intergroup dialogue skills. The course puts a particular emphasis on the higher education context. Assessments of course content include leading class discussions, pop quizzes, participation in intergroup dialogue, and a final paper. In addition to the mentioned assignments, students are also assessed on their class participation and attendance.University of Wisconsin Madison Queer Emerging Leaders ProgramUW Madisons Queer Emerging Leadership Program is housed in the UW Madison LGBT Campus Center, and is one of the two leadership programs it provides. The QUELP program has objectives to explore LGBTQ identities from multiple perspectives, identify sources of power that oppress queer lives, understand the UW Madison leadership framework via community service, meet and build community, and develop a greater sense of self via identity models, queer narratives, and intersectional models. The program runs in a thirteen-week semester, and counts as one credit towards graduation. Assessment of the course is divided between class participation, projects, a community engagement project, and self-evaluation. Assignments include a journal to be completed every week, and other assignments that are assigned throughout the semester by the course facilitators. Students are also required to participate in a community engagement project, where students partner with a community organization (preferably a LBGTQ community organization). Students are not required to meet an hourly quota during the program, but rather complete a series of requirements with the community organization, such as meeting three times during the course of the program, and complete a project with the organization. Students who are taking the course as a credit are required to complete a 2 4 page reflection paper at the conclusion of the program. Syllabi Differences and Similarities Among the many similarities between all the leadership programs are: reading requirements, reflection, critical leadership pedagogy, and community service. Many of the courses use Komives, Lucas & McMahons Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference text for their courses. I have never read the text, so I cannot attest to its strengths and weaknesses. Reflection was a focal point for all leadership courses, despite whether or not it counted for credit. In some classes students were required to reflect on the readings, in others they were given specific prompts to respond to throughout the course. Students in the UW Madison program are required to blog, in addition to journaling. Critical leadership pedagogy is represented across all courses in different ways, either as a lesson plan during one week, or is salient to the class objectives. From the outside looking it, key critical leadership subjects touch up old views of leadership particularly traits and positionality, and the hegemonic nature of leadership. The last key similarity is component of partnership with community organizations, which is required in three of the five courses. The key differences lie in the pedagogy and taxonomy of leadership, particularly though the lenses of identity, power, privilege, and social justice. The two Queer orientated programs, and the Critical Leadership class at Arizona subject students personal identities as the focal point of leadership, deviating from a hegemonic taxonomy of leadership. Differences also lie in the housing of each leadership program/class, which also affects pedagogy. All classes, except the UW Madison, are housed in academic units with the majority being in schools of education, Goucher Colleges being housed in the political science department. Although many of the programs had community service as a requirement of their courses, no course held the community service portion as high of a percentage of course assessment than the UW Madison course, which is housed in the division of student affairs. All of the other classes had class orientated activities and projects as the majority of the course assessment. Integration of Syllabi to Course ReadingsWagner & Comptons (2012) ideas of play, passion, and purpose are present in briefing the syllabi presented, and can be filtered through the five innovation orientated dualisms. Collaboration is present throughout all the courses, with individual achievement being a minimal aspect (Wagner & Compton, 2012). This is most salient in the group projects that are required in all courses, and the collaborations students will have with community organizations in some of the courses. Leadership as a subject is a multidisciplinary including theory and practice of psychology, sociology, political studies, cultural studies, and education to name a few. Students will not be subjected to specialization, but rather multidisciplinary subject matter (Wagner & Compton, 2012). Students will also be challenged in these courses to risk take via trial and error and experience creativity based on the projects they create with community organizations (in some courses). Unique class projects that are practical to the outside world, and reflection activities where students are required to make their own meaning out of experiences, and course readings are other examples requiring students to risk take and experience creativity (Wagner & Compton, 2012). Many of the above examples translate to arguments put forward by Fink (2003) and Nilson (2010). Nilson (2010) argues for pedagogy to show students how to learn the material they are required to learn, and many of the courses accomplish this outcome. Particularly the group projects involving debates, examination of media, and community partnerships require a practical methodology of students applying the course material and activities into a meaning making method (Nilson, 2010). Fink (2003) argues for a consistency between learning goals, activities, and assessment in all courses in order for significant learning to happen. Many of the courses do not have measurable learning outcomes to assess the activities students participate in, but the majority of the activities and assessments are used as reflective measures, and can be argued as educative and rich experiences based on Finks (2003) characterizations.

References Fink, L.D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to developing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2012).Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York: Scribner.