ePortfolios for Leadership Identity Development:

Some Very Preliminary Findings

George Mason University

dcambrid@gmu.edu

Lives We Lead:

• Three-year project at George Mason University;

• Leadership development portfolio using the Open Source Portfolio model;

• Research as part of the third cohort of the Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research.

I/NCEPR:

• Institutional research teams examining the impact of electronic portfolio practice on learning;

• 46 institutions in four cohorts; • Third cohort focuses on student affairs -academic

affairs collaboration;• US, Canada, England, Scotland, Netherlands; • Book to be published by Stylus in 2008.

Methodology -

• Design research: – Intervention design informed by theory; – Evaluated for effectiveness & contributions to

further development of theory.

• Grounded theory:– Collaborative coding of portfolio, video &

interview data by inter-disciplinary team. – Theoretical sampling.

Leadership theory -

• Leadership Identity Development: – Based on research on undergraduate student leaders at the

University of Maryland.– From positional leadership to multi-dimensional perspective:

• Identity; • Relationships; • Community .

• Evidence in leadership portfolios:– Products, reproductions, attestations.

Theories of Reflection -

• Kolb’s stages of reflection: – Description;– Analysis;– Judgment;– Planning.

• Yancey’s types of reflection: – constructive reflection; – reflection-in-presentation.

Program Design:

• Semester-long portfolio development experience;• Three face-to-face, day-long meetings; • Faculty, staff & mentors • Students who self-identify as leaders & those who don’t. • Sequenced use OSP tools with r-smart CLE:

– Hierarchical wizards;– Matrixes;– Portfolios.

Beginning of the Semester:

• Expanding thinking about evidence;

• Reflective writing in response to selections from a large number of prompts;

• Organized around identity, relationships, community;

• Hierarchical matrix.

Mid-semester:

• Re-conceptualizing as leadership.

• Organizing evidence & reflections in relationship to shared conceptual framework: – Matrix thinking.

• Matrix.

End of the Semester:

• Presentation portfolio for an audience of peers;

• Identity, relationships, community, future directions;

• Portfolio using template.

Very Preliminary Findings:

• First iteration ended in May 2007. • Analyzed so far:

– Evaluation surveys; – Selected final portfolios.

• Coding of additional portfolios, video data & conducting interviews with students through December 2007.

• Key themes in leadership identity, rather than impact of portfolio process.

Evidence, Audience & Mentoring:

• Broader conception of & new value placed in evidence in relationship to leadership-related activities;

• Strong sense of pride in final product. • Peer mentoring invaluable:

– Mirrors research as LaGuardia and other I/NCEPR campuses.

Strong Perceived Impact

Strengthened ability to connect learning experiences inside and outside of the classroom

73%

Stronger sense of self as a leader 87%

Stronger awareness of my leadership potential 88%

Enhanced awareness of how to present ideas to different audiences

75%

More confident in ability to use reflective practice for self-discovery and learning

82%

More confident in my ability to use electronic environments for my learning

87%

Greater awareness of how to select evidence that demonstrates my learning

100%

From Position to Integration -

• Students see their identities to be inseparable from multiple kinds of relationships & community memberships: – Family relationships, friendships, academic & professional

community memberships; – Navigation between cultures & putting them into conversations;– Portfolios as a sight of integration.

• Shift from positional definition of leadership to grounding in this integrated network.

• Mirrors findings of research in eFolio Minnesota & LaGuardia CC; LI, NY.

Academics as Test of Self:

• We intended for curricular content to be an central source of evidence, ideas & strategies, but it didn’t show up this way.

• Class work functioned as:– A demonstration of character virtues;– An experience; – A goal putting aspiration towards those virtues in action.

Steadfastness -

• Consistency of commitment over time seen as a central leadership virtue:– Tenacity, perseverance, patience, follow through;– Standing up to opposition & peer pressure;– Essential to ability to create change!

• Much more prominent than persuasiveness. • Spirituality & family are key arenas for

demonstrating steadfastness.

Change:• While steadfastness is central, so is change!

• Leadership requires growth.

• Students universally embraced change as both

a personal & societal goal.

• Local & global, with very little in between.

Evidence:

• Primarily reproductions & attestations;

• Symbolic rather than persuasive;

• Heuristics for reflection.

Questions Moving Forward:

• How do students who self-identify as leaders & those who don’t differ?

• Why is course content not see as relevant; how might we change that?

• Do the ways students use evidence match the expectations of their intended audiences?

• In terms of developing leadership competence, how important is self-identification? Does it matter when we call it leadership?

• How well do the different OSP tools support the development process?