2012/5/9
Developmental Issues of University Students
Nurturing University Students to Be
Tomorrow‘s Leaders: The Role of Positive
Youth Development
•
•
Daniel TL Shek
Chair Professor of Applied Social Sciences,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
and
Rachel C.F. Sun
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong
This work was financially supported by the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University
•
•
•
Shek, D.T.L. (2010). Nurturing holistic development of
university students in Hong Kong: where are we and where
should we go? TheScientificWorldJOURNAL, 10, 563–575. 2
1
- Good open examination results
- Good undergraduate and
postgraduate study results
- Master degree GPA (3.6)
- Currently on comprehensive
Social Security Allowance
(HK$1,830 per month)
- Unsuccessful application for
more than 200 jobs
“May be I have poor job
interview performance and
Interpersonal skills. I have
tried to change but I don’t
know how to do it. This is
not taught in the formal
curriculum.”
Growing developmental issues such as substance abuse and
self-centeredness (“Me” generation)
Poor mental health among university students – anxiety,
stress-related and self-esteem problems
Employers in Hong Kong were not satisfied with the
personal qualities of graduates
Politically
y apathetic
p
and p
poor understanding
g of the Hongg
Kong society
University students in Hong Kong performed poorer than
did university students in China in terms of sense of
responsibility, interpersonal relationships and integrity.
Shek, D.T.L., & Wong, K.K. (2011). Do adolescent
developmental issues disappear overnight? Reflections
about holistic development in university students. The
Scientific World JOURNAL, 11, 353–361.
How Should We Nurture
y Students?
University
What is our Vision?
•
•
•
Psychosocial competencies
Universal Coverage (Credit Bearing)
Failure of university education in nurturing
university students in a holistic manner (Bok,
2006; Lewis, 2006)
3
Tomorrow’s Leader
4
Tomorrow’s Leader: Psychosocial Competencies
SelfUnderstanding
Upon completion of the subject, students will be able to:
1. understand and integrate theories, research and concepts
on the basic qualities (particularly intra-personal and
interpersonal qualities) of effective leaders;
2. develop self-awareness and self-understanding;
3. acquire interpersonal skills;
4. develop self-reflection skills in their learning;
5. recognize the importance of active pursuit of knowledge
on intra-personal and interpersonal leadership qualities.
Resilience
Cognitive
Competence
Moral
Competence
Interpersonal
Communication
Competence
5
Emotional
Competence
Personality
Social
Competence
Spirituality
Clear and Positive
Identity
Assertiveness and
conflict resolution skills
Relationship
building competence
Team building
skills
6
1
2012/5/9
Objective Outcome Evaluation:
Reliability of the different measures used in the study
First Piloting Exercise
(Second Term of 2010/11 Academic Year)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Four classes of students (268 students)
Multiple evaluation strategies to evaluate the subject
Objective outcome evaluation (one group pretest-posttest
design)
Post-course subjective outcome evaluation
Post-lecture subjective outcome evaluation
Process evaluation
Qualitative evaluation (reflective notes)
Qualitative evaluation (focus groups)
CPYDS Scale Measures
Bonding (6 items)
Resilience (6 items)
Social competence (7 items)
Emotional competence (6 items)
Cognitive competence (6 items)
Behavioral competence (5 items)
Moral competence (6 items)
Self-determination (5 items)
Self-efficacy (2 items)
Clear and positive identity (7 items)
Beliefs in the future (3 items)
Prosocial norms (5 items)
Spirituality (7 items)
Key 29 (29 items)
Key13 (13 items)
CPYDS (71 items)
Daniel T. L. Shek, Rachel C. F. Sun, Y. H. Chui, et al., “Development
and Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Course for University
Students in Hong Kong,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012,
Article ID 263731, 8 pages, 2012. doi:10.1100/2012/263731
Pretest
α (mean)a
Posttest
α (mean)a
.72 (.30)
.88 (.56)
.76 (.33)
.65 (.22)
.84 (.47)
.64 (.27)
.50 (.15)
.49 (.17)
.42 (.27)
.73 (.27)
.61 (.34)
.51 (.17)
.79 (.41)
.87 (.21)
.78 (.23)
.94 (.19)
.74 (.33)
.82 (.42)
.83 (.43)
.76 (.35)
.84 (.46)
.59 (.23)
.68 (.28)
.74 (.37)
.66 (.50)
.75 (.31)
.73 (.49)
.66 (.27)
.80 (.43)
.92 (.29)
.77 (.20)
.96 (.25)
7
8
Post-Course Subjective Outcome Evaluation
Objective Outcome Evaluation: Changes in the Students
Variables / Subscales
Pretest
Mean
SD
GLM repeated test results
Omnibus Test effect
4.74
(multivariate)
Emotional Competence
4.40
.59
Cognitive Competence
4.56
.65
Behavioral Competence
4.61
.57
Self-determination
4.60
.52
Cl and
Clear
dP
Positive
i i Id
Identity
i
4 43
4.43
.59
59
T-Tests for Composite and Other Measures
Total Scale
KEY29
KEY13
4.75
134.27
4.66
.39
12.37
.46
Posttest
Mean
SD
4
Slightly
Agree
F value /
T value
4.89
6.60*
4.67
4.77
4.80
4.78
4 64
4.64
.53
.57
.55
.64
.57
57
8.42**
9.00**
5.65*
5.38*
9 90**
9.90**
4.89
139.15
4.81
.42
13.18
.40
-2.66*
-3.07**
-2.62*
** p < .01; * p < .05
Shek, D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (in press). Promoting psychosocial
competencies in university students: Evaluation based on a one group
pretest-posttest design. International Journal on Disability and Human
Development.
1. The objectives of the curriculum are very
clear.
2. The design of the curriculum is very good.
3. The activities were carefully arranged.
4. The classroom atmosphere was very pleasant.
5. There was much peer interaction amongst the
students.
6. I participated actively during lessons
(including discussions, sharing, games, etc.).
7. I was encouraged to do my best.
8. The learning experience I encountered
enhanced my interest towards the lessons.
9. Overall speaking, I have very positive
evaluation of the program.
10. On the whole, I like this curriculum very
much.
9
6
Participants
Strongly with positive
Agree
responses
(options 4-6)
%
%
%
%
18.6
63.3
7.4
89.3
25.0
25.7
21.3
50.0
52.4
47.9
11.7
12.3
14.4
86.7
90.4
83.6
22.5
45.5
21.9
89.9
25.8
45.7
17.7
89.2
35.6
44.1
10.6
90.3
30.9
47.3
10.1
88.3
30.3
45.2
14.9
90.4
27.1
48.4
12.8
88.3
10
Post-Course Subjective Outcome Evaluation
Post-Course Subjective Outcome Evaluation
4
5
6
Participants
Slightly Agree Strongly with positive
Agree
Agree
responses
(options 4-6)
1. The lecturer(s) had a good mastery of the
curriculum.
2. The lecturer(s) was (were) well prepared for the
lessons.
3. The teaching skills of the lecturer(s) were good.
4 The lecturer(s) showed good professional
4.
attitudes.
5. The lecturer(s) was (were) very involved.
6. The lecturer(s) encouraged students to participate
in the activities.
7. The lecturer(s) cared for the students.
8. The lecturer(s) was (were) ready to offer help to
students when needed.
9. The lecturer(s) had much interaction with the
students.
10. Overall speaking, I have very positive evaluation
of the lecturer(s).
5
Agree
%
%
%
%
19.1
56.9
22.3
98.3
13.8
50.5
34.6
98.9
22.9
45.7
27.1
95.7
11.1
58.2
29.6
98.9
13.3
51.1
35.1
99.5
8.5
56.6
33.9
99.0
20.1
54.0
24.9
99.0
17.5
51.9
30.2
99.6
23.8
49.7
23.8
97.3
14.3
56.6
27.0
97.9
The extent to which the
course (i.e., the program that
all students have joined) has
helped you:
11
1. It has strengthened my
resilience in adverse
conditions.
2. It has enhanced my social
competence.
3. It has improved my ability
in expressing and
handling my emotions.
4. It has enhanced my
analytical ability.
5. It has improved my ability
to resist harmful
influences.
6. It has strengthened my
ability to distinguish
between the good and the
bad.
1
Unhelpful
2
3
4
5
Participants
Not Slightly Helpful Very with positive
Very Helpful
Helpful responses
Helpful
(options 3-5)
%
%
%
%
%
%
2.1
9.5
28.0
49.7
10.6
88.3
2.1
5.8
22.8
51.9
17.5
92.2
2.1
8.6
25.1
52.4
11.8
89.3
1.6
10.6
31.7
41.8
14.3
87.8
2.7
9.6
34.0
40.4
13.3
87.7
2.6
9.0
33.9
41.3
13.2
88.4
12
2
2012/5/9
Post-Course Subjective Outcome Evaluation
The extent to which the
course (i.e., the program that
all students have joined) has
helped you:
7. It has increased my
competence in making
sensible and wise choices.
8. It has helped
p me to have
life reflections.
9. It has strengthened my
self-confidence.
10. It has increased my selfawareness.
11. It has helped me to face
the future with a positive
attitude.
12. It has helped me to
cultivate compassion and
care about others.
1
Unhelpful
Post-Course Subjective Outcome Evaluation
The extent to which the
course (i.e., the program that
all students have joined) has
helped you:
2
3
4
5
Participants
Not Slightly Helpful Very with positive
Very Helpful
Helpful responses
Helpful
(options 3-5)
%
%
%
%
%
%
2.1
7.4
31.2
45.0
14.3
90.5
16
1.6
42
4.2
19 6
19.6
56 1
56.1
18 5
18.5
94 2
94.2
2.7
11.2
23.9
49.5
12.8
86.2
1.1
8.0
22.9
51.6
16.5
91.0
1.6
8.5
27.7
44.1
18.1
89.9
1.1
10.6
29.8
45.2
13.3
88.3
1
Unhelpful
13. The theories, research and
concepts covered in the
course have enabled me
to understand the
characteristics of
successful leaders.
14. The course has helped me
synthesize the
characteristics of
successful leaders.
15. It has enabled me to
understand the
importance of
interpersonal relationship
in successful leadership.
2
3
4
5
Participants
Not Slightly Helpful Very with positive
Very Helpful
Helpful responses
Helpful
(options 3-5)
%
%
%
%
%
%
1.1
3.2
24.5
52.1
19.1
95.7
0.5
4.8
23.9
51.1
19.7
94.7
1.1
3.7
18.1
55.9
21.3
95.3
13
14
Post-Course Subjective Outcome Evaluation
The extent to which the
course (i.e., the program that
all students have joined) has
helped you:
16. It has promoted my sense
of responsibility in
serving the society.
17. It has enriched myy overall
development.
1
Unhelpful
Post-Lecture Subjective Outcome Evaluation
Percentage of positive responses for different lectures
2
3
4
5
Participants
Not Slightly Helpful Very with positive
Very Helpful
Helpful responses
Helpful
(options 3-5)
%
%
%
%
%
%
1.1
10.6
26.6
43.6
18.1
88.3
Item
69
6.9
23 9
23.9
50 5
50.5
18 1
18.1
92 5
92.5
1. Student Interest
2. Student participation and
involvement
3. Classroom management
4. Interactive delivery method
5. Strategies to enhance student
motivation
6. Use of positive and supportive
feedbacks
7. Lecturer’s familiarity with the
students
8. Opportunities for reflection
9. Achievement of lecture
objectives
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Overall
91.4 83.7 87.1 90.0 93.7 93.8 91.4 93.5 95.2 93.9 87.3 84.2
91.0
2.
Atmosphere was very good
94.3
95.0 80.1 80.6 77.3 84.1 86.0 92.6 89.9 90.3 82.4 83.9 80.9
86.7
3.
Much peer interaction
94.3
95.0 83.2 91.6 80.7 84.9 89.9 93.2 89.9 91.6 85.0 76.7 76.8
88.1
4.
Interested in the content
88.5
88.2 84.7 76.8 87.2 92.1 89.1 93.2 86.9 92.4 85.8 87.3 83.2
87.4
5.
Much student participation
93.8
95.9 85.1 84.5 76.6 82.5 86.8 86.3 91.1 91.7 81.1 75.4 74.7
86.3
6.
Many opportunities for
reflection
Helpful to my personal
development
Lecturer had good mastery of
lecture
81.4
89.6 82.7 81.7 86.4 92.9 88.4 85.7 91.1 87.6 81.6 77.1 72.3
84.9
89.9
90.5 88.6 84.5 89.4 95.2 86.0 88.3 89.3 88.1 88.5 89.0 78.9
88.5
95.2
94.1 93.1 89.7 90.8 96.0 93.8 91.4 93.4 96.6 89.9 86.3 86.3
92.4
9.
Varied teaching methods used
93.0
96.8 89.6 92.9 84.4 87.2 90.6 90.1 92.3 90.3 91.2 84.7 86.3
90.6
10.
Helpful to students (knowledge)
94.7
92.3 93.1 89.7 90.8 95.2 94.5 91.4 92.9 93.1 91.2 89.8 81.1
91.9
11.
Very positive evaluation of the
lecturer
95.6
95.0 91.1 92.9 90.8 94.4 96.9 95.1 94.0 92.4 92.6 87.3 83.2
92.9
12.
Very positive evaluation of the
lecture
93.0
93.2 86.6 87.7 89.4 92.9 88.4 94.4 92.8 93.1 89.2 89.0 80.0
90.4
.93
.93
.94
.95
.95
.95
.94
.93
.94
.94
.94
.95
.97
.94
Mean inter-item correlation
.54
.52
.57
.59
.60
.62
.57
.53
.59
.57
.57
.63
.71
.58
Number of questionnaires collected
227
222
202
155
141
126
129
162
169
145
148
118
95
2039
Shek, D. T. L. (in press). Post-lecture evaluation of a positive youth development
subject for university students in Hong Kong. The Scientific World Journal.
Process Evaluation Findings
Item and adherence
4
95.6
Coefficient alpha for the 12-item scale
15
3
Good lecture design
8.
Shek , D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (in press). Promoting leadership
and intrapersonal competence in university students: What can we
learn from Hong Kong? International Journal on Disability and
Human Development.
2
1.
7.
05
0.5
1
16
Process Evaluation Findings
Mean rating by Mean rating by Overall Mean
Rater 1 across Rater 2 across
Rating
14 lectures under 14 lectures
observation
under
observation
5.43
5.07
5.25
5.43
5.14
5.29
5.57
5.29
4.93
5.29
5.71
5.29
5.43
5.50
5.51
5.00
5.36
5.18
4.29
4.57
4.43
5.64
5.29
5.36
5.21
5.50
5.25
Mean rating by Mean rating by Overall Mean
Rating
Rater 1 across Rater 2 across
14 lectures under 14 lectures
under
observation
observation
10.Time management
5.21
5.00
5.11
11. Lecture preparation
5.64
5.57
5.61
12.Overall implementation quality
5.36
5.43
5.39
13 S
13.Success
off iimplementation
l
t ti
5 21
5.21
5 21
5.21
5 21
5.21
Adherence
83.43
88.00
85.71
Item and adherence
Shek, D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (in press). Process evaluation of a positive
youth development course in a university setting in Hong Kong.
International Journal on Disability and Human Development.
17
18
3
2012/5/9
Categorization of selected positive descriptors
Categorization of Selected Metaphors
Nature of the Response
Descriptions
Positive
Self-understanding
Interesting
Informative
Funny
Cooperation
Motivating
Reflective
Useful
Relaxing
Happy
Meaningful
Enlightening
Understand leadership
Communication skills improvement
Enjoyable
Comprehensive
New experience
Other positive descriptors
(e.g., Attractive, innovative)
Total Count (N)
Total Count (%)
Neutral
Negative
Undecided
Total
9
81
16
19
58
6
20
73
19
24
42
20
8
6
7
9
5
9
81
16
19
58
6
20
73
19
24
42
20
8
6
7
9
5
71
71
514
88.62
13
2.24
40
6.90
13
2.24
Metaphors
Smiley/happy face
Buffet
Light
An interesting/enjoyable
/meaningful/lovely tour
A guide/cook book
Faith
Compass
Gift
Ice-cream
Relaxing course
A mirror and a telescope
Journey
Seed
Other metaphors
(e.g., Church, a blank paper,
tower etc.)
Total Count (N):
Total Count (%):
580
100.00
Shek, D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (in press). Qualitative evaluation of a
positive youth development course in a university setting in Hong
Kong. International Journal on Disability and Human Development.
•
•
•
Number of Codes Derived from
the Metaphor and Its Nature
Positive Neutral Negative Undecided Total
Positive Neutral Negative Undecided Total
3
11
3
3
11
3
6
19
4
6
19
4
16
16
30
30
2
2
9
3
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
9
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
2
13
5
4
2
2
8
3
3
2
13
5
4
2
2
8
3
88
13
3
169
89.42
13
6.88
4
2.12
3
1.59
104
163
189
100
287
92.28
2
6
1.93
17
16
5.14
182
2
0.64
311
100
Shek, D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (in press). Qualitative evaluation of a
positive youth development course in a university setting in Hong
Kong. International Journal on Disability and Human Development.
19
20
Focus Group Findings (Comments on the Teachers)
Focus Group Findings (Comments on the Subject)
•
Nature of the Metaphor
“There was one unique feature of this subject. It was not purely
theoretical. The use of activities could help us understand the
meaning of the theory which made the whole thing not so
abstract.”
“I had deep impression about the group activities, games, and
sharing. I liked this course because it was not rigid and it was
enjoyable.
j bl It was like
lik an interest
i t
t group where
h you could
ld chat
h t andd
play with the classmates.”
“We were very involved. Every group member would try and
some were very enthusiastic.”
Shek, D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (in press). Focus group evaluation
of a positive youth development course in a university in Hong
Kong. International Journal on Disability and Human
Development.
•
•
•
•
“Actually the lecturer taught well. Overall speaking, the
lecturer came over to ask whether you understood or not. If
we did not understand, the lecturer would slowly explain to
you and he/she would try his/her best to help you
understand.”
“The lecturer was very nice.”
“I felt that the lecturer
lect rer did his best to arouse
aro se our
o r motivation
moti ation
to learn. At the end of each lecture, he would invite two
students for sharing.”
Shek, D. T. L., & Sun, R. C. F. (in press). Focus group
evaluation of a positive youth development course in a
university in Hong Kong. International Journal on Disability
and Human Development.
21
22
Focus Group Findings (Benefits)
Focus Group Findings (Benefits)
• “I felt that after taking this course, I realized something which I
had neglected before such as understanding myself.”
• “I had more understanding about my identity. After reading
journal papers and doing my assignment, I understand that there
are different ways of attaining ideal positive identity. When I do
things
g now,, I will think more and think about other p
people.”
p
• “I feel that it is helpful to my self-confidence. When you know
your strengths and weaknesses, you know how to appreciate
yourself.”
• “We learned how to do a group project. If you are a leader, you
have to deal with some emergencies and how to relate to the
professor. These would be helpful to our academic
performance.”
23
“Before I took the course, I did not know how to stand in
others’ position to think about other people. In other words, I
looked at things from my perspective. I thought about myself
first – it was your fault but not my fault. I am a perfectionist. I
do not like other people intruding in my life and I am very
stubborn. In particular, I always have quarrels with my mum
and I do not understand her feelings.
feelings For example,
example I always go
out at night until very late and my mum worries about me. In
the past, I simply ignored her and thought it was her business if
she worried about me … but now I will stand in my mum’s
position to look at things. I think our relationship has improved.
My mum said that our relationship had improved. She also said
that I had better temper and became more easy going. In the
past, we would stop talking when we were unhappy. Now, we
would communicate and I would understand her feelings.”
24
4
2012/5/9
Focus Group Findings (Benefits)
Focus Group Findings (Benefits)
•
•
•
• “I have learned many things on how to relate to others and
handling things.”
• “The subject helped me think about my problems. That is, I had
self-reflections. The most important thing of this course is that
you have to understand yourself before you consider how to
manage
g ppeople.”
p
• “I had reflections. Is it right or wrong to do things in certain
ways? Therefore, I felt that more activities and personal
involvement would help us have a deeper impression of the
subject matter.”
• “I was amazed and I was moved by the lecture content. I asked
why I could not stand the setbacks in life as others did and why
other people could “bounce back”. These stories could move
me.”
“I have changed to another person with at least some changes
– I will think more about different possibilities of a matter so
that it may change from unsuccessful to successful outcomes.
This would promote my competitiveness.”
“One of the changes I have after taking this subject is that I
have my own views
views. That is,
is I have more courage to say ‘yes’
yes
or ‘no’.”
“I think this subject is not primarily concerned about IQ but
EQ. Actually, EQ is very important in our study and after our
graduation. There are many opportunities where we have to
use our EQ. I feel that it is very useful. After we heard the
lectures, we realized that we neglected something important
and we pay attention to them again.”
25
26
Focus Group Findings (Need for this Subject)
• “I absolutely agree that we need this course. May be you have
grown up in a very protective family and you will offend other
people … We have to learn how to evaluate oneself and then
change some of the ‘bad things’ and re-integrate in the society. I
think this understanding is not just unique to university students.
It is vital to everybody.”
• “Wh
When I communicate
i t with
ith secondary
d
school
h l students,
t d t I find
fi d that
th t
they have difficulty to express themselves and manage their
matters. Therefore, having this course to help them reflect is a
good method.”
• “This is a very good subject which is helpful for future.
University education rely heavily on self-autonomy and
interpersonal relationships.”
• “I feel that this subject is important for students who come from
secondary schools.”
27
Personal Reflections
“I learned a lot from this GE course. Although it’s just a 2credit course, we did enjoy and put some much effort in it.
We met new friends from different departments. We built up
friendship and shared different points of view through
discussion In the lectures,
discussion.
lectures the lecturer contributed his speech
but he also allowed us to interact and communicate with
classmates. We thought and reflected our own experiences of
our life. Now, ‘Tomorrow’s Leaders’ to me is not only a noun,
but also something we could achieve in the future. I am glad
that I joined the course.”
29
Second Piloting Exercise (First Term of 2011/12
Academic Year)
• The subject was offered to four classes of students, with a total
of 195 students
• Multiple evaluation strategies to evaluate the subject
• Objective outcome evaluation (quasi-experimental
(quasi experimental design: nonnon
equivalent group design)
• Post-course subjective outcome evaluation
• Post-lecture subjective outcome evaluation
• Process evaluation
• Qualitative evaluation (reflective notes)
• Qualitative evaluation (personal reflections)
• Qualitative evaluation (focus groups)
28
Personal Reflections
“This course, Tomorrow’s Leaders, was very different from
what I have taken in my major, Marketing. In my major, there
are only lectures and tutorials. After the lecturers finished what
they wanted to say, they left. Interactions were seldom seen. But
in Tomorrow’s Leaders, there were many interactions which
shocked me at the very beginning. Near everyone has to share
what they think and feel during lesson
lesson. … This is something I
can never encounter if I haven’t taken this course. Also, the most
interesting part was the worksheet. First, I think the worksheet is
just like work in primary school. A bit wired. But I later find that
these few pieces of paper can help me find my truth and know
about myself. I have the deepest feeling when I was filling the
worksheet about my strengths, weaknesses and ideal-self. I
thought a lot. I would like to find out the answers. Fortunately, I
found it, more than the worksheet required.”
30
5
2012/5/9
Conclusions
1. Tomorrow’s Leaders was developed in response to the
developmental needs and issues in university students
in Hong Kong
2. Topics are based on intrapersonal and interpersonal
competencies in effective leaders; closely related to
positive youth development
3. Piloted twice in 2010/11 and 2011/12 school years
4. Multiple evaluation strategies were used to evaluate
the subject.
5. Both quantitative and qualitative data clearly showed
that the subject was able to promote the holistic
development of students taking this subject.
31
Donald Crosby (2007)
“What is the most important course in the university?
Some would say that it is a course in economics or
business, since that is what most jobs, at bottom,
seem to be about. Others might want to argue that it is
a course in mathematics or computer science, since so
many off the
h jjobs
b in
i our world
ld are becoming
b
i scientific
i ifi
and technological. Still others might claim that it is a
course in English composition, critical thinking, or
speech, since clear and effective communication is so
essential in any job. But the most important course at
the university is none of the above. It is the course of
each student’s own life ….
34
33
It follows, therefore, that development of moral character in
students is not an appendage, afterthought, or mere byproduct of the process of liberal education, but something
that lies at its very heart. Proper development of a student’s
character can enable that student to see beyond education
merely as certification and preparation for a job to the
critical importance and value of a life that is lived well in all
g
its course
of its dimensions,, a life that continues throughout
to develop and sustain a sense of purpose and fulfillment in
oneself and the satisfaction of contributing responsibly and
effectively to the wellbeing of others” (p. 1).
Crosby, D. (2007). The most important course in the
university. Journal of College and Character, 9(2), 1-10.
35
Parker Palmer (2009)
“Our colleges and universities help student examine many
dimensions of the external world – history, politics, economics,
physical reality; yet we rarely turn the lens inward to help
students examine their own lives. This lack of critical inquiry
into these personal dimensions of students’ lives reflects a
multi-leveled fear on the part of academics – the fear of
venturing into “subjective territory,” saying, “I don’t want to
go there because I’m not a psychotherapist.” But faculty and
staff need to find ways of inviting students to examine these
inner drivers and dynamics within the classroom and cocurricular activities that lead to greater self-understanding,
without which one cannot be said to be well-educated.”
Spirituality in Higher Education Newsletter: Volume 5(2), p.4.
36
6