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
© Copyright 2024