ABSTRACT

Why All Students Are Talented: Exploiting The Strengths Potential Via A New Lens For Learning And Teaching

The purpose of this study is to explore student experiences when exposed to an intervention that focuses on an individuals strengths. Strengths-based approaches attempt to help students identify their own unique talents, and then use them to develop a strategy for utilising such gifts in negotiating their academic progression and careers. This challenges the prevailing culture of mainstream higher education that has relied primarily on a deficit model that focuses on student weaknesses rather than talent and strength. One of the substantive conclusions of this study is that students encounter a highly personalised strengths journey when exposed to a strengths-based educational intervention. Some students experienced what the author has termed a Learning Epiphany and in some cases this manifestation was dramatic and highly positive. The results found meaningful implications for curriculum design and delivery, and offers much potential for supporting students in achieving excellence in their academic studies.

Why All Students Are Talented: Exploiting The Strengths Potential Via A New Lens For Learning And Teaching

The prevailing culture of mainstream higher education has relied primarily on a deficit model that focuses on student weaknesses rather than talent and strength (Anderson & McGuire, 1997; Aspinwall & Staudinger 2003; Schreiner & Anderson 2005). Such an approach often relies on deficit remediation programs that operate on the basis of encouraging students to work on perceived weaknesses as the basis for academic progression (Abelman & Molina, 2002; Bettinger & Long, 2007; Ender & Wilkie, 2000, Kreysa, 2006; Plucker, Wongsarnpigoon, & Houser, 2006; Perin, 2006). Barefoot (2000) believes that the emphasis on student deficiencies rather than strengths is one explanation the failure of many students to adjust successfully to university life. As he states, rarely is there a sustained focus on and acknowledgment of the strengths of contemporary students (p. 13). As such, the necessity to readdress this imbalance becomes apparent. Strengths-based education continues to show early promise as a potentially crucial tool for addressing the pervading deficit model (Anderson, 2005; Austin, 2005; Cave, 2003; Cantwell, 2005; Gillum, 2005; Epstein, et al, 2000; Reid, et al, 2000; Lopez, et al, 2005; and Williamson, 2002). A strengths-based approach to education can be defined as the identification and development of the unique individual strengths and talents of each student. Anderson describes this approach as supporting students as they apply their strengths and talents in the process of learning, intellectual development, and academic achievement to levels of personal excellence. (2004, p. 1). Strengths-based approaches attempt to help students identify their own unique talents and then use them to develop a strategy for utilising such gifts in negotiating their academic progression and careers. As Anderson and Schreiner (2004) state, research has led to a potentially revolutionary discovery:

individuals who focus on their weaknesses and remediate them are only able to achieve average performance at best; they are able to gain far moreand even to reach levels of excellencewhen they expend comparable effort to build on their talents. This discovery is of enormous import to higher education... (p. 4) A strengths approach encourages students to develop into individuals capable of capitalizing on their gifts and abilities in various contexts. In identifying and cultivating students strengths, it seeks to encourage self-awareness that also nurtures a confidence to then apply those strengths to their academic studies. Anderson (2004) suggests that, a strengths-based approach to teaching involves a process of assessing, teaching and designing experiential learning activities to help students identify, develop and apply their strengths and talents in the process of learning, intellectual development, and academic achievements to levels of personal excellence (p.1). Considering the prevailing deficit-focused emphasis of student development in higher education, alternative solutions to supporting students to reach their potential is crucial. While there is an emerging body of research exploring the potential impact of strengths-based educational interventions, an almost total absence of the student voice in this field is evident. There have been few qualitative studies into the impact of a strengths approach in higher education. Quantitative studies that have sought to assess the impact of such interventions have been crucial in establishing credibility for the movement; however, little is known outside anecdotal evidence as to the range of influences on the individuals involved in the studies. Several studies have reported that strengths interventions can be enlightening and emotionally positive for the participants (Anderson 2000a, b; Anderson & Schreiner 2004; Cantwell, 2005; Clifton & Harter, 2003; and Schreiner & Anderson 2005). Despite this assertion, there are no studies offering a rich description of these impacts. If the field of strengths education is to mature and develop in order to capitalize on student potential, then a rich description of how the personal impact of such an intervention transpires becomes crucial. What is clearly 3

missing from the literature is a rich narrative approach that links common experiences into a unified theory. As such, this study sought to explore in depth the experiences of students who have participated in a strengths-based educational intervention. As suggested above, much of the research literature assessing the effects of strengths interventions concerns itself with measuring the in-class effects, attitudes, perceptions or behaviors of students exposed to such an intervention (Anderson, 2005; Austin, 2005; Cave, 2003; Cantwell, 2005; Gillum, 2005; Epstein, Rudolph & Epstein, 2000; Reid, Epstein & Pastor, 2000; Lopez, Janowski, & Wells, 2005; and Williamson, 2002). However, the personal impact, or what Clifton and Nelson (1992) refer to as psychic reward (p. 42), has not been fully explored. They describe the experience that a strengths-based intervention induces in an individual as a pattern of behavior, thought and feeling that produces a high degree of satisfaction and pride (p. 42). This investigation concerned itself with the development of a theory that described the impact of a strengths intervention on the participants in an academic context. As such, it used a grounded theory design as this approach facilitates enough structure to ensure a rigorous investigation of the key issues, while also providing enough flexibility to allow for the authentic voice of the participants to be reflected and theorised (Creswell, 2002). Before exploring specific and contemporary related studies of using a strengths approach in education, it is worth noting the roots of the movement. As early as 1916, Binet and Simon (1916) encouraged an approach to teaching that focused on the positive attributes of children rather than on their deficits. They challenged early crude models of measuring intelligence in children by suggesting an alternative approach that involved appealing to the childs broader experience, individual personality, and interests. As Binet and Simon (1916) state: Appeal to his judgment, to his imagination or again, leaving the reading book, 4

question the child during recreation; gain his confidence, make him talk; show an interest in his response, and question him upon his future projects, upon his friendships, his duties, his life at home. Freed from the constraint of the class, certain minds open, and thus one makes unexpected discoveries. This is the charm of confidences; a silent child begins talking; one finds that he is full of imagination, and often of mischief. (p. 308) The work of Hurlock (1925) and Terman and Oden (1947) further developed this theme of encouraging student excellence and giving supportive encouragement. Key studies in fostering talent as a means to encourage excellence can also be tracked to the work of Arthur Chickering (1969; Chickering & Gamson, 1991; and Chickering & Reisser, 1993), where once again it is suggested that more focus should be applied to broader notions of talent in students rather than deficits. Another manifestation of this development relates to what has become known as gifted and talented education. Although the term itself seems to suggest similar ethos and sensibility to a strengths approach, it has fundamentally different roots and contextual applications. Holland and Astin (1962) are credited with engaging in a debate critiquing the merits and accuracy of describing talent on the basis of reductive aptitude test scores. One of the definitions of talent that they use is this: Human talent is the potential for excellent and creative performance having value for the individual and for society (Holland & Astin, 1962, p. 77). It is easy to see from such a statement how even at this early juncture in educational development, the potential for understanding and developing human assets was becoming recognised. Holland and Astin (1962) go on to lament how this resource can be easily squandered by ignorance around how such talent is developed, or talent loss as they describe it (p. 77). Thirty years later Holland (1992) would go on to suggest that individuals will thrive and achieve levels of excellence in environments that best match their talents and attributes, echoing much of the 5

strengths philosophy from across the various sectors. In distinguished careers, both Astin and Holland in many ways mirror the difference between the Clifton emphasis on talent and the Peterson/Seligman model of viewing human strengths, with Astin supporting a more distinct character and virtues development construct (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and Holland championing a more distinct talent traits and strengths emphasis (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). VanTassel-Baska (1994) suggests that talented individuals need specialised learning environments and customized curriculum if they are to be engaged. In such a context, tasks should be both highly stimulating and embody relevant real life research. It is onto this environment that the strengths-based approaches seeks to make an impact, and research that studies its impact continues to emerge Emerging Research in Higher Education The central premise of privileging and developing strengths over concentrating on weaknesses in the fields explored above is one that reflects an emerging momentum. It is in higher education in the United States that much of the related research exists. U.S. higher education has traditionally used remediation programs for its undergraduate starters; it assumes, as with traditional remedial approaches, that an audit of weakness followed by the relevant repair program provides the best entry foundation for a new student. Anderson (1995) identifies such an approach as deficit-based remediation, highlighting on one level its positive ability to address certain academic deficiencies such as literacy skills, but at the same time arguing that it has a stigmatizing effect on students at an early stage of their development, potentially impacting confidence levels. Building on the educational experience of Edward Anderson and his work on remediation projects at UCLA, Clifton and Anderson (2002) applied the strengths philosophy and psychological inventories component to academics. StrengthsQuest sought to use the Clifton StrengthsFinder model as the cornerstone psychological audit instrument in helping students to first identify their talents and then to build their academic development using these unique capacities. Perhaps 6

tellingly, Clifton and Anderson (2002) make a strategic link between student motivation and the awareness, development and application of strengths (p.19). Earlier, Anderson (1995) had defined strengths as, the unique combination of attributes which enable a person to do certain things at levels of excellence (p. 5). Anderson and Schreiner (2004) reaffirm the motivational potential of strengths in stating, Becoming more aware of how their strengths relate to success in college reduces the students self-doubt and fears of failure (p.4). They conclude that a strengths-based educator resembles a conductor pulling together the resources of an orchestra, or an investigator where attention is focused on the positive in drawing out a students talent. Andersons work built upon Astins (1983) research that insisted that human talent could be capitalised upon by developing reflexive educational curriculum focusing around changes in student development during the students period of study. Anderson, Schreiner, and Shahbaz (2003) utilised a pretest-posttest research design in using a strengths-based intervention with first-year students as its independent variable and scores on the Self-Reflection Scale (Clifton, 1997 as the dependent variable. Although limited due to a lack of a control group, significant gains in student optimism, strengths awareness, self-confidence and awareness of others strengths were reported. Cantwells (2005) study of the impact of a strengths-based intervention in an undergraduate communications class utilised a strong quasi-experimental research design that included a control group, random assignment to the strengths intervention, and various measures to control for possible extraneous variables. She reported significantly higher levels of academic engagement in the treatment group, along with overall satisfaction with the class and, most impressively, significantly stronger performance and quality of presentations in the group who had encountered a strengths-based curriculum. In a rare qualitative research study, Janowski (2006) used a grounded theory approach to explore how strengthsbased interventions had affected students in universities who were already using the Clifton 7

StrengthsFinder instrument in their undergraduate programs. She was interested in developing a theory of how students move from identification of their strengths to the application of their strengths, what she termed capitalizing on personal strengths (p. 3) She concluded that the students she interviewed saw their ability to capitalise on their strengths as dependent on three elements: perceived social support, their experiences of success, and the reinforcement of the benefits of their strengths (p.74). While this rare grounded theoretical approach usefully attempts an insight into the framework from which strengths is viewed as beneficial in an educational context, the studys lack of detailed processing and analysis of the collected data from the participants renders the work frustratingly limited. It is evident from the literature on strengths-based approaches in education that identifying and developing student strengths offers much potential. Strong evidence that a strengths approach has a positive impact on individual performance, inclass behavior, and student engagement is obvious. The paucity of insight into the personal and subjective experiences of individuals having encountered a strengths-based educational intervention, however, demands more focused research. The literature relating to strengths-based educational studies also suffers a credibility concern from the lack of research published in peer-reviewed journals and from the lack of focused attention on the narrative experiences of students as they navigate through a strengths intervention. Aims and Objectives The purpose of this study was to gain a rich narrative description of students experiences when exposed for the first time to an intervention that focuses on an individuals strengths. It used a grounded theory methodological approach to ascertain a theory or identifiable construct of experience that relates to a particular context grounded in the experience and perceptions of the participants (Creswell 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The intent was to generate or discover a theory or abstract framework that relates to having encountered a strengths intervention grounded in the perceptions and experience of the participants (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Creswell, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, (1998). The theory in such a 8

strategy is grounded in the participants observable experiences or descriptions and is supplemented by the researchers insight into such an inductive process

Methodology and Data Collection This strengths intervention study used a grounded theory methodological approach to investigate the central question: What is the specific personal impact that students experience after a strengths-based educational intervention? Grounded theory techniques by definition demand a fluid qualitative construction in framing the study (Creswell, 2002). A grounded theory approach seeks to ascertain a theory or identifiable construct of phenomena that relates to a particular context grounded in the experience and perceptions of the participants. The intent is also to generate or discover a theory or abstract framework of phenomenon that relates to a particular situation grounded in the perceptions and experience of the participants (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Creswell, 1998; and Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The theory is grounded in the participants observable experiences or descriptions and is supplemented by the researchers reflection and insight. The Intervention The intervention used the Clifton StrengthsFinder instrument as one of its key tools in helping the participants understand their potential talents. The Clifton StrengthsFinder describes 34 themes of talent and each participant receives his or her top five themes as a personal profile. The psychometric properties of the Clifton StrengthsFinder have been assessed across a range of sample groups. Schreiner (2006) reported that the construct validity of the instrument is strong by establishing its validity against two other comparable instruments (the CPI-260 and the 16PF). The majority of the 34 Clifton StrengthsFinder themes scored a mean test-retest reliability estimate of .70, which comfortably attains accepted standards for instrument stability by most statisticians (AERA/APA/NCME, 1999).

Students accessed the online instrument and were provided with a profile of their top five themes of strength. Clifton and Harter (2003) describe the anatomy of a strength as containing three distinct components: talent, knowledge and skills. Training sessions were designed to incorporate these components and formed the customised curriculum over the two-day training period. Using the student profiles as a direct reference, the programme included titles such as: Playing to Our Strengths, Understanding and Affirming our Signature Themes, and Taking Strengths into the Future/Career Planning and Strengths. The study used a convenience sample of student mentors from the undergraduate cohort of the university. The number of participants was considered appropriate for grounded theory research, but could have been adjusted to ensure that theoretical saturation has been reached (Creswell 2002; Fassinger, 2005; Patton, 2002). Data were gathered by utilising a range of interview protocols. Two interviews with 12 mentors were conducted around their experiences of going through a strengths-based educational intervention. The first round of interviews was conducted over the four days following the intervention. There was a four-month gap between the first and second round of formal interviews. The study used a combination of systematic and emerging design concepts (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). Initial analysis of interviews used various established coding protocols to develop the emerging theory. It used the seminal Strauss and Corbin (1990) model of open, axial and selective coding. Open coding forms initial broad categories from the information gathered; axial coding then focuses on a specific category, connects open-coded groupings, and views them in relation to other categories; and finally, selective coding develops a theory based on the interrelationship between the categories from the axial coding process. The analysis also employed the use of a Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) package, to aid the process. Non-Numerical Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching and Theorizing and Numerical Unstructured In-vivo coding (NUDIST NVIVO) draws upon in-vivo coding (using the words of the participants) and NVIVO as its basis. Data from all interviews were imported into 10

NVIVO for analysis, and field notes were used alongside this as an ongoing reference and guide. . Measures of Trustworthiness Lincoln and Guba (1990) frame trustworthiness through the triangulation of data and name four types: a) methods triangulation, b) data triangulation, c), triangulation through multiple analysts, and d) theory triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They also frame the achievement of trustworthiness around the satisfactory attainment of four key constructs that relate to a) credibility, b) transferability, c) dependability, and d) confirmability, which together confirm the applicability, consistency, and neutrality (p. 143) of the study. They argue that all four constructs must be attained for the research to attain trustworthiness, and this study used this framework as its measure. Results The emerging model of the student strengths journey contains six key themes: a) short-term psychosocial effects of a strengths intervention, b) positive initial mediators of intervention effect, c) negative initial mediators of intervention effect, d) psychosocial effects of a strengths intervention after four-months, e) positive four month mediators of intervention effect, and f) negative four month mediators of intervention effect. This article focuses predominately on the first theme charting the shortterm psychosocial effects of a strengths intervention, but also briefly highlights the other themes as critical components to the study. Theme 1: Short-term Psychosocial Effects of a Strengths Intervention Learning Epiphany The first sub-theme, learning epiphany, reflected the perception of students in describing the most affected personal impact of the intervention. Several participants talked about a significant personal moment of revelation or an intense intuitive leap of understanding. One student referred to the experience as life-changing, and the catalyst for this encounter was a shift in perception of herself from someone displaying challenging, even destructive, behaviors to someone who could now 11

clearly see her strengths and their potential. On such occasions the learning experience appears to have a depth and breadth in its potency. Such a shift in personal understanding is congruent with Taggs (2003) concept of meaning making when deep learning occurs. When students can connect what they are learning to who they are as a person, or can make connections between their experiences and new content, then learning becomes significant and lasting (Tagg, 2003). Olivia was the student in this study who described the intervention as life changing. Having had a difficult year that included personal tragedy and academic failure, she was able to make a significant connection between receiving her strengths profile and her intuitive sense of self. As she said: And so to have feedback to me, that there is a reason why I think a lot, there is a reason why I collect things, there is a reason why I am empathic. You know, its helped me re-focus (to say) right, thats who you are, get on with it. Taggs (2003) deep learning construct is juxtaposed against a surface approach that relies on memorising facts without necessarily relating them to concepts. Such an approach draws upon repetitive memory patterns as a learning methodology, linked to historic patterning both in terms of ones constructed identity and knowledge. Such knowledge acquisition quickly fades when the learning context is over (Tagg, 2003). Conversely, Taggs (2003) deep learning approach suggests supporting students to connect academic content to personal experience. This attachment in turn encourages a habit of considering ways in which subject matter can relate to students definitions of themselves and the world in which they live. Many of the students in this study were able to make useful connections between their strengths profiles and how these played out in life, and as such experienced a deep learning moment. Andy epitomized his own learning epiphany when he stated, When you are going through this two day course you do feel like someones handing you the keys to your superpowers And I kept thinking we are all superheroes who just need to find out what our powers are. This movement from superficial towards deeper learning may help explain why some of the students in this study experienced so-called 12

learning epiphanies. In Olivias case, she moved from viewing historic behaviors and perceived negative patterning to a positive view, or cognitive reframing of her character identity and capacity. As she stated, I dont feel crazy anymore Ive considered (these attributes) very much to be weaknesses ... (in the past) It sounds really dramatic but it is kind of life-changing in a sense, because it has been like a burden. I feel like a burden has been lifted from my shoulders. I dont feel like I have to feel guilty (any more) Before I used to feel quite guilty It appears that the identification and confirmatory nature of her personalised strengths profile within the context of the intervention was able to circumvent previously negative perceptions and transform them into empowering positive attributes. Self-Reflection One of the most potent facets of the intervention in this study was its ability to create a space for students to self-reflect within the context of exploring their unique strengths profile. Crucially, this selfreflection was not a static observational process, but a dynamic means to re-evaluate unexplored issues of identity and cognitive patterning. These findings are congruent with research on self-reflection. Franken (1994) examines how self-reflection can significantly empower individuals by reframing their notion of a constructed self. In this study, validation of the participants strengths themes by others seemed to be a crucial frame of reference component in making a strong emotional resonance with their profiles. This validation process mirrors several of Skaalvic and Skaalvics (2002) criteria of resonance. Confidence Academic Confidence. Self-confidence was a clear short-term psychosocial effect felt by students as a result of the strengths intervention. All of the participants referenced increased confidence as a major impact of the class, and in some cases it became a recurring phrase when describing their positive emotional resonance. Self-confidence in individuals can emanate from a broad range of factors including the mastery of certain skills, vicarious experiences, social popularity, and emotional support (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Madewell & Shaughnessy, 2003; Pajares, 2000). Academic self-confidence also has a wide

13

spectrum of features and can be aligned to academic agency, motivation, goal setting, and effort (Pajares, 2000). Individuals who develop positive self-views have a greater capacity to overcome obstacles to succeed than people with lower self-conceptions (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Pajares, 2000). This confidence was reflected in the experiences of many of the students in this study. Academic Self-efficacy Self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as peoples judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (p. 2). This judgment has a future-oriented motivation that is distinct from confidence with its primary focus on domain-specific historic success as its motivational resource. Self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy in particular became a clear theme to emerge from this study as demonstrated by comments from the students. Self-efficacy has established itself as a strong strand of research that describes perceived confidence in ones ability to achieve (Bandura, 1997). Many of the participants also exhibited a clear progressive sense of agency, often expressed as an increase in confidence as a result of becoming aware of their strengths. These vicarious lived moments sometimes took the form of mapping their understanding of their own unique capacities against others in the group and individuals in their histories. This in turn seems to have led to an increased motivation to fully exploit this now validated strengths profile Appreciation of Others/Tolerance Another key positive factor to emerge from this study was how gaining an understanding of their own strengths gave students an appreciation of others attributes. This phenomenon was often expressed as an increased tolerance for colleagues, family, and friends whose own unique strengths profiles may have historically been viewed as negative or irritating. This trend aligns itself with studies of perspective taking that have shown a broad application that challenges stereotypes (Davis, 2005; and Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000), supports identity formation (Van Boven & Loewenstein (2005), enhances 14

interpersonal relationships (Athay & Darley, 1982), and fosters altruism (Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997). Van Boven and Loewenstein (2005) describe emotional perspective taking as an integrative developmental process that recognises and acknowledges difference and responds with empathy to others points of view. It could be construed that much of the dramatic positive initial language of several of the participants in this study in describing the impact of the intervention is linked to Van Boven and Loewensteins notion of identity formation. Many of the students referred to a renewed sense of knowing themselves or finding themselves as a result of the intervention, often within the context of understanding the unique nature of others strengths. While it would be overstating the case to suggest that the intervention performed any comprehensive identity formation in the students, it could be seen that the classes clarified certain aspects of this formative process for some participants. Themes 2 and 3: Positive and Negative Initial Mediators of Intervention Effect This study found that a range of initial mediators had an impact on the efficacy of the short-term psychosocial effects of the strengths intervention on students. These included both positive and negative mediators that would impact the effect. The positive mediators included how successfully (or otherwise) the students engaged with the process. Another positive mediator reflected how easy it was for students to map their strengths onto their everyday lives. Two negative mediators had the reverse impact on students and threatened their positive engagement with the class. Some students needed to overcome an initial suspicion of the online Clifton StrengthsFinder instrument, equating it perhaps with trivial internet site questionnaires that were familiar to them. They also needed to overcome a cultural barrier to become fully engaged with the class, with several of the students highlighting a perceived association with a North American-style psychoanalytical intrusion. As much of the material used in the intervention was written for an American audience, it was not surprising to hear some initial reticence on the part of some of the participants to fully engage in the 15

experience. Both of these concerns were quickly overcome by careful handling by the instructor, but the possibility of misunderstanding in other contexts remains. Theme 4: Psychosocial Effects of a Strengths Intervention after Four Months This theme also highlighted how strategic relationships were also crucial in reinforcing the effect of strengths engagement with students. Those participants who initially reported the strongest gains in self-confidence and self-awareness were those who also reported stronger positive psychosocial effects four months after the intervention. Themes 5 and 6: Positive and Negative Four-Month Mediators of Intervention Effect The final two themes that form the basis of the theory are concerned with the mediating factors that contributed to the level to which students remained engaged over the four-month period of the project. Students who experienced the greatest impact from the intervention were those who engaged with a cognitive reframing process. This enabled them to reconfigure what they had once held as negative attributes into positive strengths. Students were also able to imagine how to continue to apply and develop their strengths in future contexts. This positive investment in the strengths educational philosophy also extended to students making suggestions on how a strengths approach could help faculty teach by describing how energized they became when using their strengths in academics. Some participants saw their themes of talent as raw potential that needed developing with knowledge and experience in order to see them take maximum advantage of this prospect. This required a growth mindset on behalf of the students and hinted at the possible curriculum content that strengths educators should consider in perusing this model. The negative mediating factors in describing how students remained engaged over the fourmonth period related to the efficacy of the initial effect losing momentum over time. This reduction of impact began to be initially reflected in the blogs posted by the students after the intervention. It would seem that without an active ongoing framework to continue the strengths journey an inevitable loss of 16

momentum occurred. This mirrors anecdotal evidence of such a phenomena in other trials and has meaningful implications for curriculum development. Conclusions and implications One of the substantive findings of this study is that students encounter a highly personalised strengths journey when exposed to a strengths-based educational intervention. How that journey begins is dependent on the level of resonance they experience with their strengths profiles, which is also dependent on a number of mediating factors. Implications for Practice There are four primary implications for practice in higher education that arise from this study: (a) educational strengths-based interventions should be integrated into the overall curriculum framework, with its timing, post-intervention training and support carefully considered; (b) optimal conditions and environmental factors that encourage a positive emotional engagement to positively mediate the impact should be carefully planned; (c) potential negative mediating barriers to exploiting impact should be minimized: and, (d) strategic faculty should be trained and/or imported to deliver the intervention and follow-up from the highest professional standards and expertise. Limitations This study is substantive as it provides insight into students experiences when exposed for the first time to an intervention that focuses on an individuals strengths. The sample group, however, must be viewed as limited for a number of reasons. The group formed a convenience sample of only twelve participants, which is adequate for a grounded theory study but represents a limited student voice. Only two racial-ethnic groups were represented and Caucasian students from middle class backgrounds dominated the cohort demographic. As such, the study offers little in terms of generalizing findings to other populations. Finally, in grounded theory approaches the researcher is the primary methodological instrument employing an inductive process for data analysis. Despite the measures put in place as 17

suggested above, an unavoidable limitation of this study is that it is the researcher who interprets the participants ideas, experiences, and perspectives. This results in the possibility that another researchers approach might have resulted in different findings. Conclusion The study described how positive emotional resonance was achieved when students were able to map their strengths profiles onto their everyday life experiences and have their themes validated by a significant other. It also revealed that threats to receiving the potentially positive impact of an intervention include not enough resonance with their strengths profiles, a lack of an experienced instructor to support greater connection, and a cultural and/or technological barrier. The research also reported the students description of the impact of the intervention. This included a) cognitive reframing, b) improved positive self-concept and self-awareness, c) increased confidence, d) individual learning epiphanies, e) tolerance of others and f) increased self-efficacy. The study also documented an initial positive peak of engagement by students with the strengths model, followed by an alarming drop-off in resonance four months later. This provoked questions surrounding the timing of future interventions, the need to ensure professional and expert instruction and leadership in the training, the need for effort and follow-up work by the student on their profiles, and the need to integrate the class in to the existing curriculum where possible. Hopefully, this study will serve as a catalyst for additional research exploring the optimum model of delivering an educational strengths-based intervention.

18

References

Abelman, R., & Molina A. (2001). Style over substance revisited: A longitudinal analysis of intrusive intervention. NACADA Journal, 21(1&2), 3245 Anderson, E. C. (2000a). Keys to motivating students to persist and achieve in college. Paper presented at the National Conference on Student Retention, Washington, D.C. Anderson, E. C. (2000b). Affirming students strengths in the critical years. Paper presented at the National Forum on Affirming Students Strengths. Columbia, SC. Anderson, E. C. (2005). Strengths-based educating: A concrete way to bring out the best in studentsand yourself. Educational Horizons, 83(3), 180-189. Anderson, E. C., & McGuire, W. (1997). Academic advising for student success and retention: A strengths perspective. In M. Hovland, E. Anderson, W. McGuire, D. Crockett, J. Kaufmann, & D. Woodward (Eds.), Academic advising for student success and retention (pp. vii-xiii). Iowa City: Noel-Levitz, Inc. Anderson E. C. & Schreiner L. A. (2004) Strengths-based advising. Gallup Organization. Anderson E. C. & Schreiner L. A. & Shahbaz (2003) Research and evaluation of strength counsellors in a new beginnings course. Unpublished, Azusa Pacific University. Aspinwall, L. G. & Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Some central issues of an emerging field. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. 26-31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

19

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Austin, D.B. (2005). The effects of a strengths development intervention upon the self perceptions of students academic abilities. (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(05A), 1631-1772. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barefoot, B. O. (2000). The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus, 4(6), 1218. Barnes-Holmes, Y., McHugh, L., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective taking and theory of mind: A relational frame account. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(1), 15-25. Baston, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 751-758. Beitel, M., Ferrer, E., & Cecero, J. J. (2005). Psychological mindedness and awareness of self and others. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 739-750. Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2007). Institutional responses to reduce inequalities in college outcomes: Remedial and developmental courses in higher education. In S. Dickert-Conlin & R. Rubenstein, (Eds.) Economic Inequality and Higher Education: Access, Persistence and Success (pp. 69-100). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Binet, A. & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. (E. S. Kit trans) Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from http:// ia340921.us.archive.org/2/items/developmentofint00bineuoft/developmentofint00 bineuoft_djvu.txt 20

Bong, M. & Clark (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 139-153. Britner, S., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485499. Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cantwell, L. (2005). A comparative analysis of strengths-based versus traditional teaching methods in a freshman public speaking course: Impacts on student learning and engagement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(02A), 478700. (UMI No. AAT3207574). Cave, S. L. (2003). The effects of strengths education on the academic motivation of first year college students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (02), 417A. (UMI No. 3082036). Chickering, A. W. (1969) Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Appendix A: Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. In, A. W. Chickering, & Z. F. Gamson (Eds.) Applying the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. (pp. 104-127) New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 47: San Francisco, Jossey Bass. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 47. Chickering, A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993) Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clifton, D. O. & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with your strengths. New York: Delacourte. Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. C. (2002) StrengthsQuest. Washington, The Gallup Organization. Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Strengths investment. In K. S. Cameron, J .E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 111-121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative 21

criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Davis, M.H. (2005). A constituent approach to the study of perspective taking: What are its fundamental elements? In B. Malle & S. Hodges (eds.) Other Minds. (pp. 44-55). Guilford Press: New York. Ender, S. C., & Wilkie, C. J. (2000). Advising students with special needs. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 118-143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press. Epstein, M.H., Rudolph, S.M., & Epstein, A.A. (2000). Using strength based assessment in transition planning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(6), 50-54 Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise: Grounded theory in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 156166. Franken, R. (1994). Human motivation (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000), Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708-724 Gillum, W. M. (2005). The effects of strengths instruction on under-performing high school students in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(01A), 86-238. (UMI No. AAT3185052). Holland, J. L. (1992) Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J.L, & Astin, A. W. (1962, February) The need for redefining "talent" and "talent loss": A plan for practical action and research. The Journal of Higher Education, 33(2), pp. 77-82. 22

Hurlock, E. B. (1925) An evaluation of certain incentives used in school work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 16, 145-159. Janowski, K. M. (2006). A theory of capitalizing on personal strengths. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas. Kreysa, P. G. (2006). The impact of remediation on persistence of under-prepared college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(2), 251-270. LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60. Lincoln, Y.S, & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1990). Judging the quality of case study reports. Qualitative studies in education (Vol. 3 (1), pp. 53-59). Lopez, S. J., Janowski, K. M., & Wells, K. J. (2004). Developing strengths in college Strengths: Exploring programs, contexts, theories, and research. The Gallup Organization. Madewell, J., & Shaughnessy, M.F. (2003). An interview with Frank Pajares. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4), 375-397. Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267-281. Moskowitz, G. B., (2005) Social Cognition. New York: The Guilford Press. Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. Pajares, F. (2000). Seeking a culturally attentive educational psychology. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Perin, D. (2006). Can community 23

colleges protect both access and standards? The problem of remediation. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 339-373. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press. Plucker, J A., Wongsarnpigoon, R. L, & Houser, J. H (2006, Spring). Examining college remediation trends in Indiana. Education Policy Brief , 4.5, 1-10. Cabrillo College Library, Aptos, CA. Reid, R., Epstein, M. H., Pastor, D. A., & Ryser, G. R. (2000). Strengths-based assessment differences across students with LD and EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 346-355. Schreiner, L. A. (2006) A technical report on the Clifton StrengthsFinder with college students. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from www.strengthsquest.com/content/?ci=25195 Schreiner, L. A., & Anderson, E. C. (2005). Strengths-based advising: A new lens for higher education. NACADA Journal, 25(2), 20-27. Skaalvik, E.M. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol.10 (pp. 5198). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2002, Winter). Internal and external frames of reference for academic selfconcept. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 233-244. Retrieved December 31, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tagg, J. (2003). The 24

learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In B. F. Malle and S. D. Hodges (eds.) Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 284-297). New York: Guilford Press, VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Williamson, J. (2002). Doing what they do best. Gallup Management Journal, 2(3), 1-4.

Abstract and Paper 7000 Words

25