Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

A framework for developing and supporting

student leadership in higher education

Jane Skalicky, Kristin Warr Pedersen, Jacques van der Meer, Sally Fuglsang,
Phillip Dawson & Sarah Stewart

To cite this article: Jane Skalicky, Kristin Warr Pedersen, Jacques van der Meer, Sally
Fuglsang, Phillip Dawson & Sarah Stewart (2020) A framework for developing and supporting
student leadership in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 45:1, 100-116, DOI:
10.1080/03075079.2018.1522624

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1522624

Published online: 20 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1135

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2020, VOL. 45, NO. 1, 100–116
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1522624

A framework for developing and supporting student leadership in

higher education
Jane Skalickya, Kristin Warr Pedersena, Jacques van der Meer b
, Sally Fuglsanga,
Phillip Dawson c and Sarah Stewarta
a
Student Experience, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia; bCollege of Education, University of Otago, Dunedin,
New Zealand; cCentre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Developing leadership in students is part of the remit of higher education Student leadership
institutions. In recent decades, student leadership development programs development; higher
have proliferated at universities worldwide. However, the contested education; graduate skills;
understanding of the term ‘leadership’ has resulted in lack of clarity quality assurance; case study
regarding how this may be ‘developed’ in higher education. There are
many programs that contribute towards developing leadership in
students and not all of them do so explicitly. Moreover, in the absence
of clear conceptual underpinnings and pedagogic approaches, it is
questionable whether these programs can deliver the graduate
capabilities employers are increasingly expecting. Recognising this
diversity and range of different understandings of leadership that
underpin these programs, this paper presents an overarching inclusive
framework that provides guidelines to support quality assurance across
the broad range of leadership development initiatives in higher
education. The paper describes the development of the framework,
explains its core components and provides an illustration of it.

Introduction
Student leadership is increasingly becoming a stated priority of higher education institutions. Pro-
grams that claim to develop leadership capabilities in students are proliferating across university
campuses worldwide. This trend has been occurring steadily over the past two decades (e.g.
Dugan and Komives 2007; Haber 2011a, 2011b). Recent debates about the crisis in ‘graduate employ-
ability’, and the need for universities to develop their ‘competitive edge’ and promote ‘lifelong learn-
ing’, have prompted institutions to pay closer attention to the development of graduate attributes,
including leadership (Curtis and McKenzie 2001; Pitman and Broomhall 2009; Osmani et al. 2015).
The interest in student leadership as a priority area in higher education is pervasive, ranging from
the highest level of institutional priorities and strategies down to individual units, classes and pro-
grams purporting to deliver leadership outcomes. As a result, student leadership development for
higher education students comes in a variety of forms, including those that are specifically designed
to develop leadership capabilities within or alongside curricular structures (e.g. student government
representatives, Greek Fraternities, Leadership Award Programs), and those that provide leadership
experience incidentally through student-facing activities (e.g. tutoring peers, campus tour guides)
or community volunteer activities.

Contact Jane Skalicky [email protected] Student Experience, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 45, Sandy Bay
Campus, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
© 2018 Society for Research into Higher Education
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 101

In some cases, institutions with a strong commitment to leadership development, fund purpose-
fully created centres that focus on the provision of leadership development opportunities and train-
ing for students (e.g. Jackson 2010). Depending on the structures around student leadership
development within any given institution, leadership development opportunities may result in
student recognition, an award, remuneration or credit for academic experience. While such programs
have been established primarily and explicitly to develop student leadership capabilities, there are
other programs and experiences across the higher education sector that have been developed pri-
marily to meet other strategic outcomes (e.g. increasing retention rates) yet also build student leader-
ship skills implicitly, almost as a ‘by-product’ of participation. In these instances, leadership
development is often provided in an ad hoc and unfocused way. In order to deliver on graduate capa-
bilities that employers are increasingly expecting (Bennett 2002; Lowden et al. 2011; Velasco 2012),
attention to the quality of leadership development as an outcome, and a clear conceptual and ped-
agogic approach to intentional leadership development, is needed by higher education institutions
who purport to develop it.
This paper provides a rationale for, and describes the development of, a framework for Developing
and Supporting Student Leadership (DaSSL). We outline the core components of our proposed ‘5 Ps’
Framework and provide two illustrations of its use, comparing and contrasting leadership develop-
ment programs across five elements of program design and in relation to a set of benchmarking prin-
ciples identified in the Framework. We conclude with discussing the utility of the Framework and
implications for its application in building the capacity of institutions to be more intentional in
how they develop and support leadership in students.

Student leadership in higher education

‘Leadership’ has long been a contested term and is, perhaps, ‘one of the most observed and least
understood phenomena on Earth’ (Burns 1978, 2). Not surprisingly, the literature on leadership is
vast. In 1990, Bass and Stogdill noted over 3,000 empirical investigations of leadership, underpinned
by various conceptualisations of the term. In the last two decades, understandings of leadership have
evolved, with a discernible movement away from the traditional concept of developing ‘leaders’ to
the contemporary notion of developing ‘leadership’ (e.g. McCauley-Smith et al. 2015; Rasmussen
and Hansen 2016). While the former has been focused on individual, intrapersonal skills and abilities,
the latter is more process-oriented, focusing on the interaction between the leader and the environ-
ment (Fiedler 2006). Iles and Preece (2006) note that the result of this shift in focus is the develop-
ment of more relational models of leadership that emphasise building social capital in contrast to
the development of individual ‘heroes’. This trend is observable in the higher education literature
on leadership as well, with most of the emerging theories in the general leadership literature
being applied to the higher education context (Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin 2006).
Bardou et al. (2003) define leadership as ‘a characteristic of individuals and how they act in influen-
cing others’ (Bardou et al. 2003), while Komives et al. (2005) emphasise the relational aspects of lea-
dership with a focus on process, collaboration, ethical relationships and social responsibility. As
opposed to older notions of leadership as ‘positional’ or as an inherent characteristic of students,
it is now considered that all students who involve themselves in leadership-related activities have
the potential to increase their skills and knowledge (Wren 1995; Higher Education Research Institute
1996; Komives et al. 2006).

Student leadership development in the absence of a unifying framework

Although there is agreement that one of the core functions of universities is to prepare the leaders of
tomorrow’s society (Astin and Astin 2000), there is less consensus about how this is best accomplished.
In Australasia, for example, there has been less emphasis on formalised student leadership develop-
ment programs, such as those documented in the United States of America (see, for example,
102 J. SKALICKY ET AL.

Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt 2000; Eich 2008), and more focus on developing leadership capa-
bility through immersion in a range of leadership roles within student-led programs focused on deli-
vering institutional priorities. Moreover, student leadership development can be incorporated into the
curriculum, ‘bolted on’, or exist outside of the curriculum entirely. Student leaders can receive course
credit, remuneration, or simply be volunteers. Consider, for example, the following range of student
experiences that may be deemed to fall under the broad umbrella of ‘student leadership’ roles:

. Captain of a university football team;

. Student president of the University Union Board;
. Volunteer in a community organisation as part of a university leadership award program;
. University Ambassador at national/international events/forums;
. President of a culturally-specific students’ association;
. Coordinator of an international students’ networking event;
. Peer mentor or group facilitator in a study assistance scheme;
. Orientation week student assistance officer; or
. LGBTIQ+ Ally Network member.
Against this backdrop of diverse roles and experiences, student leadership development has been
variously mandated, investigated and evaluated (Keup 2010; Shook and Keup 2012). This has some-
times occurred as if there was a tacit, shared understanding of what the term ‘student leadership’
means. However, this diversity suggests that there is a range of different ways that universities con-
ceptualise and contribute towards developing student leadership.
Rather than suggesting that a universal definition is called for, this paper proposes a new approach
to supporting student leadership development in a more intentional, transparent and reflective
manner. Without imposing a constraining definition, the Developing and Supporting Student Leader-
ship (DaSSL) Framework accommodates the diversity of leadership conceptualisations, whilst at the
same time providing principles and guidelines to support good practice and continuous improve-
ment. We argue that this approach can assist institutions to explore how and to what extent
student leadership is explicitly identified, developed and supported through their programs.

Overview of the DaSSL Framework

The Developing and Supporting Student Leadership (DaSSL) Framework was developed as part of a
multi-institutional research project led by the University of Tasmania (2015–2017). The project was
funded by the Australian Government’s Office for Learning and Teaching and involved participation
from four other higher education institutions across the Australasian region – University of Otago
(NZ), University of Wollongong, Monash University and Curtin University.
The DaSSL Framework was designed to assist program developers and coordinators to more
intentionally plan for and support student leadership development. Student leadership was recog-
nised in the broadest sense to encompass any supported experience that provides opportunities
for students to learn about, experience or exhibit leadership. This might involve curricular, co-curri-
cular or extra-curricular experience, and support might equate to anything from recruitment to train-
ing, funding, mentorship or formal credited recognition. The Framework allows for student leadership
to be considered by practitioners across a range of programs or initiatives that may or may not have
explicitly supported leadership development as a formal part of their program. Designed as an inclus-
ive resource, the DaSSL Framework intends to guide more comprehensive and intentional consider-
ation of student leadership across all aspects of program design, implementation and evaluation. The
DaSSL Framework centres around five elements of good program design: (1) Purpose, (2) People, (3)
Positioning, (4) Practice and (5) Progress (the 5 Ps), and comprises four components designed to
support program coordinators to review, plan for and self-assess their student leadership programs
in relation to these five elements. The four components of the Framework are:
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 103

1. A Reflection Tool and Action Plan intended to guide practitioners through a process of critical
reflection around a series of questions that consider the level to which student leadership is inten-
tionally designed for and supported throughout a program. The reflective tool and its accompa-
nying action plan are built around the 5 Ps to give explicit attention to how student leadership is
comprehensively and intentionally supported in a program. Student leadership development is
considered in relation to the Purpose of the program and its stated objectives for supporting
student leaders; the full range of People involved in the delivery and intended outcomes of the
program; the strategic Positioning of the program in relation to other institutional priorities; the
Practice of the program and how well it develops and supports students as leaders; and
the methods used to evaluate the program and its student leadership objectives and how
these report on the Progress of the program. Critically reflecting on questions relating to each
of the 5 Ps then leads practitioners to consider key objectives, strategies and timelines for
program improvement in one or more of the 5 Ps. These can then be translated in the accompa-
nying action plan.
2. A set of Good Practice Principles and Guidelines that allows practitioners to self-assess and/or con-
sider aspirational goals in relation to each of the 5 Ps. These Guidelines include a series of state-
ments that highlight an example of what intentional student leadership might look like when
included in all aspects of a program. These are then mapped against a matrix of four key principles
that emphasise intentionality, alignment, inclusivity and continuous improvement.
3. A series of Case Studies that highlight examples of how the Reflective Tool, Action Plan and Good
Practice Principles and Guidelines can be used to guide the review, planning, implementation
and/or evaluation of programs that intend to develop or support student leadership, either
purposefully or as a by-product. These case studies have drawn on examples from each of the
participating institutions in the project that created the DaSSL Framework as well as some
examples from other institutions in the Australasian region that have used the tools introduced
by the researchers during the project. In addition to specific examples, the collection of case
studies highlights the multitude of applications and adaptability of the tool to varying contexts.
4. Supporting Resources that provide a range of templates, examples and an annotated bibliography
of useful literature to assist program coordinators to improve the quality of their programs. Some
of the supporting resources are directly linked to the case studies to provide explicit examples and
support for practitioners to replicate the practices identified in the case studies.
The focus here is on two core components of the Framework, the Reflection Tool and Action Plan and
the Good Practice Principles and Guidelines, and we employ the third component, Case Studies,
to illustrate their use. The full DaSSL Framework is now available as a fully online open resource at:
dassl.edu.au.

Development and application of the DaSSL Framework

The DaSSL Framework was developed and validated through a participatory, collaborative and itera-
tive process over a two-year period (2014–2016). The project comprised three phases, all of which
incorporated extensive consultation with a range of practitioners across the higher education
sector in Australasia.
Phase 1 of the project involved the conceptualisation of the Framework for developing and sup-
porting student leadership development. As a first step, the project team convened over two days
to decide on the parameters for such a framework. The project team comprised eight members
from five partner institutions (4 in Australia, 1 in New Zealand) and included scholars, program
coordinators and practitioners, all with extensive sector-wide experience in student leadership
development across a diverse range of student leadership and peer learning initiatives in the Aus-
tralasian higher education sector. The initial conceptualisation of the Framework was achieved
using a method similar to that used by Dawson (2014) when addressing the similarly conflationary
term ‘mentoring’. This method incorporated a modified Delphi approach (Keller et al. 2015) in
104 J. SKALICKY ET AL.

which there were several rounds of brainstorming and discussion of topics, each building on the
previous round, to arrive eventually at a consensus about student leadership programs and best
practice in student leadership development. In addition, a comprehensive literature review of
student leadership development and good program design was undertaken, to confirm that the
project team’s consensus was reflected in the literature. The review found that there was substan-
tial agreement on the key dimensions of high quality student leadership development programs.
These key dimensions formed the basis of the Framework and were developed into the five key
domains for consideration in program design, implementation and evaluation (the 5 Ps) –
Purpose, People, Positioning, Practice and Progress.
The next step in the conceptualisation of the Framework involved a series of roundtable forums
conducted over a 12 month period in which the project team arrived at consensus on the format,
structure and content of a Practitioner Reflection Tool that was built around the design elements
– the 5 Ps. The focus of the forums was on teasing out the key indicators (sub-components) of
each program design element and drafting a series of reflective questions for each with the aim
of guiding practitioners through structured reflection of all elements of their program. The 5 Ps
DaSSL Framework, reflective questions associated with the 5 Ps, and associated literature are
shown in Table 1.
The final step in the conceptualisation of the Framework involved cross-checking the findings
from the project team’s initial meetings and literature review with practitioners from a diverse
range of student leadership programs across Australasia. The practitioners included: program
coordinators from learning programs such as the internationally recognised peer learning
program, the Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) Program (also known as Supplemental Instruc-
tion); executive members and student representatives from student engagement programs
including the Student Union and student bodies at a governance level; and program coordinators
from designated student leadership development programs aimed at providing students with
specified leadership experiences and training, and volunteering opportunities. Cross-checking
was achieved through a series of workshops in which the Framework was reviewed and the Prac-
titioner Reflection Tool, a core component of the Framework, was pilot-tested. A total of six work-
shops were held, four at project partner institutions (UTAS, Curtin, Wollongong, Otago) and two
at national conferences (STARS 2015 and HERDSA 2015). These workshops also became key
points of feedback and instigated critical reflection and reshaping of the final tool that is now
available online.
Application of the reflection tool in these workshops revealed the need to explicitly state the
intention of student leadership development within a program to ensure it was given adequate
attention through planning, implementation and evaluation. Many participating practitioners
noted explicit training and recognition for student leaders across their programs (e.g. PASS),
however, they also noted the lack of explicit objectives and evaluative outcomes of the impact
of student leadership development in these programs. Another key statement made by program
coordinators was the lack of attention to authentically including marginalised student groups as
the beneficiaries of leadership development. Whilst some programs were not exclusive, there
were very few examples of any targeted inclusion or opportunities for minority or marginalised
groups to participate in leadership development. In the instances where clear objectives for inclu-
sivity were indicated, the follow-through of evaluating the success and impact of those objectives
was lacking.
Phase 2 of the project entailed further development, modification and refinement of the Frame-
work and involved a two-day forum during which the project team discussed the outcomes and feed-
back from the pilot workshops. The application of the Practitioner Reflection Tool in the first round of
workshops led to the establishment of a set of four Good Practice Principles that aims to ensure the
explicit and intentional inclusion of holistic student leadership in all elements of program design. The
four Good Practice Principles are:
Table 1. The 5 Ps of good program design.
Key indicators Reflective questions Identified and discussed in:
1. PURPOSE: the reason the program exists
1.1 Key drivers Why does our program exist at our institution? Astin and Astin (2000); Dugan and Komives (2007); Dugan et al. (2013);
. What need or challenge does it meet? Eich (2008); Haber (2011b)
. How does it address institutional strategies and policies?

1.2 Intended outcomes What are we hoping to achieve with our program? Allen, Shankman, and Miguel (2012); Cress et al. (2001); Esplin, Seabold,
. What leadership capabilities are we intending to develop? and Pinnegar (2012); Shook and Keup (2012); Simpson, Evans, and
. Does the program seek to address particular outcomes for equity / Reeve (2012)
priority groups?
. Are there other outcomes that the institution wants to achieve from
this initiative?
1.3 Philosophical underpinnings What does student leadership mean to us within our program or Komives and Wagner (2009); Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002);
initiative? Rosch and Anthony (2012)
. Does this conception align with institutional goals?
. How does the program support and celebrate diversity in
leadership development?
2. PEOPLE: the range of people who are involved in the program
2.1 Stakeholders How do we engage with our internal and external stakeholders? Allen, Shankman, and Miguel (2012); Haber (2011a); Shriberg and
. Who are our stakeholders and how do they have input? Harris (2012); Stough et al. (2013); Osteen and Coburn (2012)
. What are their roles and responsibilities?

2.2 Recruitment & support How do we select and support our student leaders and program Skalicky and Caney (2010); Esplin, Seabold, and Pinnegar (2012); Haber
coordinators? (2011b); Shook and Keup (2012)
. How do we ensure inclusivity and diversity in our recruitment
processes and student leader training programs?

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

. What skills and/or experiences do they need?
. What support and training or professional development is provided
for them?
2.3 Reward & recognition How are student leaders recognised and rewarded in our Haber (2011b); Cress et al. (2001)
program?
. In what ways does the institution formally recognise and reward
our student leaders?
. What opportunities exist for reward and recognition external to the
institution?

(Continued )

105
Table 1. Continued.

106
Key indicators Reflective questions Identified and discussed in:
3. POSITIONING: how the program is positioned and the implication of this
3.1 Institutional location Where does our program sit in the organisational structure of the Rosch and Anthony (2012); Stough et al. (2013); Wooten et al. (2012);

J. SKALICKY ET AL.
institution? Seemiller and Murray (2013); Kaufman et al. (2012); Cress et al. (2001)
. Is it centrally-based or faculty-based? Is it embedded in academic
curriculum, or is it co-curricular or extra-curricular?
. Is our program purposefully aligned with other student leadership
opportunities within the institution?
3.2 Strategic alliances Who are our current and potential champions and how are they Greenlee, Bruner, and Hill (2009); Athreya and Kalkoff (2010); Osteen
positioned across the institution? and Coburn (2012)
. How does the program engage authentically with equity/priority
groups?
. What would help us to position our program more strategically? Are
the learning outcomes formally recognised by the institution?
3.3 Resourcing & sustainability What are the funding arrangements for our program? Esplin, Seabold, and Pinnegar (2012); Facca and Allen (2011)
. What is the impact of the current funding arrangement on the
structure, function, resourcing and sustainability of the program?
. What strategic connections could we leverage to build
sustainability?
4. PRACTICE: how the program is operationalised
4.1 Planning & design How does our program design align with our stated purpose and International Leadership Association (2009); Shook and Keup (2012);
philosophy? Haber (2011b); Esplin, Seabold, and Pinnegar (2012)
. Who is involved in planning and design decisions? How do we
ensure quality student engagement in the planning and design
stage?
. How do we plan for and design student leadership development
opportunities within our program?
4.2 Implementation How are student leadership development opportunities Ellis and Petersen (2011); Haber (2011b); McPhail, Robinson, and Scott
supported through our program? (2008); Harris and Hopson (2008); Cress et al. (2001); Shriberg and
. What activities are core to or characteristic of the program? How do Harris (2012)
these activities contribute to developing student leadership?
. How do we build a culture of inclusivity in our programs?
. What constraints and/or risks do we encounter in implementing
this program? How do we mitigate these?
4.3 Student leaders’ experience How do we assist students to recognise and evidence their Logue, Hutchens, and Hector (2005); White (2012); Hawkins and
leadership development? Edwards (2015); Chung (2014); Bright et al. (2012); Bowers and
. How do student leaders record their leadership development? Murakami-Ramalho (2010)
What opportunities for student leader reflection on experience are
built in to the program?
. How does the program take account of the experiences that
student leaders bring?
5. PROGRESS: how the program is evaluated
5.1 Program outcomes What evidence do we have of the effectiveness of our program? Tingle et al. (2013); Rosch and Anthony (2012); Ballard et al. (2000);
. How do we define effectiveness? How does this connect with Owen (2008); Reinelt and Russon (2003); Cress et al. (2001)
institutional strategic objectives?
. How do we assess the impacts of the program on the intended
beneficiaries, especially equity/priority groups?
. How do we communicate the outcomes of our program to inform
decision-making and to persuade stakeholders?
. What has been the most significant change as a result of the
program?
5.2 Student leadership outcomes What leadership capabilities are developed by the students who Seemiller and Murray (2013); Astin (1993); Ellis and Petersen (2011);
participate in our program? Ostrom-Blonigen et al. (2010); Blackwell and Cummins (2007); Leigh
. How are these assessed? How do they contribute to organisational et al. (2012)
strategic goals and/or graduate employability?
. What follow-up do we do with leaders and/or employers to

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ascertain the impact on their future pathways?
5.3 Future opportunities What potential does the program have for expansion or further Buskey and Karvonen (2012); Glasman, Cibulka, and Ashby (2002);
capacity-building? Esplin, Seabold, and Pinnegar (2012)
. What are the possibilities for sustainable scaling-up? What would
this take?
. If the possibilities were limitless, what changes or improvements
would we make to the program? What would be needed to make
these changes happen?

107
108 J. SKALICKY ET AL.

1. Explicit leadership development – developing and supporting student leadership that is purpose-
ful and explicit throughout a program, even if its primary purpose is not specifically to develop
leadership capabilities in students.
2. Evidence of alignment – the design, implementation and evaluation of a program all align and
there is evidence that the five domains of the Framework (the 5 Ps) have synergy within an insti-
tutional context.
3. Equity and diversity – supporting and valuing equity and diversity is a core value of a program and
a culture of inclusivity is reflected throughout the program.
4. Continuous improvement – evaluation is ongoing and opportunities and processes for continuous
improvement are built into the program in a cyclical manner.
The Good Practice Principles were designed to outline ways in which student leadership can be
intentionally included in all 5 Ps (see Table 2). Based on confirmation in the literature, these Good
Practice Principles then also included attention to alignment – to ensure comprehensive and consist-
ent program design and delivery. Guided by a clear indication in the literature that evaluation is often
the afterthought of a program, an holistic attention to evaluation as a Good Practice Principle was
also included. In addition, the project team gave explicit attention to the inclusion of equity and
diversity principles to ensure student leadership was inclusive and responsive to the increasingly
diverse needs of often marginalised communities in the student body and that this attention
carried through to evaluation.
The validity and usefulness of the Good Practice Principles were then further cross-checked by a
second round of dissemination workshops across the higher education sectors in Australia and New

Table 2. Good practice principles and their inclusion in the 5 Ps.

Principle 4: Continuous
Principles Principle 1: Intentionality Principle 2: Alignment Principle 3: Inclusiveness improvement
What this Student leadership The theoretical / Equity and diversity are Evaluation measures allow
means for development is one of philosophical recognised in the for identifying whether
PURPOSE the explicit aims of the underpinnings of the objectives of the the program purpose has
program program align with program been achieved
its purpose
What this Student leaders are All stakeholders have a Recruitment and training Ongoing feedback is
means for recruited, trained and shared processes reflect collected from student
PEOPLE supported in an understanding of, inclusivity and diversity leaders and other
equitable, transparent and work towards, stakeholders
and consistent way the purpose of the
program
What this The program is part of a The program is The program’s Evaluation activities enable
means for joined-up institutional positioned to support organisational structure ongoing consideration of
POSITIONING approach to student broader institutional allows for input from, the positioning and
leadership strategies and authentic sustainability of the
development engagement with, program
opportunities equity groups
What this Student leadership The overall design of The program design and Data is collected iteratively
means for development practices the program and its implementation reflects to inform continual
PRACTICE are made explicit in activities reflect the a culture of inclusivity improvement of design
the design and purpose of the and implementation of
activities of the program the program
program
What this Student leaders record Data collection tools The outcomes of equity All evaluation activities are
means for and reflect upon their and approaches allow and diversity objectives integrated to enable
PROGRESS leadership for assessment of the are monitored comprehensive horizontal
development in terms stated aims of the and vertical reporting, in
of both personal and program order to ensure
professional benefits continuous improvement
of all aspects of the
program
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 109

Zealand. Again, this was principally achieved through workshops and roundtable discussions at
national and international conferences. During this period, members of the project team presented
and facilitated workshops at three conferences (PASS 2015; ISSOTL 2015; ANZSSA 2015). In addition
to the practitioner-based feedback, further consultation on the Framework was sought from an exter-
nal reference group of internationally recognised experts and student representatives from student
leadership programs across the higher education sectors in Australia, New Zealand and the USA.
Additionally, the Framework and all of its components was reviewed by an independent external eva-
luator (a retired academic scholar / institutional senior executive based in Australia) against criteria
developed by the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG 2010). The review
suggested that the DaSSL Framework performed well against the criteria (which the evaluator
modified slightly to apply to the higher education sector).
The third and final phase of the project involved the generation of a suite of case studies and
accompanying resources that exemplify the utility and possible applications of the Framework.
These case studies were drawn from actual examples in each of the five partner institutions involved
in the DaSSL project, with additional case studies and resources provided by participants in some of
the dissemination workshops undertaken in Phase 2 of the project.
The case studies provide examples of the variety of ways in which the DaSSL Framework can be
applied to comprehensively and systematically review and improve student leadership programs in
the higher education sector. The examples range from full reviews of programs, to specific and intri-
cate explorations of key program components (e.g. the recruitment of student leaders to ensure
inclusiveness of equity groups). One of the case studies has also highlighted the adaptability of
the tool outside of the context of higher education, through an example of how the Framework
was used to review a leadership development program for a community organisation in the
health sector. While the original design of the tool was intended for individual programs to plan,
review, implement and evaluate their own practice, an additional use of the Framework was ident-
ified by two of the project’s participating partner institutions and is considered next as an application
of the Framework.

Benchmarking: an illustrative application of the Framework

This case study describes a comparative benchmarking activity undertaken by two of the project
partner institutions, the University of Tasmania (UTAS) and the University of Otago (UoO), in which
two equivalent programs are compared and benchmarked against the DaSSL Framework’s Good
Practice Principles. At the time of this benchmarking activity, UTAS and UoO had similar demographic
features in that both were classified as moderately sized, multi-campus universities, with student
populations of roughly 29,000 and 21,000 students, respectively. Both UTAS and UoO offer a range
of leadership development opportunities for their students. This paper focuses on their respective
‘flagship’ programs. These are the UTAS Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Award (VCLA) and the Univer-
sity of Otago Student Leadership Award (SLA).
The UTAS VCLA is managed by the Student Leadership and Careers team and was introduced in
2010 as a non-credit bearing program designed to improve employability skills. In its original form,
the program involved attendance at six compulsory seminars, forty hours of volunteer work and the
submission of reflective writing assignments. At the time of benchmarking, the VCLA was undergoing
a strategic renewal with the aim to explore how the program could be broadened to include
scaffolded leadership development opportunities available across a student’s degree. An outcome
of the benchmarking activity was the re-development of the VCLA into what is now a comprehensive
three-tier leadership development program (the Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Program) of learning,
experiences and recognition that includes a curricular unit, citations and culminating award.
The UoO SLA program is managed by the University Volunteer Centre Coordinator, supported by
an Advisory Group. It was established in 2014, following a successful two-year pilot program. The
program is designed to be completed over a minimum of two years and is open to both
110 J. SKALICKY ET AL.

undergraduate and postgraduate students, but is typically taken up by undergraduates. The program
is intended to develop leadership skills and attributes to enhance employability, as well as to provide
opportunities for students to contribute to their local community. The key elements of the UoO SLA at
the time of study were: a minimum of 170 h of leadership and service activities; the creation of a per-
sonal leadership development plan; attendance at six compulsory workshops; the completion of a
reflection journal; regular meetings with mentors (both academic and professional staff); and, an
exit interview with members of the Advisory Group.
In preparation for the benchmarking activity the program coordinators at each institution had
worked through the DaSSL Practitioner Reflection Tool (refer Table 1) with key members of their
teams recording their responses to the questions within each of the five program domains (the
‘5 Ps’). Key staff from UTAS and UoO met face-to-face for two days to share the results of individual
reflection answers to the DaSSL Practitioner Reflection Tool, and to compare and contrast the core
features of the programs. They then embarked on a process of benchmarking the programs
against each of the statements of the Good Practice Principles. This was done as a self-assessment
against each statement on a four-point scale, allowing the programs to claim a level of achievement
to one of: (1) Yes the program achieved this; (2) Yes, but the program had some work to do; (3) No, but
the program was working towards this; or (4) No the program did not achieve this. The self-assess-
ments were then discussed as a comparison between the two programs with the reflection responses
from the Practitioner Reflection Tool guiding discussions. Discussion focussed on what each program
could learn from the other’s experiences and what aspects or elements might be able to adopted or
adapted to enhance practice.
The key outcome of this benchmarking process was that both partners could see immediately
where each of the programs was exemplifying good practice and what could be enhanced. In the
instances where only one program was identified as a good performer against a particular Good Prac-
tice Principle or Guideline, examples of practice in that program were discussed as potential oppor-
tunities for growth in the other program.
A common area of strength identified was in relation to the Good Practice Principles of Inten-
tionality and Alignment, as both programs were established with the explicit aim of developing
leadership capabilities in students and attention was given to this throughout the design, delivery
and evaluation of each program. The benchmarking activity revealed areas of better practice that
could be shared across the institutions. For instance the UoO SLA involved mentors supporting
student leaders that were drawn from staff across the institution. In addition to providing a men-
toring opportunity, which comes with its own intrinsic values (e.g. Newby and Heide 1992; Cole
2015), this approach also served to provide opportunities for championing the program and
getting a broader range of stakeholder buy-in across the institution. Similarly, the involvement
of the UTAS VCLA program with a curricular component (credit-bearing unit) provided for oppor-
tunities for formal evaluations to be conducted in ways that were clearly recognised by the
institution.
Key areas identified as being in need of strengthening in both programs were the integration of
equity and diversity issues throughout the programs, engagement with employers as a stakeholder
group and the development of more rigorous evaluation mechanisms. Several key areas were ident-
ified for enhancement, including the need to improve recruitment strategies in terms of inclusivity
and the establishment of an advisory group to ensure consistency and engagement across the insti-
tution. This latter suggestion was based on the success of an advisory group supporting the ongoing
development of the UoO SLA, and identifying ways that this program’s model of support could be
used to enhance access and communication to equity groups and evaluative practices.

Discussion and conclusion

To ensure holistic and aligned attention to student leadership in the design and review of pro-
grams, we suggest that the DaSSL Framework outlined and illustrated in this paper may be utilised
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 111

in a range of ways to benefit various stakeholders in the higher education sector and beyond. The
strength of the DaSSL Framework is in the provision of an integrative matrix that draws together
previously disparate research that is focused on individual aspects of student leadership. For
example, while Haber (2011b) outlines a range of leadership opportunities for students to
engage in through peer education, the focus of her work is on the peer leader as integral to pro-
gressing sector wide understanding of student leadership and opportunities that stem from it. The
DaSSL Framework brings Haber’s work together with Esplin, Seabold, and Pinnegar (2012), who
give significant attention to the position of peer programs, resourcing, evaluation and the pro-
motion of the ongoing sustainability of these programs in higher education. Similarly, the Frame-
work draws together the work of Eich (2008), who used a grounded theory approach to promote
the authentic delivery of leadership programs as learning-focused, with Shook and Keup (2012)
who outline a breadth of benefits of student leadership which extend beyond the curriculum
into co-curricular spaces. The DaSSL Framework integrates and extends these and other literature
relevant to student leadership to offer a platform to consider student leadership programs against
five elements of good program design.
By conceptualising student leadership within a Framework where the 5 Ps of good program
design enable intentional planning for and support of student leadership development, student lea-
dership development itself can become more explicit and a more consistently evaluated variable in
higher education. Importantly, the Framework is inclusive and allows for a variety of interpretations of
student leadership, noting Burns’s (1978) and Bass and Stogdill’s (1990) considerations about the
challenges to defining the term ‘student leadership’. Moreover, the Framework may provide research-
ers with the opportunity to conduct replication studies if interventions are described and specified in
a way that utilises the shared language of the five domains. The challenge of replicability has been
outlined by Makel and Plucker (2014) who emphasised the need for greater consistency across all
levels of education research, particularly in replication studies that have different authorship. The
benchmarking case study goes some way to confirming that the ability to consider and evaluate prac-
tice using a shared language and understanding of good practice across key domains may have rel-
evance to enabling the structuring of research studies in this field that may then enable replicability.
Evaluation studies may also be designed in line with the continuous improvement model outlined in
the Framework.
This paper has highlighted that the DaSSL Framework can be applied to a variety of design and
review activities surrounding student leadership programs. In addition to enabling critical compari-
son between programs and the collaborative benchmarking application discussed in this paper, the
Framework could also be used for: building a business case for new programs; internal review; peer
review; assessing inclusivity; informing data collection; or to demonstrate contribution to strategic
outcomes. For example, with the growth of interest in graduate employability skills and competen-
cies (for example, Oliver 2013) and students’ civic mindedness (for example, Bowden et al. 2000), uni-
versities are being challenged to ensure students are educated beyond their disciplinary knowledge
(Arvanitakis and Hornsby 2016). It is therefore increasingly important that students are able to engage
in, reflect upon, make sense of, and evidence the learnings, skills and attributes they have gained
through their participation in student leadership programs and opportunities (see, for example,
McCauley-Smith et al. 2015; Kiersch and Peters 2017).
The DaSSL Framework gives specific attention to the recognition of leadership skills and leader-
ship experiences, assisting institutions and student leaders alike to identify and articulate the skill
sets and competencies developed through engagement in leadership opportunities in higher edu-
cation. This rigor could have a significant impact on graduate employability and graduate outcomes,
particularly in students’ capacity to acknowledge and understand their pre-existing conceptualis-
ations and expectations of leadership that they bring into their leadership development experiences
(Caza and Rosch 2014) and to recognise the learning gained from leadership experiences as relevant
to their employability profiles.
112 J. SKALICKY ET AL.

While graduate employability and graduate outcomes are key strategic priorities of higher edu-
cation institutions, the explicit role of student leadership as an opportunity for the entire student
population and throughout the student experience, both curricular and co-curricular, must also be
considered. This cannot be done without explicitly planning for and enabling a broad range of
student engagement within student leadership programs, with the aim of ensuring a set of graduate
outcomes that continue to align with the needs of the twenty-first century, such as ethical leadership,
entrepreneurial skills, cross-cultural understanding and adaptability. Arvanitakis and Horsnby (2016),
for example, argue that universities must orient themselves more on what additional experiences and
opportunities need to be foregrounded within the whole of university student experience, with equal
attention needing to be paid to citizenship development alongside content development.
Being more inclusive of student leadership opportunities and more purposeful about they ways
that student leadership is integrated into the whole of student experience could have positive
impact on how higher education institutions respond to global calls for student leaders to attend
a range of national and international conferences and symposiums, such as the United Nations Lea-
dership Summit. Using the DaSSL Framework to inclusively and explicitly provide student leadership
opportunities to all students could support institutions to strategically and methodically respond to
these calls so that students applying for such national and international opportunities are from across
the whole student population and not just those students with ‘innate’ leadership qualities and
aspirations.
Policy makers and senior executives in institutions may find the Framework useful as a way of spe-
cifying in greater detail the type of leadership development programs that they might like to encou-
rage or mandate. By not explicitly identifying the full range of programs and initiatives that contribute
to the development of student leadership, many institutions may be missing opportunities to recog-
nise current and potential programs that not only benefit individual students in leadership, but also
may contribute to institutional goals or strategic objectives, and furthermore enhance the reputation
of the institution.
In addition, mapping programs against the DaSSL Framework might enable students themselves
to make more-informed decisions about what sorts of leadership development opportunities they
want to pursue. By explicitly and intentionally including leadership development within programs
and helping students to gain an understanding of evidence and transferability of the skills gained
by participation in these programs, institutions may contribute towards helping students to recog-
nise that leadership comes in many forms and can materialise in a variety of contexts and roles
within the academy and beyond.
Drawing on the strength of the ‘5 Ps’ representing key domains of good program design, the
DaSSL Framework with its inclusion of the four core principles, mapped against each domain to
articulate good practice principles, enables a new approach to developing and supporting high
quality student leadership initiatives. The Framework is applicable across a range of program types
and is not tied to particular theoretical conceptualisations. In addition, the Framework ensures
that the contributions of programs towards developing leadership, and their deliverables, are expli-
citly identified and stated. The inclusion of illustrative case studies and supporting resources further
enhances the utility of the Framework. We believe that this will contribute to the growth of a global
community of practice within the field of student leadership development. By recognising the full
spectrum of student leadership development opportunities available within the higher education
sector and developing these into robust and effective programs, institutions can collectively build
their capacity to grow learners who are also lifelong leaders.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Office for Learning and Teaching, Australian Government Department of Education and
Training under grant number ID14-3877. We wish also to acknowledge the contributions of Sally Rogan, formally of the
University of Wollongong, and Raphael Pereira, formally of Curtin University, to development of the DaSSL Framework.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 113

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Office for Learning and Teaching, Australian Government Department of Education and
Training under grant number ID14-3877 (https://ltr.edu.au/resources/ID14-3877_Skalicky_Final_Report_2017.pdf).

ORCID
Jacques van der Meer http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2575-0249
Phillip Dawson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4513-8287

References
Allen, S. J., M. L. Shankman, and R. F. Miguel. 2012. “Emotionally Intelligent Leadership: An Integrative, Process-Oriented
Theory of Student Leadership.” Journal of Leadership Education 11 (1): 177–203. doi:10.12806/v11/i1/tf1.
Arvanitakis, J., and D. Hornsby. 2016. Universities, the Citizen Scholar and the Future of Higher Education. Abingdon, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Astin, A. W. 1993. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W., and H. S. Astin. 2000. “Leadership Reconsidered: Engaging Higher Education in Social Change.” Report to W.K.
Kellogg Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444437.
Athreya, K. S., and M. T. Kalkoff. 2010. “The Engineering Leadership Program: A Co-Curricular Learning Environment By
and For Students.” Journal of STEM Education: Leadership Issue 11 (3 & 4): 70–74. http://ojs.jstem.org/index.php?
journal=JSTEM&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1608&path%5B%5D=1324.
Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG). 2010. Overview of 14 Excellence Frameworks and Tools -
Background Research for the ACELG ‘Review of Excellence Frameworks in Local Government’ project. https://opus.lib.
uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/42074/3/Excellence-Frameworks-Overview.pdf.
Ballard, B., R. Brown, F. DeSalvo, P. Garito, M. Herron, C. Johnson, S. Reed, D. Robertson, R. Timm, and J. Wade. 2000.
Leadership Programs at KU: An Analysis of 10 Student Affairs Leadership Programs. http://studentaffairs.ku.edu/sites/
studentaffairs.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/Leadership%20Programs%20Report%200402%20PDF.pdf.
Bardou, K. J., S. M. Byrne, V. Pasternak, and A. Rainey. 2003. “Self-Efficacy and Student Leaders: The Effects of Gender,
Previous Leadership Experiences, and Institutional Environment.” Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel
Association 40 (1): 33–48. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/jiuspa/article/view/4624/4258.
Bass, B. M., and R. M. Stogdill. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.
Bennett, R. 2002. “Employers’ Demands for Personal Transferable Skills in Graduates: A Content Analysis of 1000 Job
Advertisements and an Associated Empirical Study.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training 54 (4): 457–76.
doi:10.1080/13636820200200209.
Blackwell, C., and R. Cummins. 2007. “Assessing Perceived Student Leadership Skill Development in an Academic
Leadership Development Program.” Journal of Leadership Education 6 (1): 39–58. doi:10.12806/v6/i1/rf1.
Bowden, J., G. Hart, B. King, K. Trigwell, and O. Watts. 2000. Generic Capabilities of ATN University Graduates. Canberra:
Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Bowers, A. J., and E. Murakami-Ramalho. 2010. “The Research Journal Club: Pedagogy of Research in the Preparation of
Students in Educational Leadership.” Journal of Research on Leadership Education 5 (10): 335–56. doi:10.1177/
194277511000501001.
Bright, D. S., E. F. Turesky, R. Putzel, and T. Stang. 2012. “Professor as Facilitator: Shaping an Emerging, Living System of
Shared Leadership in the Classroom.” Journal of Leadership Education 11 (1): 157–76. doi:10.12806/v11/i1/rf9.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Buskey, F. C., and M. Karvonen. 2012. “Evaluating Innovative Leadership Preparation: How What You Want Drives What
(and How) You Evaluate.” Journal of Leadership Education 11 (1): 204–21. doi:10.12806/v11/i1/tf2.
Caza, A., and D. M. Rosch. 2014. “An Exploratory Examination of Students’ Pre-Existing Beliefs About Leadership.” Studies
in Higher Education 39 (1): 1586–98. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.801434.
Chung, J. Y. 2014. “Racism and Asian American Student Leadership.” Equity & Excellence in Education 47 (2): 117–32. doi:10.
1080/10665684.2014.900392.
Cole, G. 2015. “The Value of Mentoring: A Mutually Beneficial Experience for Mentor and Mentee.” Development and
Learning in Organizations 29 (4): 22–24. doi:10.1108/dlo-04-2015-0039.
Cress, C. M., H. S. Astin, K. Zimmerman-Oster, and J. C. Burkhardt. 2001. “Developmental Outcomes of College Students’
Involvement in Leadership Activities.” Journal of College Student Development 42 (1): 15–27.
114 J. SKALICKY ET AL.

Curtis, D., and P. McKenzie. 2001. “Employability Skills for Australian Industry: Literature Review and Framework
Development.” Report to Business Council of Australia, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Australian
Council for Educational Research. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Curtis6/publication/254581576.
Dawson, P. 2014. “Beyond a Definition: Toward a Framework for Designing and Specifying Mentoring Models.”
Educational Researcher 43: 137–45. doi:10.3102/0013189×14528751.
Dugan, J. P., K. Q. Fath, S. D. Howes, K. R. Lavelle, and J. R. Polanin. 2013. “Developing the Leadership Capacity and Leader
Efficacy of College Women in Science, Technology, and Math Fields.” Journal of Leadership Studies 7 (3): 6–23. doi:10.
1002/jls.21292.
Dugan, J. P., and S. R. Komives. 2007. “Developing Leadership Capacity in College Students: Findings from a National
Study.” A Report from the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
237536892.
Eich, D. 2008. “A Grounded Theory of High-Quality Leadership Programs: Perspectives From Student Leadership
Development Programs in Higher Education.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 15 (2): 176–87.
Ellis, L. A., and A. K. Petersen. 2011. “A Way Forward: Assessing the Demonstrated Leadership of Graduate Civil
Engineering and Construction Management Students.” Leadership and Management in Engineering 11: 88–96.
doi:10.1061/(asce)lm.1943-5630.0000107.
Esplin, P., J. Seabold, and F. Pinnegar. 2012. “The Architecture of a High-Impact and Sustainable Peer Leader Program: A
Blueprint for Success.” New Directions for Student Services 157: 85–100. doi:10.1002/he.20008.
Facca, T. M., and S. J. Allen. 2011. “Using Cluster Analysis to Segment Students Based on Self-Reported Emotionally
Intelligent Leadership Behaviours.” Journal of Leadership Education 10 (2): 72–96. doi:10.12806/v10/i2/rf4.
Fiedler, F. 2006. “Research on Leadership Selection and Training: One View of the Future.” Administrative Science Quarterly
41: 241–50. doi:10.2307/2393716.
Glasman, N., J. Cibulka, and D. Ashby. 2002. “Program Self-Evaluation for Continuous Improvement.” Educational
Administration Quarterly 38 (2): 257–88. doi:10.1177/0013161X02382008.
Goleman, D., R. Boyatzis, and A. McKee. 2002. Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Greenlee, B., D. Y. Bruner, and M. S. Hill. 2009. “Connecting Student Realities and Ideal Models: Changing the University of
South Florida’s Educational Leadership Program.” Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy 3 (1): 36–48.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ903004.
Haber, P. 2011a. “Formal Leadership Program Models.” In The Handbook for Student Leadership Development, edited by S.
R. Komives, J. P. Duggan, J. E. Owen, C. Slack, W. Wagner, and Associates, 231–58. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Haber, P. 2011b. “Peer Education in Student Leadership Programs: Responding to Co-Curricular Challenges.” New
Directions for Student Services Special Issue: Emerging Issues and Practices in Peer Education 133: 65–76. doi:/10.1002/
ss.385.
Harris, S., and M. Hopson. 2008. “Using an Equity Audit Investigation to Prepare Doctoral Students for Social Justice
Leadership.” Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development 12 (4): 341–52.
doi:10.1080/13664530802579926.
Hawkins, B., and G. Edwards. 2015. “Managing the Monsters of Doubt: Liminality, Threshold Concepts and Leadership
Learning.” Management Learning 46 (1): 24–43. doi:10.1177/1350507613501736.
Higher Education Research Institute. 1996. A Social Change Model of Leadership Development. Los Angeles, CA: University
of California.
Iles, P., and D. Preece. 2006. “Developing Leaders or Developing Leadership? The Academy of Chief Executives’
Programmes in the North East of England.” Leadership 2 (3): 317–40. doi:10.1177/1742715006066024.
International Leadership Association. 2009. Guiding Questions: Guidelines for Leadership Education Programs. http://www.
ila-net.org/Communities/LC/GuidingQuestionsFinal.pdf.
Jackson, N. J. 2010. “From a Curriculum That Integrates Work to a Curriculum That Integrates Life: Changing a University’s
Conceptions of Curriculum.” Higher Education Research and Development 29 (5): 491–505. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.
502218.
Kaufman, E. K., R. J. Rateau, H. S. Carter, and L. Strickland. 2012. “What’s Context Got To Do With It? An Exploration of
Leadership Development Programs for the Agricultural Community.” Journal of Leadership Education 11 (1): 121–
39. doi:10.12806/v11/i1/rf7.
Keller, H. H., J. McCullough, B. Davidson, E. Vesnaver, M. Laporte, L. Gramlich, J. Allard, P. Bernier, D. Duerksen, and K.
Jeejeebhoy. 2015. “The Intergrated Nutrition Pathway for Acute Care (INPAC): Building Consensus with a Modified
Delphi.” Nutrition Journal 14 (63): 1–12. doi:10.1186/s12937-015-0051-y.
Keup, J. 2010. “National Context and Institutional Practice: Findings from a National Survey of Peer Leadership
Experiences and Outcomes.” Paper presented at the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition’s Institute on Peer Educators, Indianapolis, October, 17–19.
Kezar, A. J., R. Carducci, and M. Contreras-McGavin. 2006. Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education Vol. 31. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley Periodicals Inc.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 115

Kiersch, C., and J. Peters. 2017. “Leadership From the Inside Out: Student Leadership Development Within Authentic
Leadership and Servant Leadership Frameworks.” Journal of Leadership Education 16 (1): 148–68. doi:1012806/V16/
I1/T4.
Komives, S. R., J. E. Owen, S. D. Longerbeam, F. C. Mainella, and L. Osteen. 2005. “Developing a Leadership Identity: A
Grounded Theory.” Journal of College Student Development 46 (6): 593–611. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0061.
Komives, S. R., J. E. Owen, S. D. Longerbeam, F. C. Mainella, and L. Osteen. 2006. “A Leadership Identity Development
Model: Applications From a Grounded Theory.” Journal of College Student Development 47 (4): 401–18. doi:10.1353/
csd.2006.0048.
Komives, S. R., and W. Wagner. 2009. Leadership For a Better World: Understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership
Development. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Leigh, J. A., J. Rutherford, J. Wild, J. Cappleman, and C. Hynes. 2012. “Using the Patchwork Text Assessment as a Vehicle for
Evaluating Students’ Perceptions of Their Clinical Leadership Development.” Nurse Education in Practice 12: 46–51.
doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2011.05.006.
Logue, C., T. Hutchens, and M. Hector. 2005. “Student Leadership: A Phenomenological Exploration of Postsecondary
Experiences.” Journal of College Student Development 46 (4): 393–408. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0039.
Lowden, K., S. Hall, D. Elliott, and J. Lewin. 2011. “Employers’ Perceptions of the Employability Skills of New Graduates.”
Report of research commissioned by the Edge Foundation. University of Glasgow SCRE Centre and Edge Foundation.
https://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/docs/Graduate_employability_skills%202011.pdf.
Makel, M. C., and J. A. Plucker. 2014. “Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences.”
Educational Researcher 43 (6): 304–16. doi:10.3102/0013189×14545513.
McCauley-Smith, C., S. J. Williams, A. C. Gillonc, and A. Braganzad. 2015. “Making Sense of Leadership Development:
Developing a Community of Education Leaders.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (2): 311–28. doi:10.1080/03075079.
2013.842209.
McPhail, C. J., M. Robinson, and H. Scott. 2008. “The Cohort Leadership Development Model: Student Perspectives.”
Community College Journal of Research and Practice 32 (4–6): 362–74. doi:10.1080/10668920701884539.
Newby, T. J., and A. Heide. 1992. “The Value of Mentoring.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 5 (4): 2–15.
Oliver, B. 2013. “Graduate Attributes as a Focus for Institution-Wide Curriculum Renewal: Innovations and Challenges.”
Higher Education Research & Development 32 (3): 450–63. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.682052.
Osmani, M., V. Weerakkody, N. M. Hindi, R. Al-Esmail, T. Eldabi, K. Kapoor, and Z. Irani. 2015. “Identifying the Trends and
Impact of Graduate Attributes on Employability: A Literature Review.” Tertiary Education and Management 21 (4): 367–
79. doi:10.1080/13583883.2015.1114139.
Osteen, L., and M. B. Coburn. 2012. “Considering Context: Developing Students’ Leadership Capacity.” New Directions for
Student Services 140: 5–15. doi:10.1002/ss.20028.
Ostrom-Blonigen, J., S. E. Bornsen, C. Larson-Casselton, and S. L. Erickson. 2010. “Bridging Student Leadership Assessment
Across a Three-Institution Consortium.” Communication Teacher 24 (4): 247–57. doi:10.1080/17404622.2010.513004.
Owen, J. E. 2008. “Towards an Empirical Typology of Collegiate Leadership Development Programs: Examining Effects on
Student Self-Efficacy and Leadership for Social Change.” PhD diss., University of Maryland. http://hdl.handle.net/1903/
8491.
Pitman, T., and S. Broomhall. 2009. “Australian Universities, Generic Skills and Lifelong Learning.” International Journal of
Lifelong Education 28 (4): 439–58. doi:10.1080/02601370903031280.
Rasmussen, L. B., and S. Hansen. 2016. “Learning Facilitation Leadership.” Studies in Higher Education, 1–23. doi:10.1080/
03075079.2016.1266612.
Reinelt, C., and C. Russon. 2003. “Evaluating the Outcomes and Impacts of Leadership Development Programs: Selected
Findings and Lessons Learned From a Scan of Fifty-Five Programs.” In Building Leadership Bridges, edited by C. Cherrey,
J. Gardiner, and N. Huber, 119–36. College Park, MD: International Leadership Association.
Rosch, D. M., and M. D. Anthony. 2012. “Leadership Pedagogy: Putting Theory to Practice.” New Directions for Student
Services 140: 37–51. doi:10.1002/ss.20030.
Seemiller, C., and T. Murray. 2013. “The Common Language of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership Studies 7 (1): 33–45.
doi:10.1002/jls.21277.
Shook, J. L., and J. R. Keup. 2012. “The Benefits of Peer Leader Programs: An Overview From the Literature.” New Directions
for Higher Education 157: 5–16. doi:10.1002/he.20002.
Shriberg, M., and K. Harris. 2012. “Building Sustainability Change Management and Leadership Skills in Students: Lessons
Learned From “Sustainability and the Campus” at the University of Michigan.” Journal of Environmental Studies and
Sciences 2 (2): 154–64. doi:10.1007/s13412-012-0073-0.
Simpson, A. E., G. J. Evans, and D. Reeve. 2012. “A Summer Leadership Development Program for Chemical Engineering
Students.” Journal of Leadership Education 11 (1): 222–32. doi:10.12806/v11/i1/ab1.
Skalicky, J., and A. Caney. 2010. “PASS Student Leader and Mentor Roles: A Tertiary Leadership Pathway.” Journal of Peer
Learning 3 (1): 24–37. http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol3/iss1/4.
Stough, T., W. Lambrechts, K. Ceulemans, and L. Rothe. 2013. “Empowering Student Leadership for Sustainability in
Higher Education: Looking Internally to Find Ways to Foster Change Agents.” Paper presented at the 7th
Conference of the Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU), Istanbul, Turkey, June 4–7.
116 J. SKALICKY ET AL.

Tingle, J. K., C. Cooney, S. E. Asbury, and S. Tate. 2013. “Developing a Student Employee Leadership Program: The
Importance of Evaluating Effectiveness.” Recreational Sports Journal 37 (1): 2–13. doi:10.1123/rsj.37.1.2.
Velasco, M. S. 2012. “More Than Just Good Grades: Candidates’ Perceptions About the Skills and Attributes Employers
Seek in New Graduates.” Journal of Business Economics and Management 13 (3): 499–517. doi:10.3846/16111699.
2011.620150.
White, J. V. 2012. “Students’ Perception of the Role of Reflection in Leadership Learning.” Journal of Leadership Education
11 (2): 140–56. doi:10.12806/v11/i2/rf8.
Wooten, B. M., J. S. Hunt, B. F. LeDuc, and P. Poskus. 2012. “Peer Leadership in the Co-Curriculum: Turning Campus
Activities Into an Educationally Purposeful Enterprise.” New Directions for Higher Education 157: 45–58. doi:10.1002/
he.20005.
Wren, J. T. 1995. The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. NY: The Free Press.
Zimmerman-Oster, K., and J. C. Burkhardt. 2000. “Leadership in the Making: Impact and Insights from Leadership
Development Programs in U.S. Colleges and Universities.” Executive Summary of report to W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446577.pdf.