Monday, April 9, 2012
Slice of humble pie anyone???
Sunday, March 18, 2012
It's all about balance!
This has been quite a hectic week and the weekend didn't get any better. When we gave our presentations during Poster Day, one of our faculty members reminded us that there is life after dissertation...and that we need to keep things in perspecive. Dance has been a huge part of my life and I contemplated giving it up for a bit when I was accepted into the Ed.D program. I didn't know how I would find time for both. But, it has been my sanity and saving grace during all the stressful dissertation times. So, I'm glad I didn't...However, on weekends such as this, I wonder how I'm going to get it all done...but you know what, somehow I managed.
So...this weekend was about my dance team's tech rehearsal and my literature review. With the proper balance and support from my professors, Philly cohort and friends and family, I managed to get both done. So...now I'm ready for the actual show...I'm attaching the flyer in case anyone wants to come and watch...AND, I'm also copying and pasting my Literature Review for anyone who would like to read it...both are things I'm very proud of...
So...this weekend was about my dance team's tech rehearsal and my literature review. With the proper balance and support from my professors, Philly cohort and friends and family, I managed to get both done. So...now I'm ready for the actual show...I'm attaching the flyer in case anyone wants to come and watch...AND, I'm also copying and pasting my Literature Review for anyone who would like to read it...both are things I'm very proud of...
A Review of Literature
Dr. Joyce Pittman
EDUC815
Review of Literature
Introduction of the Problem
Higher education is poised to lose between one-fifth and one-third of its senior administration by 2015 (Hugo as cited in Fullan, 2009, p.6). In order to plan for the loss of senior leadership in our colleges and universities, and to better prepare for the imminent leadership crises in higher education (Leubsdorf, as cited in Betts et al., 2009), higher education institutions must embrace the concept of leadership training to aid the development of future leaders within their organizations. However, attendance in training programs alone may not be enough to develop leadership efficacy. Trainees must be able to put the knowledge they have gained into action. As such, trainees must receive support and coaching to promote positive training transfer.
Conceptual Framework
This study builds upon the Training Transfer Model proposed by Burke & Hutchins (2008). This model highlights the need to engage multiple stakeholders in the training transfer process including peers/colleagues as well as supervisors. Burke and Hutchins content that that peer and colleague support has a stronger influence on transfer than just supervisory support (Burke & Hutchins, 2008). This model also points out the fact that the training transfer process is not time bound and entrenched in a particular time phase; as such, solutions to the transfer problem should be process that evolves and transpires throughout the entire instructional design process.
Review of Literature
Organizations of all types and sizes are facing a myriad of leadership challenges (Groves, 2007). In addition, a rapidly aging workforce may create a shortfall of experienced senior level administrators or leaders (Rothwell, 2002). Higher education is not immune to these challenges and given its unique environment, faces an even tougher struggle to identify and train their future leaders.
Many organizations, including a few higher education institutions, are now seeing the value of leadership training and education programs. In 2002, the average U.S. employer spent an estimated 2.2 percent of the payroll dollars on education and training (Segue, as cited in Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). However, research has shown that this investment may not be paying off as only 10-15% of employee training results in transfer to the workplace (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). With this in mind, this literature review will focus on the following topics: a) a better understanding of academe and its current leaders; b) leadership coaching; and c) training transfer. Understanding these areas will provide higher education institutions with vital information necessary to prepare their future leaders for success in an ever-changing environment.
Academe and its Leaders
There is no doubt that academia is becoming more like a business (Gonzalez, 2010). In its present form, higher education represents about 3% of the country’s gross national product (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d., para. 1). However, it has not inherited corporate America’s “tradition of developing leadership through succession planning” wholeheartedly (Gonzalez, 2010). In his book, “How the Mighty Fall,” Jim Collins (2009) suggests that no one leader can build a great empire, but the wrong leader can single-handedly bring a company down (p.62). Therefore, it is extremely important for higher education institutions to think clearly about the processes in place to hire and nurture current and future college leaders.
In her article, “Leadership, Diversity and Succession Planning,” Gonzalez (2010) indicates that succession planning is the key to sustainability, and stresses that all successful enterprises are engaged in “some sort of talent management, whether they do it openly or in secret” (p.2). Successful organizations outside of academe normally hire their chief executive officers from within. Oddly enough, in higher education, only 19% of college presidents surveyed in 2005 were internal candidates (Blumetsky, as cited in Gonzalez, 2010).
Academe and traditional business organizations value leaders differently (Bisbee &Miller, n.d.). Bisbee (2007) goes on to say that while corporate succession plans work on identifying leaders through a formal structure, higher education professionals rise through the ranks via excellence in their research and teaching. Therefore, it is no surprise that the traditional first step up the academic career ladder is that of department chair. A majority of faculty members enter this role unprepared to serve as academic administrators. As a result, 80% of department chairs return to faculty positions once their appointment ends (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004).
While national organizations such as the American Council on Education (ACE) have created leadership training programs for senior administrators, very little is being done at the institution level to grow leaders from within (Gonzalez, 2010). In addition, most of these programs are reserved for top level leadership and not necessarily focused at the development of new/young talent.
In response to the looming leadership shortage in higher education, the Council on Independent Colleges (CIC) commissioned two reports to study the career paths of their Chief Academic Officers and Presidents (Hartley and Godin, 2009 & 2010). This study provides tremendous insight as to where academic leaders are coming from and the preparation they are (or are not) gaining throughout their careers.
In their study regarding presidents at independent colleges, Hartley and Godin (2009) used data from a 2006 survey of first-time presidents (567 respondents). Their findings reveal the following significant facts:
· First-time presidents were less likely to have been hired internally.
· In 2006, the average age of presidents at CIC institutions was 60, with 49% over the age of 60.
· With the “graying of the presidency,” it is vital to create programs that identify and prepare potential presidential candidates.
Hartley and Godin’s (2009) conclusion that CIC presidents are less likely to have served as Chief Academic Officers (CAO), caused severe concern among trustees regarding the pool of qualified candidates groomed for the presidency. This concern was the driving force behind the study on Chief Academic Officers - the second executive leader of the institution behind the president (Hartley & Godin, 2010). The findings from the 2008 survey of 1,140 CAOs revealed the following significant points:
· In 2008, the average age of Chief Academic Officers was 57.
· CAOs were more likely to have been appointed by the faculty.
· CAOs were less likely to have participated in formal off-campus leadership development programs prior to assuming the role of CAO.
· CAOs show high levels of satisfaction with their work yet do not stay in their positions long (average 4.3 years).
Gabelnick (as cited in Kezam, 2009) makes the case that the biggest challenge in academe, particularly for its leaders, is the ability to understand and appreciate the intricacies of organizational processes and the ability to develop the aptitude to deal with these issues. There is no platform for faculty and administrators to develop these leadership capacities (Kezam, 2009). Thus, there is a clear need for training programs that encourage faculty and administrators to think creatively about leadership development within higher education.
Higher education is in an era where the public is demanding accountability and an opportunity to support economic development and growth (Kezam, 2009). As such, much is asked of leaders in this industry. There is an increasing need to open the doors to a broader band of leaders who might be able to provide new and different perspectives and approaches to leading these institutions. Undoubtedly there is a gap in the literature around empirical research on leadership training programs and the impact it has on higher education
Leadership Coaching
William Rothwell, a professor an industry expert on workplace development, outlines the role of coaching and how it relates to leader development and succession planning (2010). He deems that coaching is truly a means to building talent within an organization. While not a new concept, coaching has become increasingly important within organizations as they develop and implement leadership training programs and succession planning models. Rothwell (2010) stresses the need to differentiate training – which is planned and focused – from coaching – which is more spontaneous and driven by moment-by-moment efforts to help individuals perform.
Leadership coaching/mentoring has been a common occurrence in the business world for a number of years. According to Groves (2007), the research done on mentoring relationships in organization provides strong evidence that employees with mentors are much more likely to experience positive outcomes such as enhanced job performance, greater opportunity for promotions and compensation and an overall positive view on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. His study of 30 CEOs and senior Human Resource Personnel across 15 US healthcare systems has shown that the inclusion of informal mentoring is highly important to the success of an organization. Among his findings, Groves noted that an organization should develop their mentor network by engaging all managers in mentoring relationships with their direct reports as well as high potential employees in other departments.
The health care industry is also facing a challenge with regards to leader development. Rapid changes within the industry demands strong leadership at all levels and mentoring relationships extremely important (McAlearney, 2005). McAlearny (2005) synthesizes two studies; 1) a qualitative study done which comprised of 160 informant interviews representing health care organizations, industry associations, academic institutions and consulting firms, and 2) a quantitative study of about 5000 US hospital and health systems chief executives. Both studies focused on what has been done, what is currently being done, and what can be done in the future. Both studies showed that industry leaders have participated in leadership development programs in the past but could not recall any formal mentoring programs. The current state of the industry revealed that there is increased interest in formal mentoring programs throughout the trade and that recent additions and focuses are made with regards to program for women and diverse groups. Both the quantitative and qualitative studies show that leadership development and mentoring are not new concepts to the health care field but are still not widely used.
The American Society for Training and Development (1995) reports that 85% of companies engaging in leadership development programs do so by using formal classroom programs. Corporations are quickly discovering that these programs are not sufficient and suffer from transfer of training challenges in addition to cost-prohibitive matters (Day, 2001). Reviews of empirical studies on formal mentoring programs show that these initiatives have greater potential as leadership development tools (Kim, 2007). However, Kim (2007) suggests that there is a gap between the impact that the interpersonal relationship between mentor/mentee on successful coaching. In addition, studies focus primarily on the impact these programs have on the mentee’s growth and development. Studies should also focus on the impact/benefit that coaching has on the coach’s leadership development.
However, as the previous section highlighted, change such as this is often slow to enter the education realm (Gonzalez, 2010) and leadership coaching in education is a relatively new concept (Hammack & Wise, 2011). Nonetheless, a few schools across the nation are slowly starting to embrace this concept. In a recent study conducted by Hammack and Wise (2011) on 325 elementary school principles, findings showed that females, minorities, first-time principals and principals at low-achieving schools received coaching at higher percentages than their colleagues. Hammack’s study implies that school leaders do indeed consider coaching, coaching competencies and best practices as important. In addition, the participants felt that identification of coaching competencies is related to the creation and implementation of “best practices”.
Leadership coach, Mike Bossi (2008) decided to challenge his own profession and ask the question “does leadership coaching really work?” To answer this, he followed the first two cohorts of a training program designed for new principals in California where coaching was large part of the curriculum. He argues that leading adults in an educational setting is immensely different from teaching children in a classroom which the new principals are mostly well versed in doing. Thus, it was no surprise that California principals tend to leave their position within three years. His findings showed that participation in this program positively affected the academic performance index at the schools of 40 out of the 50 participating principals. In addition, out of these 50 new principles, only four left their position and the district in which they received their coaching. Bossi’s research emphasizes that coaching is more than an apprenticeship as it provides the trainee with continuous, supportive and positive “chatter.”
Training Transfer
Organizations currently spend billions of dollars in training and educational programs each year. However, much of the training competencies and knowledge fail to transfer to the workplace (Grossman & Salas, 2011). According to Burke and Hutchins (2008), information regarding guidelines and best practices for positive training transfer is given inadequate attention and is often anecdotal. Leading experts in training transfer have provided critical analysis of this issue, and have fueled the fire for conceptual and empirical research to attempt to bridge the gap between training and workplace performance (e.g., Baldwin & Ford, 1988, 2009). In sum, the literature highlights three factors that affect training transfer – trainee/learner characteristics, program/intervention design and delivery and work environment.
According to Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) research, while there are a variety of trainee characteristics that might influence training transfer, the trainees’ initial ability and motivation to learn and implement their new skills play a primary role in the transfer process. A more recent literature review conducted by Burke and Hutchins (2008) identified the following learner characteristics that influence transfer: a) intellectual ability, b) self-efficacy, c) motivation level, d) personality, and e) job/career variables. Also, the training design is impacted heavily by identical elements/stimuli throughout the process giving trainees numbers of opportunities to repeatedly practice the skill even after correct performance has been proven (Baldwin & Ford, 1988, 2009). This is sometimes known as “overlearning” (Burke & Hutchins, 2008). It is also important to ensure that trainees gain knowledge regarding general rules and theoretical principles that underlie the training program content rather than just focusing on specific applicable skills.
Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) review of literature was extremely limited in this area. Although there was little empirical evidence at the time, they alluded to the fact that supervisory support affects training transfer. Much has been discovered since their original research. The review conducted by Burke & Hutchins in 2008 reported the following work environment factors influencing training transfer; a) strategic linkage of training, b) transfer climate, c) supervisory and peer support, and d) accountability. Supervisory support along with the opportunity to practice the newly learned skills rated high as best practices (Burke & Hutchins, 2008). A recent finding of Burke and Hutchins (2008) shows that peer/colleague support plays an important role in the training transfer as well. In addition, they discovered that transfer cannot be isolated to a single time period. As such, job aids and training tools/coaching must occur at all stages of the training/learning program – before, during and after.
Cromwell and Kolb (2004) conducted a study to examine supervisory and peer support as factors in training transfer over a period of time after the training completion – one month, six months and one year. Most transfer training interventions occur in a relatively short time frame after the program’s completion and at just one point in time (Gaudine & Saks, 2004). This does not account for the maintenance of transfer and does not provide a short-term and long-term measure. Trainees and supervisors alike completed questionnaires and top manager were also surveyed. Results revealed that all four work-environment factors showed a positive correlation with training transfer. Furthermore, trainees who received higher levels of support showed that they were applying the knowledge they gained at a higher level. Trainees who perceived higher levels of peer support indicated that they were applying their new knowledge at a higher level.
A recent study by Martin (2010) examined two factors that affect training transfer – work environment and peer support. In particular, Martin looked at how close and immediate the factors are to the trainee and the impact that may have on transfer. Peer support is more immediate to the trainee (proximal) while work climate is more distant (distal). Results showed that positive exposure to both distal and proximal factors had a positive effect on training transfer. In addition, the results revealed that peer support (proximal factor) can help in overcoming the effects of a negative work environment (distal factor). Martin’s findings are in line with the literature and show that in order to maximize the organization’s return on investment and to impact positive transfer, support must be provided to trainees before, during and after the training.
Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang (2010) conducted a meta-analytic review of training transfer. In their review, the group conducted a search of empirical studies between training and several demographic and personality variables. Their review of the 89 empirical studies showed that transfer of training is indeed affected by a variety of factors. The meta-analystic review found meaningful correlation between work environment and transfer, and, in particular to the support the trainee receives from their peers and supervisors along with the climate and organizational limitations. The review also noted a relationship between the knowledge transfer and the time between when the training occurred and when training transfer was occurring – the greater the time between the training and the opportunity to transfer, training knowledge and transfer did decline.
Conclusion
The review on literature surrounding higher education leadership training programs and training transfer has shown that there has been very little research done regarding the actual implementation of these programs and positive training transfer. Although these areas have been of interest since the late 80’s, there is much that still needs to be learned. New information regarding the factors affecting positive training transfer has emerged and should be tested so that they may be included in the guidelines and best practices offered to the industry. This study will help to bridge the gap between the knowledge and information gained through leadership training programs and their successful transfer into the workplace. In particular, it will look at the effects of coaching before, during and after the training program on positive training transfer.
In order to be ready for higher education’s leadership shortage and to succeed in today’s ever-changing environment, higher education institutions must seriously think about highly effective and cost-efficient ways of preparing and training their next generation of leaders. As such, it is not enough to support and encourage participation in leadership training programs. Institutions must also create an environment where positive training transfer can occur.
References
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Grant writing...
In a former life...long, long time ago...my job entailed grant writing! It was a tedious process, but well worth it when the approval came through. It's been quite some time since that job and my grant writing skills have started to dwindle. However, I have had to resurrect these skills for my EDUC 815 class. It seems as if I didn't forget all that much since my professor rather enjoyed my proposal and if it were up to her she would have funded my research! If only I knew that...I would've applied for real!!!
But...thought I'd share my mock proposal...it was fun - or maybe I'm just saying that because I don't do it everyday!
Earle
Mack School of Law at Drexel University Office of Admissions, Philadelphia, PA
Johnson
C. Smith University Office of Undergraduate Admissions, Charlotte, NC
University
of South Carolina School of Law Office of Admission, Columbia, SC
Northeastern
University School of Law Office of Admission, Boston, MA
Associate Director of Admission –
June 2002 – August 2007
·
Assisted
the Director with the development and implementation of annual marketing and
recruitment plans
·
Developed
and implemented diversity recruitment strategies for groups such as students of
color, GLBT and non-traditional students
·
Reviewed
admission applications and render decisions
·
Responsible
for tracking trends for diversity during the application process
·
Developed
and managed student volunteer efforts for campus programs
·
Represented
the law school through nationwide travel to various law forums and panels
But...thought I'd share my mock proposal...it was fun - or maybe I'm just saying that because I don't do it everyday!
Spencer
Grant Proposal
Dr. Pittman
Proposal
Cover Sheet
Administering
Organization Information
Name of Organization: Drexel
University
Address: 3200 Market St
City / State / Zip code /
Country: Philadelphia, PA 19104
Website: www.drexel.edu
Proposal
Information
Project Title: Impact of coaching
on training transfer
Requested Amount: $15,000
Duration: 10 months.
Start date: May 1, 2012
Primary Spencer Area of Inquiry:
Education and Social Change
Additional Spencer Area(s) of
Inquiry:
Principal
Investigator Information
Name: Maria-Isabel DiSciullo
Title: Graduate Student
Department/School: Goodwin College
at Drexel University
Organization: Drexel University
Mailing Address: 901 N. Broad
Street #205
City / State / Zip code /
Country: Philadelphia, PA 19123
Office Phone: 215-895-1529
Fax: 215-571-4769
Primary email: md674@drexel.edu
Website:
Your submission should be
addressed to the Spencer Area of Inquiry under which your proposal primarily
falls. (Please do not send your proposal
to more than one area.)
Mailing
Address
Spencer
Foundation
Attn:
(Primary Area of Inquiry)
625
N. Michigan Avenue
Suite
1600
Chicago,
IL 60611
Abstract
Higher
education in America has evolved dramatically since its humble beginnings in the
1700s with the founding of the nine colonial colleges. It began as an industry governed by 36
administrators with a “college
president” elected by his peers (Durnin,1961)
to serve as “head disciplinarian, teacher, spiritual counselor, father and role
model for men in his care (Schmidt,
as cited in Rile, 2001). Today,
higher education represents more than 7000 accredited institutions (Council for Higher Education
Accreditation [CHEA], n.d.) and must be staffed by numerous administrators
and senior level personnel. This growth
brought more formal organization to higher education administration and saw the
rise in positions such as deans and academic department chairs (Rile, 2001). Bisbee and Miller (n.d.) posit that the
current roles of the department chair, associate dean and dean have become more
complex and multi-dimensional. As such
higher education institutions have begun to see the need for leadership
training programs at all levels.
However, the creation of and participation in these programs are not
enough. A strong emphasis must also be
placed on the transfer of training to ensure that higher education leaders are
able to utilize the knowledge and skills they have gained in the training and
educational sessions in their day-to-day lives.
Personal Statement
My
Journey…
It is February in Philadelphia
and while others may grumble at the frigid temperatures, I revel in my new
home. I don my winter boots and begin
my short walk to the train which will take me into University City for another
day at work. As I slowly make my way to
the train, I reflect on my professional career and the many “homes” it has
taken me to.
I
was born in the Philippines to parents of Spanish-Filipino descent. My first home was a
multi-lingual/multi-cultural one. Spanish was the lingua franca within my
father’s side of the family while on my
mother side, it was Bisaya (Cebuano), the language spoken in the southwestern
part of the Philippines. We communicated
with the household help in Pilipino, the Philippine national language. In school, only English was allowed, and we
were penalized if we were caught speaking any other language.
While we were certainly not rich,
my family fared quite well. I was given
the opportunity to take horseback riding lesson and my family held memberships
at several private country clubs. My
brothers and I attended the crème dela crème of the country’s private
schools. Back then, however, school to
us was just a venue for meeting friends and hatching out plans and strategies
to “escape” the ever- watchful eyes of the nannies our parents had hired to
watch over us.
Shortly before I turned 10, my
parents feared the political unrest in the Philippines and decided to move the
family to a tiny island in the Pacific.
Saipan in the Northern Marianas, an island 15 miles long and 5 miles,
wide became my new home. While the
tropical surroundings were indeed beautiful, it was a long way from my country
club lifestyle. Gone was my world of
equestrian competitions and private schools.
In this new environment, we were literally living a hand-to-mouth
existence. My brothers and I found
ourselves enrolled in public schools.
It was a difficult transition for us.
Eventually, my parents found
solid, stable jobs and life became a bit easier. My father finally found a managerial
position with one of the top construction firms in the island, and my mom
earned a spot with the public school system.
It became clear to me then, that it was their education that helped us
get ahead. But I also noticed that it
went deeper than that. Both my parents
rose to become respected leaders in their industry and I saw, first-hand, the
impact leadership efficacy and development had on their overall success. Inspired by their lead, I decided to focus on
my studies and give the public school a shot.
My hard work paid off. I
graduated number 7 in my class, and earned a full-tuition scholarship to
Bentley College in Waltham, MA.
January 1990 found me in the
Northeast braving the cold weather to begin my college career. I embraced all the opportunities that my new
home afforded me. I decided on
marketing for a major and filled it in with philosophy classes to round out my
minor. As I moved on with college
life, I joined various clubs and
organizations and met people from all walks of life. I began to develop my leadership capacity and
dabbled in a few organizational behavior courses. I finally understood what it meant to learn
both in and out of the classroom.
Shortly before graduation, the
Admissions Director at Bentley suggested I stay on for a one year contract
position she had opened. Having enjoyed
my experiences at the college, I jumped at the chance to recruit prospective
students for my alma mater. The position
gave me the chance to travel the country as I met with various students and
guidance counselors. More importantly,
it helped me realize my passion for helping students find their path to higher
education. The one year contract
position turned into an 8 year stint at Bentley’s admissions office followed by
6 years at Northeastern University Law School’s Office of Admissions. At this point, there was no question that
higher education and its pursuit had become my career – my passion.
In 2005, having “sold” higher
education to numerous students around the country, I decided it was my turn to
further my educational experiences. I
enrolled at Northeastern University’s Graduate School to pursue a master’s
degree in leadership. While I had some
hesitation about returning to the classroom after being out for so long, it
didn’t take me long to realize how much I had missed school and how much I love
learning. It was truly an eye-opening
experience as I l discovered the many joys and challenges of leading a team,
particularly within the higher education arena. My master’s coursework inspired me to
advance in the field of higher education and gave me the confidence to take the
next step up in my career.
After graduation, I left the
comforts of Boston – my home for over 17 years - and moved to the Carolinas to
head my own Admissions Office at the University of South Carolina in
Columbia. Learning is truly a lifelong
process and although I was no longer in the classroom, learning for me pressed
on as I began to take in new experiences getting acclimated in my new
“home.” The south has a lot of history
and the people are deeply rooted in their traditions. In the Carolinas, I had the privilege of
working for a flagship state university and then for a historically renowned
black college and university – both of which have been in existence for over
150 years. Working at these two
institutions brought to the forefront the learning I gained while earning my
master’s degree. What I had learned
helped me immensely as I strived to strike a balance between honoring the past
and inspiring change for the future.
These roles allowed me to hone my skills as a leader in higher education
and instill the importance of leadership development and growth to my team
members.
There’s an old cliché that says
the only constant in life is change.
Never has this been truer than in my own life. The many changes that I have gone through in
the short span of 39 years have brought home the realization that my true
passion lies in education. As I think
back, I realize I am where I am because of the many opportunities afforded me
and because of the support of so many.
With this in mind, I strive as much as I can to level off the playing
field of admission, so to speak, to afford every applicant, regardless of race,
sex and religion, the opportunity to compete.
In doing so, I hope to open up for them windows of opportunity – much
like I was given - in order for them to
succeed.
The journey I started is not
finished yet. It took me 10 years to go
back to graduate school. This time, my
wait was shorter. My new home of
Philadelphia has opened up another window of opportunity for me to keep alive
my quest for new learning – both in and out of the classroom. I feel so blessed and a bit lucky for the
chance to further my life’s passion and my career. I feel confident that the new insights and
perspectives I am gaining in Drexel’s Ed.D in Educational Leadership and
Management program will give me the chance to better the admission program of
the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University and at the same time
strengthen my goal to provide better support for to my peers and colleagues
in higher education as they work on
their own leadership efficacy.
The sound of the approaching
train brings me back to the present, and I join the morning rush to board the
train. Yes, I am in a new home and in a
new job. And, while the city may be
different, my job and my passion remain in higher education. With my Ed.D, I hope to continue to advance
in my field and help other departments within colleges and universities grow as
a team, and as such, build their own leadership efficacy. Admissions is my first love, but leadership
development and training is my true love and passion. As the train begins to move slowly, I smile
as I realize that my life is changing once again and I am ready to take on
whatever new opportunity it has to offer.
My journey continues and, maybe one day soon, I will be able to hang my
own shingle…
Issa
DiSciullo
Leadership
Trainer
Specialty:
Higher Education Institutions
Introduction
The field of higher education has
dramatically evolved over the last 300 years.
What began as nine colonial colleges with about 130 graduates (Dugan, 2001) and less than 50
administrators in the mid-1700s, has grown into an industry of over 7000
accredited institutions (CHEA, 2008)
with over 15 million students pursuing undergraduate and graduate studies in
2003 (Betts, Urias, Chavez, &
Betts, 2009). As the demand for higher education continues to grow, so do
the roles of college administrators. In
addition, higher education is seeing an aging senior administration. It is projected that by 2014 there will be
over 6000 open positions at various colleges and universities Leubsdorf, as
cited in Betts et al., 2009).
In its report on the Chief
Academic Officers, the American Council on Education indicated the mean ages
for college presidents are 61 and 57 for Chief Academic Officers. According to Leubsdorf (as cited in Betts et al,
2009), there will be at least a 50% turnover among senior college
administrators in the next 5-10 years.
Complicating matters is the fact that there are currently three
generations of workers in the work place working side by side with the youngest
generation being the experts in technological advances (Weston, 2001).
Colleges
and universities must begin now to identify candidates to fill the projected
job openings and ensure that future leaders are
not only in place to continue higher education’s upward trajectory to
success, but must be also armed with the necessary skills needed to continue
managing higher education’s
rise. Hammack and Wise (2011) state
that “today’s educational leaders face a myriad of challenges on a daily basis,
often finding themselves in a reactive mode to fragmented information and
complex issues” (p.449). It is essential
that higher education leaders possess the proper skills and competencies
required of leaders in the 21st century. As a result, organizations including higher
educational institutions have begun to spend over $125 billion on employee
development and training each year (Paradise,
2007). The sad reality, however, is that the “training expenditures
seemingly do not transfer to the job”(Grossman & Salas, 2011). According to Georgenson (1982) only 10% of
training expenditures actually transfer to the job. This indicates a glaring gap between training
efforts and organizational outcomes (Grossman
& Salas, 2011). To overcome this imbalance, it is urgently necessary to
examine the transfer of training opportunities as higher education
professionals increase their participation in and focus on leadership training
programs.
Problem
Statement
Higher education will lose
between one-fifth and one-third of its members by 2015 (Hugo, as cited in Fullan & Scott,
2009, p. 6) In order to plan for
the loss of senior leadership in our colleges and universities, and to better
prepare for the imminent leadership crises in higher education (Leubsdorf, as
cited in Betts et al., 2009), higher education institutions must ensure that
they are training their leaders for success.
Not only is it important that administrators at all levels be involved
in leadership training programs, but a strong focus must be placed on the
transfer of training as well. It is
essential to an organization’s success to ensure that the skills that training
participants are gaining at their sessions are successfully transferred and
implemented into their job environment.
Purpose of Study
This study will examine
a major university’s Enrollment Management (EM) team to explore the effects
that coaching has on training transfer and leader development. In particular, the research will focus on the
coaching support the Directors receive from their respective supervisors (i.e.,
Assistant Vice-Presidents or AVPs) and their peers before, during, and after a
leadership training program to determine the impact that coaching has on
transfer of the leadership skills that the Directors will learn in the
training. Transfer of training or transfer of learning is the process of
ensuring that off-the-job training translates into on-the-job behavioral change
(Rothwell, 2002).
Contribution to the Field
It is important to study the
transfer of training process in order to identify techniques to ensure that
knowledge gained at these learning sessions are successfully transferred into the workplace. Research has shown that effective transfer
training positively affects productivity, work quality, motivation, employee
morale and teamwork (Salas &
Stagl, 2009). A closer examination
of the factors that affect training transfer will provide training
professionals at colleges and universities with important information regarding
program content and design as well as coaching opportunities that could lead to
successful transfer of knowledge by the training participant. Consequently, colleges and universities will
be able to better ensure that skills and knowledge gained by training participants
are positively impacting the organization
At a time of increasing accountability and ever-diminishing resources,
this is of prime importance and very necessary.
Purpose and Significance of this
Research
A recent study indicated that 40%
of training participants failed to transfer the knowledge they gained
immediately after training, 70% faltered a year after the program, and
ultimately only 50% of training investment resulted in organizational
improvement (Saks & Belcourt,
2006). Therefore, the purpose of
this study is to examine if coaching by immediate supervisors and peers may
help in successful training transfer for leadership training in a higher
education institution. The results of
this mixed methods research will make a significant contribution to the extant
research on positive training transfer by identifying how supervisors and peers
can facilitate transfer of leadership training through coaching. Most
importantly, examining the nature of coaching at different time points (i.e.,
before, during, and after a leadership training program) will help to
understand how supportive relationships at work can help trainees manage the
transition in terms of letting go old ways before they participate in training
(unfreezing), altering attitudes and behaviors during the training program (moving),
and making the altered behavior pattern as taught in training to become a
stable part of day to day activities at work after training (refreezing)
(Lewin, 1947). Understanding the factors
that support positive leadership training transfer will assist human resources
departments as well as senior administrators in developing training programs
where participants are able to implement and practice their knowledge/skills to
positively affect the organizations efficiency and productivity as leaders
Conceptual
Framework
This
study builds upon the Training Transfer Model proposed by Burke and Hutchins
(2008). This model merges concepts
presented by previous models presented by Baldwin and Ford (1988), Laird, Naquin, & Holton( 2003)
and Broad (2005).
The researcher has chosen this
model because it highlights the need to engage multiple stakeholders in the
training transfer process. Burke’s model
includes peers/ alongside supervisors as stakeholders because research has
shown that peer and colleague support has a stronger influence on transfer than
supervisory support alone (2008). In
addition, this model highlights the fact that the training transfer process is
“not time bound” indicating that the transfer process and the transfer problem
are not rooted in a particular time phase.
Therefore solutions to the problem and support for training transfer
should be an iterative process that occurs throughout the entire instructional
design process.
Researcher’s Biography
Issa’s easy and outgoing
character balanced with her penchant for keeping things organized make her a
perfect fit for the office of Assistant Dean of Admission at the Earle Mack
School of Law at Drexel University. A
product of mixed cultures [Spanish-Philippine and a tinge of Irish and Chinese],
Issa is passionate about people and about respecting and preserving one’s
identity and individuality. The planning
and implementation of all admission events both on and off campus, the
recruitment events, in fact, her total management style is reflective of Issa’s
belief that each student is a person and not merely a name or a number. During her travels nationwide representing
the law school at various law forums and panels, she brings the same ideology
and does her best to project it. In
essence, Issa is always about people and the preservation of one’s identity in
the midst of diversity.
Starting with undergraduate
admission at Bentley College to where she is now at the Drexel University,
Issa’s track record in the field of admission, speaks eloquently of her firm
belief that education and its access ought to be level fields and that every
prospective student, regardless of race, social or economic backgrounds, has
the potential to succeed, if given the opportunity . Thus, Issa strives to ensure that every
application is reviewed as objectively as it possibly can and that every
decision reached is as fair as is humanly possible.
Before coming to the
Earle Mack School of Law, Issa DiSciullo was the director of undergraduate
admissions for Johnson C. Smith University in North Carolina. Previously, she
held positions as the director of admission at University of South Carolina
School of Law, associate director of admission at Northeastern University
School of Law and director of pre-collegiate outreach and assistant director of
undergraduate admissions at Bentley College.
Issa graduated with a BS in
Marketing from Bentley College in Waltham, MA and earned her MS in Leadership, Higher Education
Administration from Northeastern University in Boston, MA. She is currently working on her Ed.D in
Educational Leadership at Drexel University.
Literature Review
Organizations
of all types and sizes are facing a myriad of leadership challenges (Groves, 2007). In addition, a rapidly aging workforce may create
a shortfall of experienced senior level administrators or leaders (Rothwell, 2002). Higher education is not immune to these
challenges and given its unique environment, faces an even tougher struggle to
identify and train their future leaders.
Many organizations, including a
few higher education institutions, are now seeing the value of leadership
training and education programs. In
2002, the average U.S. employer spent an estimated 2.2 percent of the payroll
dollars on education and training (Segue, as cited in Cromwell & Kolb, 2004).
However, research has shown that this
investment may not be paying off as only 10-15% of employee training results in
transfer to the workplace (Cromwell
& Kolb, 2004). With this in
mind, this literature review will focus on the following topics: a) a better
understanding of academe and its current leaders; b) leadership coaching and,
c) training transfer. Understanding these areas will provide higher education
institutions with vital information necessary to prepare their future leaders
for success in an ever-changing environment.
Academe
and its Leaders
There is no doubt that academia is
becoming more like a business (Gonzalez,
2010). In its present form, higher
education represents about 3% of the country’s gross national product (Thelin, Edwards, & Moyen, n.d.,
para. 1). However, it has not
inherited corporate America’s “tradition of developing leadership through
succession planning” wholeheartedly (Gonzalez, 2010). In his book, “How the Mighty Fall,” Jim
Collins (2009) suggests that no one leader can build a great empire, but the
wrong leader can single-handedly bring a company down (p.62). Therefore, it is extremely important for
higher education institutions to think clearly about the processes in place to
hire and nurture current and future college leaders.
In her article, “Leadership,
Diversity and Succession Planning,” Gonzalez (2010) indicates that succession
planning is the key to sustainability, and stresses that all successful
enterprises are engaged in “some sort of talent management, whether they do it
openly or in secret” (p.2). Successful
organizations outside of academe normally hire their chief executive officers
from within. Oddly enough, in higher
education, only 19% of college presidents surveyed in 2005 were internal
candidates (Blumetsky, as cited in Gonzalez, 2010).
Academe and traditional business
organizations value leaders differently (Bisbee &Miller, n.d.). Bisbee (2007) goes on to say that while
corporate succession plans work on
identifying leaders through a formal structure, higher education
professionals rise through the ranks via excellence in their research and
teaching. Therefore, it is no surprise
that the traditional first step up the academic career ladder is that of
department chair. A majority of faculty
members enter this role unprepared to serve as academic administrators. As a result, 80% of department chairs return
to faculty positions once their appointment ends (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004).
Gabelnick (as cited in Kezam,
2009) makes the case that the biggest challenge in academe, particularly for
its leaders, is the ability to understand and appreciate the intricacies of
organizational processes and the ability to develop the aptitude to deal with
these issues. There is no platform for
faculty and administrators to develop these leadership capacities (Kezam,
2009). Thus, there is a clear need for
training programs that encourage faculty and administrators to think creatively
about leadership development within higher education.
Higher education is in an era
where the public is demanding accountability and an opportunity to support
economic development and growth (Kezam, 2009).
As such, much is asked of leaders in this industry. There is an increasing need to open the doors
to a broader band of leaders who might be able to provide new and different
perspectives and approaches to leading these institutions. Undoubtedly there is a gap in the literature
around empirical research on leadership training programs and the impact it has
on higher education
Leadership Coaching
William Rothwell, a professor an
industry expert on workplace development, outlines the role of coaching and how
it relates to leader development and succession planning (2010). He deems that coaching is truly a means to
building talent within an organization.
While not a new concept, coaching has become increasingly important
within organizations as they develop and implement leadership training programs
and succession planning models. Rothwell
(2010) stresses the need to differentiate training – which is planned and
focused – from coaching – which is more spontaneous and driven by
moment-by-moment efforts to help individuals perform.
Leadership coaching/mentoring has
been a common occurrence in the business world for a number of years. According to Groves (2007), the research done
on mentoring relationships in organization provides strong evidence that employees
with mentors are much more likely to experience positive outcomes such as
enhanced job performance, greater opportunity for promotions and compensation
and an overall positive view on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. His study of 30 CEOs and senior Human
Resource Personnel across 15 US healthcare systems has shown that the inclusion
of informal mentoring is highly important to the success of an
organization. Among his findings, Groves
noted that an organization should develop their mentor network by engaging all
managers in mentoring relationships with their direct reports as well as high
potential employees in other departments.
The American Society for Training
and Development (1995) reports that 85% of companies engaging in leadership
development programs do so by using formal classroom programs. Corporations are quickly discovering that
these programs are not sufficient and suffer from transfer of training
challenges in addition to cost-prohibitive matters (Day, 2001). Reviews of empirical studies on formal
mentoring programs show that these initiatives have greater potential as
leadership development tools (Kim, 2007).
However, Kim (2007) suggests that there is a gap between the impact that
the interpersonal relationship between mentor/mentee on successful
coaching. In addition, studies focus
primarily on the impact these programs have on the mentee’s growth and
development. Studies should also focus
on the impact/benefit that coaching has on the coach’s leadership development.
However, as the previous section
highlighted, change such as this is often slow to enter the education realm
(Gonzalez, 2010) and leadership coaching in education is a relatively new
concept (Hammack & Wise, 2011).
Nonetheless, a few schools across the nation are slowly starting to
embrace this concept. In a recent study
conducted by Hammack and Wise (2011) on 325 elementary school principles,
findings showed that females, minorities, first-time principals and principals
at low-achieving schools received coaching at higher percentages than their
colleagues. Hammack’s study implies that
school leaders do indeed consider coaching, coaching competencies and best
practices as important. In addition, the
participants felt that identification of coaching competencies is related to
the creation and implementation of “best practices”.
Leadership coach, Mike Bossi (2008) decided to challenge
his own profession and ask the question “does leadership coaching really work?”
To answer this, he followed the first two cohorts of a training program
designed for new principals in California where coaching was large part of the
curriculum. He argues that leading
adults in an educational setting is immensely different from teaching children
in a classroom which the new principals are mostly well versed in doing. Thus, it was no surprise that California
principals tend to leave their position within three years. His findings showed that participation in
this program positively affected the academic performance index at the schools
of 40 out of the 50 participating principals.
In addition, out of these 50 new principles, only four left their
position and the district in which they received their coaching. Bossi’s research emphasizes that coaching is
more than an apprenticeship as it provides the trainee with continuous,
supportive and positive “chatter.”
Training Transfer
Organizations currently spend
billions of dollars in training and educational programs each year. However, much of the training competencies
and knowledge fail to transfer to the workplace (Grossman & Salas,
2011). According to Burke and Hutchins
(2008), information regarding guidelines and best practices for positive
training transfer is given inadequate attention and is often anecdotal. Leading experts in training transfer have provided critical analysis of this
issue, and have fueled the fire for conceptual and empirical research to
attempt to bridge the gap between training and workplace performance (e.g.,
Baldwin & Ford, 1988, 2009). In sum,
the literature highlights three factors that affect training transfer –
trainee/learner characteristics, program/intervention design and delivery and
work environment.
According to Baldwin and Ford’s
(1988) research, while there are a variety of trainee characteristics that
might influence training transfer, the trainees’ initial ability and motivation
to learn and implement their new skills play a primary role in the transfer
process. A more recent literature review
conducted by Burke and Hutchins (2008) identified
the following learner characteristics that influence transfer: a) intellectual
ability, b) self-efficacy, c) motivation level, d) personality, and e)
job/career variables. Also, the training design is impacted heavily by
identical elements/stimuli throughout the process giving trainees numbers of
opportunities to repeatedly practice the skill even after correct performance
has been proven (Baldwin & Ford, 1988, 2009). This is sometimes known as “overlearning” (Burke & Hutchins,
2008). It is also important to ensure
that trainees gain knowledge regarding general rules and theoretical principles
that underlie the training program content rather than just focusing on
specific applicable skills.
Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) review of
literature was extremely limited in this area.
Although there was little empirical evidence at the time, they alluded
to the fact that supervisory support affects training transfer. Much has been discovered since their original
research. The review conducted by Burke &
Hutchins in 2008 reported the following
work environment factors
influencing training transfer; a) strategic linkage of training, b) transfer
climate, c) supervisory and peer support, and d) accountability. Supervisory support along with the opportunity
to practice the newly learned skills rated high as best practices (Burke &
Hutchins, 2008). A recent finding of
Burke and Hutchins (2008) shows that
peer/colleague support plays an important role in the training transfer as
well. In addition, they discovered that transfer cannot be isolated to a single
time period. As such, job aids and
training tools/coaching must occur at all stages of the training/learning
program – before, during and after.
Cromwell and Kolb (2004) conducted a
study to examine supervisory and peer support as factors in training transfer
over a period of time after the training completion – one month, six months and
one year. Most transfer training
interventions occur in a relatively short time frame after the program’s
completion and at just one point in time (Gaudine & Saks, 2004). This does not account for the maintenance of
transfer and does not provide a short-term and long-term measure. Trainees and supervisors alike completed
questionnaires and top manager were also surveyed. Results revealed that all four
work-environment factors showed a positive correlation with training
transfer. Furthermore, trainees who
received higher levels of support showed that they were applying the knowledge
they gained at a higher level. Trainees
who perceived higher levels of peer support indicated that they were applying
their new knowledge at a higher level.
A recent study by Martin (2010)
examined two factors that affect training transfer – work environment and peer
support. In particular, Martin looked at
how close and immediate the factors are to the trainee and the impact that may
have on transfer. Peer support is more
immediate to the trainee (proximal) while work climate is more distant (distal). Results showed that positive exposure to both
distal and proximal factors had a positive effect on training transfer. In addition, the results revealed that peer
support (proximal factor) can help in overcoming the effects of a negative work
environment (distal factor). Martin’s
findings are in line with the literature and show that in order to maximize the
organization’s return on investment and to impact positive transfer, support
must be provided to trainees before, during and after the training.
Methodology
This study will examine
a major university’s Enrollment Management (EM) team to explore the effects
that mentoring and coaching have on leader development. In particular, the research will focus on the
coaching support the Directors receive from their respective supervisors (i.e.,
Assistant Vice-Presidents or AVPs) and their peers before, during, and after a
leadership training program to determine the impact that coaching has on
transfer of the leadership skills that the Directors will learn in the
training.
To gather data,
the researcher will utilize both qualitative and quantitative approaches. However, this study is primarily qualitative
with the interviews as primary data collection procedures and the
survey-questionnaires as supplementary sources of data. The Directors who have been chosen for this
study were selected because of their participation in the department’s in-house
leadership training program. This will allow the researcher the opportunity to
capture data regarding training transfer before, during and after the
leadership training program. In addition, relevant literatures will also used
to support the findings. The credibility of findings and conclusions will rely
heavily on the quality of the research design, data collection, data
management, and data analysis. This
chapter will focus on the description of the methods and procedures conducted
in order to obtain the data along with how they will be analysed and
interpreted. Specifically, this chapter
will cover the following: design of study, participants, instrumentation,
data-collection, and summary.
Design of Study
This longitudinal study will use
a mixed-methods case study approach.
Mixed-methods is defined as a methodology for conducting research that
involves collecting, analyzing and mixing quantitative and qualitative research
and data in one study (Creswell, 2008).
Results retrieved in a mixed methods research study are stronger, more
useful and even cost-effective (Creswell, 2008). Creswell (2008) defines a case study approach
as one that involves the study of an issue by exploring one or more cases
within one setting or context (“bounded case”).
The study is usually conducted over time and utilizes detailed and
in-depth data collection through multiple sources of information such as surveys
and open-ended questionnaires. A case
study approach is appropriate for this study because the researcher is only
making observations on a selected sample of individuals within the same
organization all of whom are receiving the same intervention. Therefore, this is automatically a controlled
study. Since there is no control group
and the researcher is looking to study the intervention without outside
manipulation (Ravid, 2011), it will be a non-experimental descriptive
study. According to Merriam (2009),
“qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret
their experiences, how they construct their world and what meaning they
attribute to their experiences” (p.5).
There are four main characteristics to qualitative research: a) the
focus is on process, b) the primary method for data collection and analysis is
the researcher, c) to process gathers data to build concepts and hypothesis,
and d) the end product is extremely descriptive (Merriam, 2009).
Ravid (2011) describes the
independent variable to be the intervention while the dependent variable is the
outcome measure. Accordingly, the
individual variable in this study is the
coaching support provided by supervisors and peers as it relates to the
training transfer of the directors. The
dependent variables are two-fold. The
objective dependent variable will be the leadership training performance data
gathered before and after the Directors participate in the leadership training
program. The subjective dependent
variable is the perceived training transfer which will be gathered directly
from the Director participants of the leadership training. Data will also be gathered from the following
control variables: a) top management mentoring/support and, b) individual
trainee characteristics which include self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer.
Participants
The researcher will collect data from 17 Directors who are members of the Enrollment Management team at
a major, urban, research university and 6 Assistant Vice Presidents (AVPs) who supervise the Directors. There is a possibility that the sample
number might grow if the researcher determines the need to gather data from the
Directors’ subordinates and peers. All
participants were selected by purposeful sampling. This sampling method is used when the
researcher intentionally selects a particular site and group of individuals to
understand a central phenomenon (Creswell, 2008). Specifically, homogenous purposeful sampling
will be used because the researcher is looking to study a group of individuals
in one particular sub-group that has defining characteristics; all the
Directors in this study will be participating in the same in-house leadership
training program.
Participants were identified with
the help and suggestion of the Enrollment Management(EM) Training
Director. Although the EM Training
Director will take the lead in presenting the research project and opportunity
to participate to the participants, all subsequent communication will occur
directly between the participants and the researcher. At the suggestion of the EM Training
Director, any surveys that will be administered will be administered through an
online survey tool.
In order to protect the rights and safety
of human subjects, the researcher will
seek the approval of the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The researcher is a student at Drexel
University, and will therefore comply with the regulations of the Drexel
University IRB. At this time the researcher has completed the mandatory CITI
training required in the IRB process.
In
accordance with the IRB, the researcher will make sure to gain participants’
consent and willingness to participate in this research. The consent form will explicitly inform them
of their right to privacy and confidentiality, as well as clearly outline the
measures that will be taken to ensure those rights are securely protected.
Instrumentation
For this study, interviews, open-ended questionnaire instruments and
surveys will be used complete the main objective of the study. The
researcher will conduct one-on-one interviews with participants at various
intervals of the leadership training program to discuss the support the
directors receive during, before and after the learning sessions and the
overall leadership training program.
These interviews may be supplemented by open-ended questionnaires. The interviews that occur will be a mix of
semi-structured interviews and unstructured/informal interviews. Semi-structured interviews are guided by a
list of questions or issues that need to be explored by unstructured interviews
are more exploratory and serve to formulate questions for later interviews
(Merriam, 2009).
In addition to the interviews,
participants will also be asked to complete two scales. One that discusses the participant’s
motivation to learn and the other discusses the participant’s motivation to
transfer their knowledge. Both scales
are Likert Scale which is a rating scale that
requires the subject to indicate his or her degree of agreement or disagreement
to a statement. In this particular
questionnaire, the respondents were given seven response choices with 1 being
infrequently and 7 being frequently.
Data Collection
Since this is a longitudinal study,
data will be collected over a period of 10 months, with the first interview and
data collection period beginning in May 2012.
The first interview will ask participants to think back to the events
leading up to the leadership training session and reflect on the support they
received from their supervisors prior to attending the learning sessions. This interview will also ask the participants
to reflect on their experiences to date. Interviews regarding support received
by participants during the leadership training program will occur in May 2012,
July 2012 and September 2012.
Participants will also be interview at the conclusion of the program in
November 2012 and again three months after the program has ended in February
2013. This allows the Directors time to
actually apply some of their learning. The two motivation scales will be administered via an
online survey tool in June 2012.
Summary
Organizations
including higher education institutions are currently facing many leadership
development challenges including a rapidly aging workforce, which can
potentially create a shortage in the development of future leaders (Rothwell,
as cited in Groves, 2007). Research on
mentoring relationships shows compelling evidence that employees with mentors
are likely to experience a range of positive outcomes (Groves, 2007). However, in order for mentoring to be
effective, it must be tailored to the needs of the trainee in order for it to
enhance leadership efficacy (Lester, Hannah, Harms, Vogelgesang & Avolio,
2011). In particular, it must help
potential leaders transfer their learning into action.
This research will be a result of
a mixed-methods approach to study whether mentoring/coaching can impact
successful transfer of training and therefore improve overall leadership
efficacy. It will be a compilation of
surveys gathering quantitative and qualitative data.
Spencer Foundation Suggested Budget
Format for $40,000 or Less
Institution Name: Drexel University
Principal Investigator(s): Maria-Isabel DiSciullo
Project Title: Impact of coaching on training transfer
Grant Period: from 5/1/2012
to 3/1/2013
Personnel
|
Year
1
|
Year
2
(if applicable)
|
Year
3
(if applicable)
|
Total
|
Salaries
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Principal
Investigator
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Co-PI(s)
|
||||
Research
Assistant(s)
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Staff
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Tuition/Fees
|
$10,000
|
$0
|
$0
|
$10,000
|
Benefits
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Subtotal
Personnel
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Project Expenses
|
||||
Fees/Stipends
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Supplies
|
$200
|
$0
|
$0
|
$200
|
Communication
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Transcription
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Equipment
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Travel
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Miscellaneous
|
$100
|
$0
|
$0
|
$100
|
Subtotal Project Exp.
|
$13,000
|
$0
|
$0
|
$13,000
|
Total Direct Costs
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Sub-Contract(s)
|
$200
|
$0
|
$0
|
$200
|
Total Project Costs
|
$15,000
|
$0
|
$0
|
$15,000
|
If the Total Project Costs are
$40,000 or less, we require an authorized signature below.
Signature of Authorized Financial
Officer: _______________________________________
Printed
Name: _______________________________________
Title: _______________________________________
Date: _______________________________________
Maria-Isabel DiSciullo
901
N. Broad Street ·
Philadelphia, PA 19123 ·
(267) 815-0586 ·
md674@drexel.edu
Experience:
Earle
Mack School of Law at Drexel University Office of Admissions, Philadelphia, PA
Assistant Dean of Admissions –
December 2009 – Present
·
Oversee
the day-to-day operations of the Office of Admissions
·
Develop,
implement and evaluate the recruitment and yield strategies of the Office of
Admission
·
Manage
the budget for the Office of Admission
·
Review
and render decisions for over 3000 applications
·
Track
and report on data trends for all prospects and applicants
·
Facilitates,
monitors, implements and evaluates University polices relative to Admissions
·
Oversee
the planning and implementation of all admissions events both on and off campus
·
Represent
the law school through nationwide travel to various law forums and panels
·
Award
merit-based scholarships to incoming students
Johnson
C. Smith University Office of Undergraduate Admissions, Charlotte, NC
Director of Undergraduate
Admissions – February 2009 – November 2009
·
Developed
and implemented the strategic enrollment management plan encompassing all areas
of student recruitment and yield
·
Planned, developed and led an aggressive recruitment
plan
·
Managed
the planning and implementation of all admission events both on and off campus
·
Managed
the budget for the Office of Admissions
·
Reviews
and renders final decisions for an applicant pool of about 5000
·
Tracks
and reports on data trends regarding all prospects and applicants
University
of South Carolina School of Law Office of Admission, Columbia, SC
Director of Admission – September
2007 – February 2009
·
Managed
the day-to-day operations of the Office of Admission
·
Developed,
implemented and evaluated the recruitment and yield strategies of the Office of
Admission
·
Managed
the budget for the Office of Admission
·
Reviewed
and rendered decisions for over 2000 applications
·
Tracked
and reported on data trends for all prospects and applicants
·
Represented
the law school through nationwide travel to various law forums and panels
·
Award
merit-based scholarships to incoming and returning students
Northeastern
University School of Law Office of Admission, Boston, MA
Associate Director of Admission –
June 2002 – August 2007
·
Managed
the day-to-day operations of the Admission Office through all cycles
·
Assisted
the Director with the development and implementation of annual marketing and
recruitment plans
·
Developed
and managed the recruitment calendar and all recruitment events/initiatives
·
Developed
and implemented diversity recruitment strategies for groups such as students of
color, GLBT and non-traditional students
·
Managed
the planning and implementation of all law school admission events
·
Reviewed
admission applications and render decisions
·
Responsible
for tracking trends for diversity during the application process
·
Developed
and managed student volunteer efforts for campus programs
·
Represented
the law school through nationwide travel to various law forums and panels
Bentley College Office of
Undergraduate Admission, Waltham, MA
Director of
Pre-Collegiate Outreach and Special Admission Programs – September 1998 – June
2001
Assistant Director
of Admissions – June 1994 – September 1998
·
Developed
an efficient pre-collegiate pipeline process to facilitate student recruitment
and entrance to Bentley College
·
Established
and maintained a pre-collegiate database to track student prospects as they
move through the pipeline
·
Created,
implemented and managed pre-collegiate programs from beginning to end
·
Represented
Bentley College through regionalized travel to high schools, college fairs and
other educational forums
·
Reviewed
admission applications and rendered decisions
·
Supervised
the activities of the Student Interviewing Team and evaluated their efforts and
performance
Related
Skills/Certifications:
·
Certified
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and True Colors Personality Profile administrator
·
Conversational
Spanish and Tagalog
Education:
Drexel University, Philadelphia,
PA
Ed.D in Higher Education
Leadership, Expected August 2013
Northeastern University, Boston,
MA,
MS in Leadership – Higher
Education Administration, August 2007
Bentley College, Waltham,
MA,
BS in Marketing, June 1994
References
available upon request.
References
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)