Initial research supports the use of strengths-based models as a way of nurturing student success, but existing studies have not assessed the relative effectiveness of various types of strengths-based approaches in promoting desired outcomes. The current research examined the impact of 2 separate strengths-based models, referred to throughout the study as the talent identification and strengths development interventions. This investigation utilized an experimental pretest-posttest waiting list control group design to compare the relative impact of these strengths-based curriculum types to each other and to a traditionally-implemented curriculum in a first-year seminar course, which served as the control condition. Student assignment to curriculum type was randomly determined, and the study included data from 388 undergraduates enrolled in a required first-year seminar course at a private liberal arts institution. The dependent variables in this investigation included academic engagement, hope, perceived academic control, achievement goal orientation, and mindset. A one-way MANCOVA conducted to examine the effect of the 2 strengths-based approaches on academic engagement, hope, and perceived academic control indicated that these variables differed significantly across treatment condition such that the strengths development group had the highest adjusted posttest mean scores across all of these variables. Univariate ANCOVAs conducted on each dependent measure to determine the locus of the statistically significant multivariate effect found that treatment condition significantly affected perceived academic control but not academic engagement or hope. Students in both strengths-based groups had significantly higher posttest levels of perceived academic control than did those in the control group. An ANCOVA comparing posttest mindset scores found that students in the talent identification group reported significantly lower posttest mindset scores than did those in the strengths development and control groups, indicative of a heightened tendency toward a fixed mindset for students in the talent identification condition following exposure to this curriculum. A chi-square analysis revealed that the strengths development condition had more students with a learning goal orientation at posttest, while the talent identification condition had more students with a performance goal orientation at the posttest than could be attributed to chance alone. Achievement goal orientation remained stable for the control group.
|Advisor:||Schreiner, Laurie A.|
|School:||Azusa Pacific University|
|School Location:||United States -- California|
|Source:||DAI-A 69/06, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||School counseling, Psychology, Higher education|
|Keywords:||Academic control, College students, Curriculum, First-year programs, First-year students, Mindset, Strengths, Strengths-based|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be