No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a clear answer to the question “how is leadership developed?” This research utilized the knowledge of leadership development experts and their collective expertise to identify the critical elements required for a high-quality leadership development program. Design/methodology/approach The Lockean Inquiring System approach to the Delphi technique was used to solicit the views of experts in leadership and leadership development from around the world. Experts for Round 1 of the Delphi were drawn from a random sampling of 100 people, comprising leadership researchers, coaches, and organizational leaders, not personally known to the lead researcher of this project, but in his LinkedIn network. A response rate of 13 percent (n=13) yielded a rich range of qualitative data. Responses from the first round of the Delphi were analyzed using open coding and categorized into four themes, representing four sets of competencies required of leaders. Findings The four themes were labeled as contextual, human capital, social capital, and structural capital, all of which were seen by participants as being central to the development of collective leadership. Based on these themes, this paper identifies a useful list of key leadership development tactics from which those wishing to develop a leadership program can work. Research limitations/implications As the first round of a Delphi study, the authors are limited to presenting only the key elementary empirical judgments. Subsequent study with an expanded sample size and a refined set of questions rooted in the current data will contribute further to the development of factual propositions related to leadership development for the twenty-first century. The Delphi survey is a “snapshot” approach and presents a holographic-type image of the complex whole. The authors plan to triangulate the data by significantly expanding the pool of Delphi experts and conducting the Round 1 survey a second time with a larger international group of respondents that fit the criteria of expert. Practical implications This paper presents four dimensions of an effective leadership development strategy. Originality/value Core elements of the best methods for leadership development have been identified by leadership development experts, which serve as a basis for developing leadership as a collective, and for further research.

No abstract

Significance Communicating in ways that motivate engagement in social distancing remains a critical global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study tested motivational qualities of messages about social distancing (those that promoted choice and agency vs. those that were forceful and shaming) in 25,718 people in 89 countries. The autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of defying social distancing recommendations relative to the controlling message, and the controlling message increased controlled motivation, a less effective form of motivation, relative to no message. Message type did not impact intentions to socially distance, but people’s existing motivations were related to intentions. Findings were generalizable across a geographically diverse sample and may inform public health communication strategies in this and future global health emergencies.

Dr. Lucietto has focused her research in engineering technology education and the understanding of engineering technology students. She teaches in an active learning style which engages and develops practical skills in the students. Currently she is exploring the performance and attributes of engineering technology students and using that knowledge to engage them in their studies. Dr. Jennifer Drapinski Moss, Purdue UniversityDr. Jennifer Moss is an educational psychologist, studying motivation among pre-service teachers and college faculty members. Along with teaching pre-service teachers, she is the project manager for the STEAM project, a First in the World grant project, funded by the US Department of Education. She works for the Center for Instructional of Excellence at Purdue University. Dr. Mark French, Purdue UniversityMark French started his career as a civilian aerospace engineer for the US Air Force after getting a BS in Aerospace and Ocean Engineering at VA Tech. While working for the Air Force, he did an MS and a PhD at the University of Dayton. His dissertation was on the design of aeroelastically scaled wind tunnel models. After 10 years with the Air Force, he moved to the auto industry, spending 3 years with Lear and 6 years with Bosch. He came to Purdue in 2004 where he is now a professor in the School of Engineering Technology. He works on musical instrument design and structural mechanics. Over the years, he's published the usual collection of articles and conference papers along with two books.

Engineering technology students either are studied under the auspices of research focused on engineering students, or are excluded from engineering research in its entirety. Even when they are included in research, our understanding of engineering technology students is either missing or obscured. The lack of available research focused on engineering technology students in particular has prompted an effort to contribute to the greater body of knowledge of engineering technology education. The lack of research, as compared to other STEM fields, presents a challenge to practitioners in engineering technology programs when making discipline-specific decisions regarding these particular students. The need to delineate and determine the differences in the engineering technology student population and that of the engineering student population has become increasingly evident to practitioners and researchers in the technology area. To explore the learning styles of the engineering and engineering technology students, the Gregorc Style Delineator was completed by students in both programs. This instrument is relatively well known and is designed to investigate how adults order their thoughts and perceive the world around them. This study is designed to understand the differences in the engineering technology and engineering student populations by examining their mediation channels and their psychological learning styles. By furthering our conceptual understanding of both populations, we will inform those involved with teaching, curriculum development, and administration of programs how to best interact with and teach these students. Engineering technology students think differently than engineering students and that should be reflected in how we teach them.

This study examines the impact on student performance after interactive and noninteractive tutorials using a 2x2 treatment-control design. In an undergraduate management course, a control group watched a video tutorial while the treatment group received the same content using a dynamic tutorial. Both groups received the same quiz questions. Using effect size to determine magnitude of change, it was found that those in the treatment condition performed better than those in the control condition. Students were able to take the quiz up to two times. When examining for change in performance from attempt one to attempt two, the treatment group showed a greater magnitude of change. Students who consistently performed lowest on the quizzes outperformed all students in learning gains.