JOURNAL ofKNOWLEDGE, CULTURE

Tags: involvement, student leadership, development, leadership training and development, leadership skills, motivation, ORIENT, Orientation, leadership development, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, University Experience, LKTR, items, public and private, students, leadership training programs, leaders, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, Jamaliah Abdul-Hamid, activities, Steven Eric Krauss, Ismi Arif Ismail, Leadership Capacity Development, traditional student affairs, faculty interaction, educational leadership, leadership opportunity, ULC, college students, formal training, principal factors, formal knowledge, student affairs administrators, leadership capacity, role models, Journal of College Student Development, student leadership development, MALAYSIA Ismi Arif Ismail, universities, universities and colleges, Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd, MALAYSIA Steven Eric Krauss, University Putra Malaysia, CHANGE MANAGEMENT, extracurricular programs, Institutions of Higher Learning, leadership motivation, undergraduate students, Self Perception, Common Ground, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, colleges and universities, Astin & Astin, leadership roles
Content: The International JOoUfRNAL KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE & CHANGE MANAGEMENT Volume 8, Number 3 Developing Motivation to become Leaders amongst Undergraduates in Institutions of Higher Learning Jamaliah Abdul-Hamid, Steven Eric Krauss and Ismi Arif Ismail www.management-journal.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT http://www.Management-Journal.com First published in 2008 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2008 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2008 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact . ISSN: 1447-9524 Publisher Site: http://www.Management-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT is a peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee processes. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.
Developing Motivation to become Leaders amongst Undergraduates in Institutions of Higher Learning Jamaliah Abdul-Hamid, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, MALAYSIA Steven Eric Krauss, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, MALAYSIA Ismi Arif Ismail, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, MALAYSIA
Abstract: The management of academic and extracurricular programs to develop leadership skills amongst university students has become one of the top priorities in many universities since it is said that one of the core functions of universities is the development of future leaders (Astin & Astin, 2000; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt,1999). While academic and extracurricular programs increasingly focus on the development of leadership awareness, character and skills, one of the missing links in the equation concerns the level of motivation to lead. This study reports on a study that involved 1860 undergraduate students in Malaysia in public and private institutions of higher learning (colleges and universities) on their motivation to lead, as well as university factors and personal factors affecting their level of motivation to lead. Based on the general findings of the study, literature review, and the authors' experiences in training student leadership, an integrated model of a student leadership development program is then proposed. This paper also makes several recommendations based on the research findings to managers of higher learning institutions (HEI) pertaining student leadership training and development programs. Keywords: Motivation to Lead, Leadership Training, Student Leadership
Background AS RECENTLY AS 2000, Astin & Astin (2000) observed that the educational goals of leadership development have been given very little attention by most institutions of higher learning. Yet one of the core business functions of colleges and universities is to educate new generation of leaders. Universities and colleges have a choice in the kinds of leadership development programs they wish to develop. Traditional leadership development programs are based on models of hierarchical system of management which focuses on the character and the role of the individual as the leader, thus promoting a command and control model, power and authority, and strong managerial influences (Rogers, 2003; Rost, 1993). The post industrial era brought a different paradigm of leadership development which was more focused on human relations and shared goals, (Allen & Cherrey, 2000; Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996; Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998; Rost, 1993). This postindustrial perspective is transformational and value-centered (Rogers, 2003; Rost, 1993); and it paved the way for the notion of shared leadership to take hold. Many questions have been raised as to what is the nature of the design of leadership development programs in universities and colleges that encourages exploration and adoption of different forms of leadership. However, a more
critical question which needs to be addressed is the commonly assumed relationship between the effect of leadership intervention and training programs to the ultimate cultivation of desire or motivation to become leaders. What is Leadership? Leadership is not necessarily tied to positional posts. Instead, leadership can be viewed as the desire and willingness to provide service to others, to contribute to and develop a rich group learning experience, or the desire to initiate some desired change ( Astin & Astin 2000). Leadership, at the end of student leadership development programs in universities and colleges, may therefore manifest itself in either personal drive to vie for leadership positions, or in the willingness to be involved in providing services beneficial to the campus community and beyond, or in the willingness and practice of sharing of resources such as experiences, knowledge and time to help enrich other people's learning and transformation. Although all three forms of leadership may manifest themselves at a single point in the student's career in the university and college campus, some may be more gradual in development. The point that appears to be overlooked is that while many leadership development and training programs focus on developing competence and skills commonly associated with good leadership, they do
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3, 2008 http://www.Management-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9524 © Common Ground, Jamaliah Abdul-Hamid, Steven Eric Krauss, Ismi Arif Ismail, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]
158 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8
not necessarily cultivate the momentum for leadership into the next generation. At the end of their education at the tertiary level, are our students ready and willing to take on roles as agents of change who not only have the vision for change, but also the capabilities and commitment to initiate and sustain change for the benefit of the society? Beyond skills and competence, what are the forces that would entice students to commit their time and energies to take on the mantle of leadership, to represent groups of voices, to take the initiative to lead change and to plan for strategic options in their communities? Leadership Motivation The literature is surprisingly scarce on factors that motivate people to want leadership positions. Traditional motivational theories such as Maslow and Herzberg's theories do not appear to fit well into the phenomenon of leadership motivation, especially from the point of view of young students. Although leadership could eventually culminate into self fulfillment, it does so when the leadership has been successful, and the individual has positive experiences of his or her leadership. Leadership success however is a long, treacherous road to travel, with many risks of failure, loneliness, disillusionment and very, very hard work. Often, it may not offer the security of comfort and familiarity because leaders need to assess every situation differently at each round of encounter. The satisfaction of being a leader is not readily gratified, often depending on the circumstances of the leadership itself, thus confounding the neatness of expectancy valences in many theories of motivation. For many young undergraduates, leadership is akin to an intense exposure of self ­ cognitively, psychologically, ethically, and physically- as much as it is a social process of working with others. Motivation to lead would be the first hurdle to leadership itself. Barbuto and Scholl (1998) and Barbuto's (2001) work on Motivation Sources Inventory (MSI) identified five subscale sources of motivation, which were: intrinsic process (e.g. "I would prefer to do things that are fun"); instrumental (e.g." I like to be rewarded when I take on additional responsibilities); selfconcept external (e.g. It is important to me that others appreciate the work I do"); self-concept internal (e.g. "Decisions I make reflect standards I've set for myself"); and goal internalization (e.g." I work hard for a company if I agree with its mission"). Although the taxonomy is useful as an aid to understand the type of motivational force underpinning a leader's decisions, behavior and actions, it does not necessarily point to the relationship between the motivational sources themselves and one's level of readiness to lead. Would a person who has high external selfconcept but is inexperienced insist on taking up a
leadership role, at the risk of exposing his or her naivety? We believe that both leadership readiness and motivational sources to lead are complementary to each other. Therefore we turned to another theory. In this study we used the theory of performance goal in motivation theory. Performance goal is referenced to others, in either competing against them or in wanting to be the leader of a group (Simpson, Vickers, Kristovics, & Marsh, 2005b). A performance goal is based on one's desire to perform and compete successfully or to seek power through leadership in order to make various decisions, including on the direction and the forms of change. We find the performance goal theory more accurate since it allows us to address the two main concerns underpinning the willingness to lead: firstly, the desire itself to take the lead as opposed to letting it go to another person, and secondly, the confidence one has in one's level of competence to take the lead, as opposed to the competence of others. What is the nature of university leadership training and development programs which promote or inhibit motivation to lead amongst undergraduates? Many undergraduates may experience leadership in their universities and colleges most commonly in terms of small project management. They learn to identify areas of interest worthwhile for adopting as part of their project, and devote most of their time in doing work as specified in the project. While project management develops team spirit and leadership skills at a micro level, (depending on its extensiveness), project management experiences may not necessarily help students to develop higher cognitive abilities to project their leadership at a more global or communal level. The reverse condition of de-motivation may in fact set in, as frustration grows at the tediousness of repetitive work or the narrowness of scope of reach or purpose, two conditions that are known to dampen young enthusiastic adults in their early experience of leadership. It is important therefore to examine how leadership training and development programs in universities and colleges contribute to nurturing the interest and the motivation to become leaders among undergraduates. We propose that this is the missing link in the overall structure of the design in leadership intervention programs in colleges and universities, thus causing a shortfall in the way that these institutions rise to the call of one of their core functions to develop students as future leaders. In addition, we also need to examine other factors in the demographic profile of students to see the extent to which they contribute to the motivation to lead among undergraduates.
JAMALIAH ABDUL-HAMID, STEVEN ERIC KRAUSS, ISMI ARIF ISMAIL 159
Research Objective The objective of the research was to examine the level of leadership motivation amongst undergraduate students in public and private universities. Leadership motivation is defined as the interest and willingness to lead, whether in informal or formal groups. In addition, factors related to the university or college training and development programs and the students' demographic profile are also tested for their relationship to the students' motivation to lead. Methodology The research incorporated a quantitative survey questionnaire method. Questionnaires were distributed to public and private higher education institutions (HEI) in five zones in peninsular Malaysia. At least one public and one private HEI were selected per zone, and all the HEIs were randomly chosen. A total of 2400 questionnaires were distributed in person by the researchers to 12 public HEIs and 8 Private HEIs, and 1860 were returned either by hand, or by post. This represents a 77% response rate. The questionnaire consisted of four main sections. The first section contained several items to elicit students' demographic profile such as gender, age, faculty of study, academic status, and CGPA. The second section, comprised 33 items which were categorized in 4 sub-constructs: (i) Perception of the
Outcomes of Leadership Training programs in university (TO) (12 items); Perception of the Adequacy of information about leadership (INF) (9 items); Perception of the Opportunities for student leadership/governance in campus (OPP) (7 items); and Perception of Total University Experience in building Leadership capacity (ULC) (5 items). All of these four sub-constructs represented a single factor called University Experience. The third section contained a total of 150 items grouped into 4 main factors: Orientation to leadership (ORIENT)(44items); Willingness to be involved in campus and social activities during undergraduate studies and post graduate (INVOLVE) (18 items); Knowledge about leadership roles and skills(LKTR)(27 items); and Self perception of one's leadership skills (SLF)(61 items). Orientation items include for example response to differentiations in self-leadership, leadership by others, and leadership of others. The final section is the dependent variable, which was a factor called Motivation to Lead (MotLd)(8 items). All items in all of the constructs were based on a 7 point Likert scale. The questionnaire was constructed by the researchers using the existing literature as a guide. To check on reliability, the questionnaire was piloted and subsequently improved for better clarity. In the final data collection, the cronbach coefficients and mean values are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Standardized
Mean
SD
Alpha Cronbach
Overall University Experience (UNIEX)
.94
5.05
.74
Training (TO)
.89
5.11
.81
Information on Leadership (INF)
.86
5.03
.83
Opportunities for Leadership (OPP)
.77
4.89
.84
Perception of Leadership Capacity Development in total .85 university experience (ULC)
5.05
.95
Leadership Orientation (ORIENT)
.97
5.39
.67
Perception of one's own leadership skills (SLF)
.93
4.90
.87
Knowledge about Leadership (LKTR)
.97
6.01
.79
Willingness for Involvement (INVOLVE)
.91
5.02
.87
Motivation to Lead (MotLd)
.92
5.37
0.93
factor analysis was carried out to test the categorization of principal factors. Kasier-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy coefficient was .947, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was .000, both indicating that factor analysis is an appropriate test to extract principal components from question items used in the study. A principal component unrotated extraction set at Eigenvalue 1 was initially carried out, and
converged after 25 iterations with 38 factors. Since many of the factors were below .30, the rotation was executed again for extraction of 10 factors. The results indicated that the total percentage of variance began to decline after the sixth principal extracted factor. A third extraction was then carried out with extraction set for 6 factors which resulted in total percentage variance that is acceptable ranging from
160 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8
10.201 to 5.796 for five factors, with the sixth at 3.439 percent. The factor analysis confirmed the hypothetical model developed by the researchers for the study. The six factors are: University Experience (UniEx), Knowledge about Leadership & Trainability of Leaders (LKTR), Self Perception of the Level of Leadership Skills in oneself (SLF); Willingness To Be Involved In Activities In And Off Campus (INVOLVE); Orientation to Self and Group Leadership (ORIENT) and finally, Motivation to Lead (MotLd). All the factors and their subscales were then subjected to statistical tests of normal distribution and the results of Kurtosis and Skewness indicated normality. Findings and Discussion All of the means showed that collectively the students in the public and private colleges and universities were moderately satisfied with the university factor in terms of the outcomes of the leadership training courses they attended, the extensiveness of the information they were exposed to on leadership while on campus, the opportunities to hold student leadership positions on campus, and the totality of campus experience in developing leadership capacity.
The high mean score of 6.01 for sub factor LKTR confirmed the emphasis that many universities and colleges gave to formal training in leadership. Generally, students in the social sciences faculties and students in the fourth year of their study in both public and private HEIs consistently showed higher mean scores in most subscales. See Tables 2a to 2c. Interestingly, there was no difference in the motivation to lead (MotLd) across all academic year of study, in spite of the more favourable perception by the fourth year students on the opportunities for student leadership positions in campus. On the other hand, students whose GPA were above 3 not only scored significantly higher means in their perceptions of the opportunities for student leadership positions, but they also were more positive in their motivation to lead. They also showed higher orientation in self and group leadership, and knowledge about leadership skills. There was also no significant difference in the level of knowledge about leadership skills (LKTR) across all the academic year, but based on the high mean score of 6.01 in this factor, it is possible to make the assumption that most students have been exposed to formal knowledge about leadership skills.
JAMALIAH ABDUL-HAMID, STEVEN ERIC KRAUSS, ISMI ARIF ISMAIL 161
Table 2a: Multiple Comparisons between Faculties (Tukey HSD)
Dependent Variable (I) Faculty (J)
Mean Std. Er- Sig. Diff (I- ror J)
FACTOR Total Univ Social Sci- Applied Sci- .432(*) .057 .000
Experience (UniEx) ences
ences
IT Computer .241(*) .070 .003 Science
IT Computer Applied Sci- .191(*) .074 .048
Science
ences
Mean Training(TO)
Social Sci- Applied Sci- .499(*) .073 .000
ences
ences
IT Computer Applied Sci- .360(*) .094 .001 ences
Mean Informatn (INF) Social Sci- Applied Sci- .564(*) .066 .000
ences
ences
Pure Sciences .508(*) .189 .036
IT Computer .374(*) .081 .000
Mean Ldrshp Opportun- Social Sci- Applied Sci- .230(*) .053 .000
ity (OPP)
ences
ences
IT Computer .225(*) .065 .003
Social Sci- Applied Sci- .262(*) .061 .000
ences
ences
IT Computer .224(*) .073 .013
Mean Ldrshp Capacity Social Sci- Applied Sci- .262(*) .061 .000
(ULC)
ences
ences
IT Computer .224(*) .073 .013 Science
IT Computer .246(*) .072 .004
IT Computer Applied Sci- .211(*) .076 .028 ences
FACTOR Knowledge of Social Sci- Applied Sci- .183(*) .051 .002
Ldrship skill (LKTR) ences
ences
IT Computer .351(*) .062 .000
FACTOR_Own Ldrship Social Sci- Applied Sci- .104(*) .035 .017
Skill (SLF)
ences
ences
IT Computer .145(*) .043 .004
FACTOR Willingness Social Sci- Applied Sci- .176(*) .059 .016
for Involvement(IN- ences
ences
VOLVE)
IT Computer .266(*) .072 .001
FACTOR Orientation to Social Sci- Applied Sci- .186(*) .044 .000
Ldrship (ORIENT) ences
ences
IT Computer .275(*) .053 .000
FACTOR Motivation to Social Sci- Applied Sci- .196(*) .051 .001
Lead (MotLd)
ences
ences
df
F
Sig.
3,1822 19.31 .000
3,1822 15.64 .000 3,1819 25.59 .000 3,1818 8.02 .000
3,1815 7.54 .000
3,1831 11.48 .000 3,1838 5.97 .000 3,1831 5.75 .001 3,1820 11.04 .000 3,1792 5.40 .001
162 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8
Table 2b: Multiple Comparisons by Academic Year (Tukey HSD)
Dependent Variable (I) AcadYr (J)
FACTOR UniEx 3rd yr 4th yr
Mean TO
3rd yr
4th yr
Mean INF
2nd yr 3rd yr 4th yr
Mean Opp
4th yr
MeanULC
4th yr
FACTOR_LKTR
FACTOR SLF 4th yr
FACTR_INVOLVE 4th yr
FACTOR ORIENT 4th yr
FACTOR MotLd
1st yr 1st yr 2nd yr 1st yr 2nd yr 1st yr 2nd yr 1st yr 1st yr 1st yr 2nd yr 1st yr 1st yr 1st yr 1st yr 1st yr
Mean Diff (I-J) .310(*) .456(*) .313(*) .389(*) .269(*) .553(*) .433(*) .231(*) .403(*) .564(*) .333(*) .226(*) .302(*) .157(*) .268(*) .164(*)
Std. Error Sig.
.070
.000
.077
.000
.078
.000
.089
.000
.091
.017
.098
.000
.099
.000
.074
.010
.082
.000
.089
.000
.091
.002
.071
.009
.081
.001
.047
.005
.079
.004
.059
.029
df
F
Sig.
3,1823 13.951 .000
3,1823 13.714 .000
3,1820 15.889 .000
3,1819 3.780 .010 3,1816 5.039 .002 3,1839 3.658 .012 3,1832 4.074 .007 3,1821 3.163 .024
Table 2c: Multiple Comparisons by CGPA (Tukey HSD test)
Dependent Variable (I) CGPA (J)
Mean Diff (I- Std. Error Sig. J)
FACTOR UniEx
Mean TO
Mean INF
Mean Opp
3.1-3.5 2.1-2.5 .235(*)
.084
.026
MeanULC
FACTOR LKTR 3.1-3.5 2.1-2.5 .245(*)
.079
.012
FACTOR SLF
FACTR INVOLVE
FACTOR ORIENT 3.1-3.5 2.1-2.5 .201(*)
.068
.018
3.6-4.0 2.1-2.5 .231(*)
.086
.038
FACTOR MotLd 3.1-3.5 2.1-2.5 .217(*)
.080
.034
3.6-4.0 2.1-2.5 .292(*)
.101
.020
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
df
F
Sig.
3,1702 2.682 .045 3,1713 3.331 .019 3,1704 3.217 .022 3,1678 3.481
The tests also revealed that students in the public universities and colleges generally scored higher means in each of the above factors than their cohorts in the private institutions. There were no significant differences in the mean scores between male and
female students in all factors, except LKTR or knowledge about leadership (male mean 5.72 female mean 5.88, t=-3.08 p<.05). However, when the data was split between public and private HEIs, it was found that males in the public colleges and universit-
JAMALIAH ABDUL-HAMID, STEVEN ERIC KRAUSS, ISMI ARIF ISMAIL 163
ies had significantly higher mean score for MotLd (t= 2.883, F=12.885 df 1225,795.15 p.00), but there were no significant differences between gender for motivation to lead in the private institutions. We recommend future research to examine further into the issue of gender differences in the motivation to lead in public and private colleges and universities. In the split data, it was also found that third and fourth year students in public HEIs significantly contributed to a positive difference of students' perceptions on the subscales of Leadership Training, Availability of Information about leadership, Opportunities for Student Leadership Opportunity, and Perception of the total university experience in developing leadership capacity. It could be that the more senior students in the public HEIs probably have experienced more and better opportunities for leadership positions and training, and hence they held better perceptions of their leadership capacity. However, this would indicate that leadership opportunities in public HEIs need to be carefully re-structured to enable a wider representation of first and second year students. In private HEIs, the academic year status did not contribute to any significant difference in any of the subscales except for Leadership Training, which was again viewed more favourably by the fourth year students. In general, students in private HEIs gave lower ratings for many of those subscales in the university factor, thus indicating that their institutions could have offered far fewer leadership training and development programs than the public HEIs. Interestingly however, there were no significant differences in Motivation to Lead amongst students in the public and private colleges. It would seem that in the end, in spite of the positive views that senior students in the public universities and colleges have about their university experience, they are in fact no different from their counterparts in the private colleges and universities in their motivation to lead. Given that the mean scores for motivation to lead were high for both groups, this would suggest that the private universities and colleges have succeeded in promoting the willingness to lead amongst their students in other ways other than formal training and development programs or activities in campus. Through Anova test in Table 3, it was found that students between the ages of 21 and 24 were ahead and leading in their positive perceptions across all constructs. Interestingly, the perceptions of leader-
ship training (TO), overall university experience in developing leadership capacity (ULC), orientation to leadership (ORIENT), leadership opportunity (OPP) and the motivation to lead (MotLd) peak in the >41 age group in comparison to the fresh undergraduates in the >18 age group. The >41 age group was ahead in their perception of ULC. Perhaps those in this age group category were more confident to approach faculty and staff for discussions. Most would have had some previous work experience, and therefore were able to engage in more meaningful sharing of knowledge. However, willingness to be involved in campus and social activities (INVOLVE) was observed to be in reverse order for the >41 age group. Instead, willingness for involvement in campus and social activities was highest among the 21 to 24 age group. The age group cohort between 18 and 20 showed the least scores across all factors in comparison to all other groups. Perhaps being in their late adolescent stage and new to campus life, these students are still learning how to cope with the unfamiliar environment. They might still be too focussed on learning to get along, rather than exploring the many opportunities for training, involvement and participation. While this is quite understandable (perhaps more so in the local Malaysian context), it needs also to be said that more efforts should be made by universities and colleges to encourage these very young students to develop awareness of their evolving roles as future leaders and as active participants in helping to bring change within the campus and outside in their communities. Surprisingly however, there were no significant differences in the level of formal knowledge about leadership skills (Factor LKTR) across all age groups ranging from 18 to above 41. This finding seems to imply that the formal training about leadership skills in universities and colleges have been successful. As we have seen earlier, the mean for LKTR was high at 6.01. Yet, in spite of this, the mean for the factor of self rating of one's own leadership skills (SLF) was only a moderate 4.90. This would seem to support the observation the authors made at the beginning that the training of `technical skills' for leadership as we are wont to find in many leadership training programs may not readily translate to real enthusiasm, motivation, or interest to lead, nor the grounded feeling of growing leadership competence in the students.
164 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8
Table 3: Multiple Comparisons of AGE GROUP (Tukey HSD)
Dependent Variable (I) Age (J)
Mean Diff Std. Error Sig. df
F
Sig.
(I-J)
FACTR_1_UniEx
21-22 <18
.561(*) .129
.000 6,1824 12.734 .000
19-20 .383(*) .055
.000
23-24 <18
.649(*) .149
.000
19-20 .472(*) .092
.000
>41
<18
.719(*) .204
.008
19-20 .542(*) .168
.021
Mean TO_12
21-22 <18
.752(*) .164
.000 6,1824 12.148 .000
19-20 .475(*) .070
.000
23-24 <18
.844(*) .189
.000
19-20 .568(*) .117
.000
.000
25-26 <18
.963(*) .290
.016
>41
<18
.778(*) .260
.044
MeanTN_9
21-22 <18
.532(*) .150
.008 6,1821 10.190
19-20 .379(*) .064
.000
23-24 <18
.754(*) .173
.000
19-20 .601(*) .107
.000
MeanUOpp_7
21-22 19-20 .242(*) .051
.000 6,1820 5.570 .000
>41
19-20 .498(*) .156
.024
MeanULC_5
21-22 <18
.470(*) .137
.012 6,1817 7.921 .000
19-20 .301(*) .058
.000
23-24 19-20 .287(*) .097
.049
>41
<18
.854(*) .216
.002
19-20 .685(*) .176
.002
FACTR_2_LKTR
23-24 <18
.443(*) .132
.014 6,1833 3.318 .003
FACTR_3_SLF
21-22 19-20 .128(*) .034
.004 6,1840 4.104 .000
FACTR_4_INVOLVE 21-22 19-20 .294(*) .057
.000 6,1833 7.150 .000
>41
.631(*) .174
.006
23-24 19-20 .349(*) .095
.005
>41
.687(*) .190
.006
FACTR_5_ORIENT 21-22 19-20 .223(*) .042
.000 6,1822 8.935 .000
23-24 19-20 .251(*) .070
.007
27-40 <18
.861(*) .264
.019
19-20 .850(*) .249
.012
>41
19-20 .440(*) .129
.013
DV_2_MotLd
21-22 19-20 .172(*) .049
.009 6,1793 5.864 .000
>41
<18
.705(*) .186
.003
19-20 .682(*) .155
.000
21-22 .510(*) .156
.019
23-24 .513(*) .169
.040
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
JAMALIAH ABDUL-HAMID, STEVEN ERIC KRAUSS, ISMI ARIF ISMAIL 165
Multiple regression test was carried out to examine the factors that predicted the level of motivation to lead. See Tables 4 and 5. Since one of the research objectives was to examine students' perception of the leadership training and development environment in their respective campuses, the four sub-constructs of university experience (TO, INF, OPP ,ULC) were entered using enter method in the regression equation. The results showed Adjusted RІ is .22. The standardized beta coefficients in the equation were significant, except for INF. Stepwise method was then used to confirm the weight of the coefficients with respect to one another, after INF was removed. The standardized beta coefficients indicated that
singularly ULC or the perception of leadership capacity attained as a result of the entire university experience contributed .46 or 46% of the prediction on motivation to lead. When other constructs were introduced, ULC contributed .31, TO ,12 and OPP .10 of the predictive factors for Motivation to Lead. The findings indicate the importance of the totality of campus experience in helping students to develop their motivation to become leaders. Students need to believe in and experience positive outcomes as a result of formal intervention leadership training programs in order for them to have the confidence to become leaders. They also need to experience real opportunities to practice their leadership.
Table 4: Regression of Effect of University Factors on Motivation to Lead
Standardized
Model
Beta t
Std. Er-
ror df
F
Sig. RІ Adjusted RІ
1
(Constant)
39.290 .000 1,1788 472.49 .000(a) .209 .209
MeanULC
.457 21.737 .000
2
(Constant)
37.481 .000 2,1787 253.22 .000(b)
MeanULC
.371 13.923 .000
.221 .220
Mean TO
.139 5.204 .000
3
(Constant)
31.962 .000 3,1786 173.38 .000(c)
MeanULC
.309 9.455 .000
.226 .224
Mean TO
.124 4.582 .000
MeanOPP
.100 3.302 .001
a Dependent Variable: DV_2_MotLd
Regression of Personal factors on Motivation to Lead showed that ORIENT or orientation towards self and group leadership is the highest predictive factor to motivation to lead (beta .46) followed by willingness to be involved in campus and social activities (beta .30), formal knowledge about leadership (beta .08) and perception of leadership skills in oneself
(beta.07). The Adjusted RІ is .58, which shows that the constructs in the model have high predictive value for undergraduates' motivation to lead. When taken on its own, Orientation towards self and group leadership contributes to about 71% to the regression model of adjusted RІ.50.
166 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8
Table 5: Regression of Effects of Personal Factors on Motivation to Lead
Standardized Beta t
1 (Constant)
5.484
ORIENT .705 42.288
2 (Constant)
1.698
ORIENT .526 28.338
INVOLVE .323 17.410
3 (Constant)
-.557
ORIENT .484 24.046
INVOLVE .313 16.912
LKTR
.092 5.146
4 (Constant)
-1.861
ORIENT .457 20.976
INVOLVE .301 15.978
LKTR
.080 4.387
SLF
.065 3.224
a Dependent Variable: MeanMotLd_8
Std. Er-
ror
df
.000 1,1809
.000
.090 2,1808
.000
.000
.578 3,1807
.000
.000
.000
.063 4,1806
.000
.000
.000
.001
F
Sig.
1788.311 .000
1195.023 .000)
816.739 .000)
618.338 .000
Adjusted RІ RІ .497 .497 .569 .569 .576 .575 .578 .577
The finding showed the importance of complementing university campus experience and students' personal factors in future planning of leadership training. Universities cannot afford to minimalize the role of the total campus experience in leadership motivation in terms of formal leadership training and leadership opportunities. At the same time, universities and colleges need to offer more opportunities for students to explore their own orientations towards leadership whether in self-leadership or in leadership of a group. In this sense, micro level leadership should be encouraged for the opportunity they provide for a greater number of students to take turns at leadership. Many university and college Students show willingness to be involved in campus activities, and they need to be facilitated to join in those activities since involvement is the second predictor of motivation to lead. Faculties can assist in this by absorbing as much of campus work within their programs so that students do not labor under the impression of extra curricular being time consuming, secondary in their importance in comparison to the academic studies, or voluntary to the point of omission. It was shown earlier that students in the Faculties of Social Science Cluster tended to show higher levels of attendance in leadership courses and in their willingness to be involved in campus activities than their cohorts in the Faculties of Applied Sciences, Pure Sciences and ICT clusters. Surprisingly, formal knowledge about leadership and their own self assessment of their leadership
skills were not strong predictors in students' motivation to lead. This suggests that the top heavy emphasis on theories of leadership, while being impressive in the way that they could expand the cognitive horizons of undergraduates, do not actually develop in them the interest and the motivation to become leaders. Theories can educate but they also can intimidate. It would be more beneficial if universities and colleges offered more practical hands-on opportunities for exploring leadership orientations by involving the undergraduates in leadership activities. The breakdown of campus involvement by faculties showed that students in the faculties of Applied and Pure Sciences and ICT were lagging in participation and involvement, and this is probably due to the heavy schedule of study. It is therefore wiser that Faculties encourage involvement within the structure of their course content and programs. More males seemed to be willing to be involved in campus activities, and therefore more consideration needs to be given in designing programs that will not automatically discourage female students. In many campuses, leadership training programs tend to be aggressive, and at times leadership held by male students sometimes tend to exclude female team members. It is necessary therefore for universities and colleges to educate student leadership to become more sensitive to inclusive and exclusive innuendoes that exist in the way societies or meetings are run.
JAMALIAH ABDUL-HAMID, STEVEN ERIC KRAUSS, ISMI ARIF ISMAIL 167
A Proposed Model of an Integrated Approach for Student Leadership Training and Development Program So what is the implication on the way leadership programs are designed on campuses? The authors agree with the observation made by Roberts (1981) that there are distinct differences between the terms training, education, and development. Training 'involves those activities designed to improve performance of the individual in the role presently occupied' (p. 19); education 'consists of those activities designed to improve the overall leadership competence of the individual beyond the role presently occupied' (p. 21); and development 'involves those activities designed to provide an interaction environment which encourages development in an ordered hierarchical sequence of increasing complexity' (p. 22). In providing a total campus experience, leadership development programs need to have a definite skillstraining focus that is embedded in a larger educative environment of learning comprising the multiple contexts found naturally or structurally within community realities, where the ultimate development of leadership thinking will grow as a result of active involvement and interaction within those contextual environments. Faculty members therefore need to be committed in providing educative environments to help develop self awareness and awareness of others in various kinds of interpersonal interactions. Students need meaningful intervention from faculty
and staff to help them develop `leadership generativity', a term borrowed from level 5 of leadership awareness development from Komives (2005) model. As this present study has shown, occasions of formal leadership training programs on campuses may not contribute as significantly as opportunities for student and faculty interaction in helping students develop their awareness of leadership and their motivation to lead. This study affirms the work of Astin (1996) who noted the most important factors associated with a positive perception of college life were the opportunity to positively interact with faculty and peers. Callahan and Mabey (1985) recognize three types of leadership training and development programs for college students. First is the traditional student affairs approach. This model may include non-credit experiential activities coordinated mostly by student affairs administrators. The next approach is typically more academically inclined and may include interdisciplinary courses team-taught by faculty members. Courses typically focus on leadership theories, traits, behaviours and case studies. The third model is considered a professional program approach. Typically, these programs focus on leadership from a disciplinary perspective, such as EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, business, or political leadership. However, in view of the findings of this present research, there is an extrapolated need for a more integrated universitywide model of student leadership development that will involve the participation of faculty, staff, and students in eight basic areas (see figure 1).
Figure 1: An Integrated Model for Student Leadership Development Programs
168 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8
Each of the areas is briefly explained. 1. A shared philosophy of student leadership: Faculty, staff and students must be guided by a sound philosophy with regards to the importance of developing leadership knowledge, skills, and thinking in every student. Leadership is not necessarily tied to positions, but may entail Self Leadership or it could also be leadership of small circles of proximal communities. 2. Student leadership formal training: This would follow the tradition of non-credit or in more recent times, credit based training courses which are formally implemented by the student affairs unit of the campus. 3. student involvement in self and group leadership activities: Involvement in activities within and outside campus provides contextual real frameworks that are needed to develop leadership thinking and orientation, as well as ethical and values frameworks. During their involvement, faculty can assist to sharpen students' awareness of themselves and others through dialogues, tasks, and reflective accounts. 4. Increased opportunities for student governance: Faculty and staff need to empower students in campus level decisions, particularly in decisions that directly concern their welfare, academic pursuits and future career. Real and meaningful empowerment in decision making require a readiness from all parties to deal dynamically with issues of power and control such as exclusive power to veto and mechanisms that restrict access to student representation . 5. Providing role models of successful leadership practices: Faculty, staff and students can work together to identify successful role models who can be invited to various dialogues with all parties to explore lines of leadership thinking in multiple contexts. Role models also are good resources to help mentor leadership development amongst young students. 6. Student Leadership Forum and Conferences: These types of target specific forums and conferences will provide platforms by which student leaders and other students share their emerging leadership schemas. The involvement of role models and faculty members in these conferences may serve as useful input to guide the explorations of these schemas, but hopefully, not to overwhelm them. 7. Student Leadership Research and Development: If possible, we would like to recommend that every college and university develop a strong partnership between faculty and student leaders to do collaborative research on student leadership. The collaboration will help to seriously commit both parties to further understand issues
in student leadership, and in the development of student leadership potential amongst students. 8. Student Leadership Certification: The type of recognition and its value are often the most problematic issue in any form of formal certification. Faculty and students need to sit together to discuss more meaningful forms of certification to recognize the growing competence and potential of leadership in every student, rather than reserving the merits only for those who hold hallowed position in the university. The general impression is to guide students to develop a keen awareness of their skill and knowledge in exerting meaningful leadership in various situations, to different groups of individuals in order to achieve multiple levels of change. Recommendations Within the above framework, the authors also recommend the following special foci that need to be included in the content of leadership training and development programs. · To educate and train faculty members and staff to manage better quality intervention with their students to aid them in developing better awareness and potential of leadership within themselves. · To encourage faculty to design within their academic programs various and continuous opportunities for their students to be actively involved in faculty. Faculty-university, and outside university activities. This will help to reduce the gaps of student involvement in activities between various Faculties. · To design better in-built `self-assess and self-reflective' components in formal training leadership programs to help students monitor their own leadership development. Reflectivity is important to help students develop leadership orientation and their own leadership level. Moreover, students need to see and feel in tangible ways how their training has produced positive results. · To disseminate more browsing material about leaders, leadership, and leadership thinking in faculties, residential colleges, and university public centres to encourage casual reading on leadership · To motivate students through various avenues to seek to be involved in activities both campuswide and in the community, and to participate in interactions with faculty and staff members. · Development of more opportunities for undergraduate students to take on leadership at micro and macro levels in residential colleges, faculty,
JAMALIAH ABDUL-HAMID, STEVEN ERIC KRAUSS, ISMI ARIF ISMAIL 169
and university levels. Our aim in the universities should also be extended further to include helping our students understand and tackle global issues and the leadership challenges and opportunities related to them. Conclusion University and colleges have a great responsibility in developing future leaders in terms of nurturing their leadership skills and their motivation to lead. Beyond the training to impart formal knowledge about leadership and leadership competencies, there is an even more pressing need to nurture in students the interest and the motivation to lead. Motivation to lead is the willingness to bear the risks, hardship and complications involved in being a leader to a team and to move the team forward to achieve common goals or higher goals. In cultivating the motivation to lead, we need to offer a total campus experience in terms of positive support and encouragement to promote students' holistic experiences from "self leadership" to "leadership of others", and from isolated types of "project management mentality" to "being able to create worthwhile changes or innova-
tions within the community". The more opportunities there are to be involved in campus wide activities and student leadership, the better their self awareness and the understanding of their leadership orientation within group and community contexts. In this light, intervention in leadership programs needs to include guidance from experts who can help guide students to explore the psycho-sociological orientations in their cognitive and affective selves, as well as a socio-cultural perspective to aid them in understanding the dynamics, power and influence balance in group dynamics. We would like to conclude and reiterate our agreement with Astin & Astin (2000) who suggest that students are not likely to commit to making changes in society unless the institutions in which they have been trained display a similar commitment. If the next generation of citizen leaders is to be engaged and committed to leading for the common good, then the institutions which nurture them must be engaged in the work of the society and the community, modeling effective leadership and problem solving skills, and demonstrating how to accomplish change for the common good.
References Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership: Enriching the meaning of our work. Lanham, MD: University Press. Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 25, 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 37, 123-134. Astin, A. W. & Sax, L. J. (1998). How Undergraduates are Affected by Service Participation. Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 39. No, 3, 251-263. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Devel- opment, Vol. 40, 518-529. Astin, A., Sax, L., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the undergraduate years. Review of Higher Education, Vol. 22, No. 2, 187­202. Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsideration: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1998). Motivation Sources Inventory: Development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation. Psychological Reports, 82, 1011-1022. Barbuto, J.E. Jr. (2001). Understanding and Applying an Integrative Taxonomy of Motivation Sources to Professional and Personal Settings. Journal of Management Education 2001; 25; 713. Callahan, M.M. & Mabey, C, (1985). Undergraduate leadership development. AAHE Bulletin, 37 (7), 3-6. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Herzberg, F. W. (1968). One more time, how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53-62. Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Kezar, A. & Moriarty, D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of student leadership development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 41, 55-69. Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a dif- ference. Student Development, Vol. 41, 55-68. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Komives, S. R., & Woodard, D. B. (2003). Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2004). Leadership Identity Development. Concepts & Connections: A Publication for Leadership Educators. Vol.12, No. 3, 1-5.
170 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 8 Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 46, 593-611. Komives, S. R., Mainella, F. C., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2006). A leadership identity development model: Applications from a grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, Vol.47, No. 4, 401-418. Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge (2nd ed). San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Roberts, D. ( 1997). The changing look of leadership programs. Concepts and Connections, 5, 1, 3,4, 11-14. Roberts, D. C. (1981). Student leadership programs in higher education. Washington, DC: ACPA. Rogers, J. L. (2003). Leadership. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 447-465). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Roth, J. (2000, March). What we know and what we need to know about youth development programs. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Chicago, IL. Simpson,K.B.; Vickers, M.H.; Kristovics, A.; Marsh, H.W. (2005b). Towards a model of achievement motivation for ad- olescents. Paper presented at the CAESS Inaugural Research Conference, Scholarship and Community. October, Bankstown Campus, University of Western Sydney. library.uws.edu.au/adt-NUWS/uploads/approved/adtNUWS20071204.150239/public/04Chapter3.pdf/ Zimmerman-Oster, K., Burkhardt, J., (1999a). Leadership in the making: A comprehensive examination of the impact of leadership development programs on students. Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6, 50-66. Zimmerman-Oster, Kathleen & Burkhardt, J. C. (1999b). Leadership in the Making: Impact of Leadership Development Programs in U.S. Colleges and Universities. W. R. Kellogg Special Publication, Battle Creek, Michigan. About the Authors Dr. Jamaliah Abdul-Hamid Jamaliah Abdul Hamid is an Associate Professor at the University Putra Malaysia. She teaches and researches in the area of Educational Administration and Leadership. Dr. Steven Eric Krauss Dr. Steven Krauss @Abdul Lateef is a lecturer in the Faculty of Educational Studies in University Putra Malaysia. He teaches Leadership and qualitative research methods. Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail, has dedicated himself in the area of Continuing Education and joined UPM in 2000. His significant and scholarly contributions and involvements in building the capacity of people in the community, especially in the field of continuing education, human resource development and leadership are highly acknowledged nationally and internationally. Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail completed his high school at Sekolah Menengah Sultan Abdul Halim, Jitra, Kedah. He obtained his honours degree in TESL from UKM in 1993. Due to his strong interest in continuing education, he decided to pursue his higher education in the area of extension education at the master's levels. He was appointed as a lecturer with University Putra Malaysia in 2000. Since then, his contribution in teaching, research and services has been focused on continuing education covering the areas of extension education, youth development and leadership. Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail obtained his doctoral degree in 2005 in Continuing Education from the University of Warwick, UK. Currently he serves as the Advisor of the Human Resource Development Student Association at Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education, Faculty of Educational Studies. He has been involved in research and consultancy work, both nationally and internationally in the area of continuing education, extension education, human resource development and youth development. He has also been involved in advisory and Community Services both national and internationally.
EDITORS Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Editorial Advisory Board Verna Allee, Verna Allee Associates, California, USA. Zainal Ariffin, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. Robert Brooks, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Bruce Cronin, University of Greenwich, UK. Rod Dilnutt, William Bethway and Associates, Melbourne, Australia. Judith Ellis, Enterprise Knowledge, Melbourne, Australia. Andrea Fried, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany. David Gurteen, Gurteen Knowledge, UK. David Hakken, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Sabine Hoffmann, Macquarie University, Australia. Stavros Ioannides, Pantion University, Athens, Greece. Margaret Jackson, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Leslie Johnson, University of Greenwich, UK. Eleni Karantzola, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Gerasimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Greece. Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, USA. Martyn Laycock, University of Greenwich and managingtransitions.net, UK. David Lyon, Queens University, Ontario, Canada. Bill Martin, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Pumela Msweli-Mbanga, University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Claudia Schmitz, Cenandu Learning Agency, Germany. Kirpal Singh, Singapore Management University, Singapore. Dave Snowden, Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity, UK. Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Management-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS International Journal of the Arts in Society Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theories and practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships with society. ISSN: 1833-1866 http://www.Arts-Journal.com International Journal of the Book Explores the past, present and future of books, publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning in the information society. ISSN: 1447-9567 http://www.Book-Journal.com Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal Examines the meaning and purpose of `design' while also speaking in grounded ways about the task of design and the use of designed artefacts and processes. ISSN: 1833-1874 http://www.Design-Journal.com International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body of knowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference and diversity. ISSN: 1447-9583 http://www.Diversity-Journal.com International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability Draws from the various fields and perspectives through which we can address fundamental questions of sustainability. ISSN: 1832-2077 http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com Global Studies Journal Maps and interprets new trends and patterns in globalization. ISSN 1835-4432 http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com International Journal of the Humanities Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplating the future and the human, in an era otherwise dominated by scientific, technical and economic rationalisms. ISSN: 1447-9559 http://www.Humanities-Journal.com International Journal of the Inclusive Museum Addresses the key question: How can the institution of the museum become more inclusive? ISSN 1835-2014 http://www.Museum-Journal.com International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge creation within and across the various social sciences and between the social, natural and applied sciences. ISSN: 1833-1882 http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management Creates a space for discussion of the nature and future of organisations, in all their forms and manifestations. ISSN: 1447-9575 http://www.Management-Journal.com International Journal of Learning Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build a body of knowledge on the nature and future of learning. ISSN: 1447-9540 http://www.Learning-Journal.com International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society Focuses on a range of critically important themes in the various fields that address the complex and subtle relationships between technology, knowledge and society. ISSN: 1832-3669 http://www.Technology-Journal.com Journal of the World Universities Forum Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy in times of striking social transformation. ISSN 1835-2030 http://www.Universities-Journal.com FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT [email protected]

File: journal-ofknowledge-culture.pdf
Published: Fri Oct 3 16:27:53 2008
Pages: 18
File size: 0.7 Mb


, pages, 0 Mb

A big bet on gluten-free, 5 pages, 0.09 Mb

To Kill a Mockingbird, 65 pages, 1.17 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com