1  

ABSTRACT

Why All Students Are Talented: Exploiting The Strengths Potential Via A New Lens For Learning And

Teaching

The purpose of this study is to explore student experiences when exposed to an intervention that focuses

on an individual’s strengths. Strengths-based approaches attempt to help students identify their own

unique talents, and then use them to develop a strategy for utilising such gifts in negotiating their

academic progression and careers. This challenges the prevailing culture of mainstream higher education

that has relied primarily on a deficit model that focuses on student weaknesses rather than talent and

strength. One of the substantive conclusions of this study is that students encounter a highly personalised

“strengths journey” when exposed to a strengths-based educational intervention. Some students

experienced what the author has termed a ‘Learning Epiphany’ and in some cases this manifestation was

dramatic and highly positive. The results found meaningful implications for curriculum design and

delivery, and offers much potential for supporting students in achieving excellence in their academic

studies.

  2  

Why All Students Are Talented: Exploiting The Strengths Potential Via A New Lens For Learning And

Teaching

The prevailing culture of mainstream higher education has relied primarily on a deficit model that

focuses on student weaknesses rather than talent and strength (Anderson & McGuire, 1997; Aspinwall &

Staudinger 2003; Schreiner & Anderson 2005). Such an approach often relies on deficit remediation

programs that operate on the basis of encouraging students to work on perceived weaknesses as the basis

for academic progression (Abelman & Molina, 2002; Bettinger & Long, 2007; Ender & Wilkie, 2000,

Kreysa, 2006; Plucker, Wongsarnpigoon, & Houser, 2006; Perin, 2006). Barefoot (2000) believes that the

emphasis on student deficiencies rather than strengths is one explanation the failure of many students to

adjust successfully to university life. As he states, “… rarely is there a sustained focus on and

acknowledgment of the strengths of contemporary students” (p. 13). As such, the necessity to readdress

this imbalance becomes apparent. Strengths-based education continues to show early promise as a

potentially crucial tool for addressing the pervading deficit model (Anderson, 2005; Austin, 2005; Cave,

2003; Cantwell, 2005; Gillum, 2005; Epstein, et al, 2000; Reid, et al, 2000; Lopez, et al, 2005; and

Williamson, 2002). A strengths-based approach to education can be defined as the identification and

development of the unique individual strengths and talents of each student. Anderson describes this

approach as supporting students as they “apply their strengths and talents in the process of learning,

intellectual development, and academic achievement to levels of personal excellence.” (2004, p. 1).

Strengths-based approaches attempt to help students identify their own unique talents and then use them

to develop a strategy for utilising such gifts in negotiating their academic progression and careers. As

Anderson and Schreiner (2004) state, “research … has led to a potentially revolutionary discovery:

  3  

individuals who focus on their weaknesses and remediate them are only able to achieve “average”

performance at best; they are able to gain far more—and even to reach levels of excellence—when they

expend comparable effort to build on their talents. This discovery is of enormous import to higher

education...” (p. 4)

A strengths approach encourages students to develop into individuals capable of capitalizing on

their gifts and abilities in various contexts. In identifying and cultivating students’ strengths, it seeks to

encourage self-awareness that also nurtures a confidence to then apply those strengths to their academic

studies. Anderson (2004) suggests that, “a strengths-based approach to teaching involves a process of

assessing, teaching and designing experiential learning activities to help students identify, develop and

apply their strengths and talents in the process of learning, intellectual development, and academic

achievements to levels of personal excellence” (p.1). Considering the prevailing deficit-focused emphasis

of student development in higher education, alternative solutions to supporting students to reach their

potential is crucial. While there is an emerging body of research exploring the potential impact of

strengths-based educational interventions, an almost total absence of the student voice in this field is

evident. There have been few qualitative studies into the impact of a strengths approach in higher

education. Quantitative studies that have sought to assess the impact of such interventions have been

crucial in establishing credibility for the movement; however, little is known outside anecdotal evidence

as to the range of influences on the individuals involved in the studies. Several studies have reported that

strengths interventions can be enlightening and emotionally positive for the participants (Anderson 2000a,

b; Anderson & Schreiner 2004; Cantwell, 2005; Clifton & Harter, 2003; and Schreiner & Anderson

2005). Despite this assertion, there are no studies offering a rich description of these impacts. If the field

of strengths education is to mature and develop in order to capitalize on student potential, then a rich

description of how the personal impact of such an intervention transpires becomes crucial. What is clearly

  4  

missing from the literature is a rich narrative approach that links common experiences into a unified

theory. As such, this study sought to explore in depth the experiences of students who have participated in

a strengths-based educational intervention.

As suggested above, much of the research literature assessing the effects of strengths

interventions concerns itself with measuring the in-class effects, attitudes, perceptions or behaviors of

students exposed to such an intervention (Anderson, 2005; Austin, 2005; Cave, 2003; Cantwell, 2005;

Gillum, 2005; Epstein, Rudolph & Epstein, 2000; Reid, Epstein & Pastor, 2000; Lopez, Janowski, &

Wells, 2005; and Williamson, 2002). However, the personal impact, or what Clifton and Nelson (1992)

refer to as “psychic reward” (p. 42), has not been fully explored. They describe the experience that a

strengths-based intervention induces in an individual as “a pattern of behavior, thought and feeling that

produces a high degree of satisfaction and pride” (p. 42). This investigation concerned itself with the

development of a theory that described the impact of a strengths intervention on the participants in an

academic context. As such, it used a grounded theory design as this approach facilitates enough structure

to ensure a rigorous investigation of the key issues, while also providing enough flexibility to allow for

the authentic voice of the participants to

be reflected and theorised (Creswell, 2002).

Before exploring specific and contemporary related studies of using a strengths approach in

education, it is worth noting the roots of the movement. As early as 1916, Binet and Simon (1916)

encouraged an approach to teaching that focused on the positive attributes of children rather than on their

deficits. They challenged early crude models of measuring intelligence in children by suggesting an

alternative approach that involved appealing to the child’s broader experience, individual personality, and

interests. As Binet and Simon (1916) state:

Appeal to his judgment, to his imagination or again, leaving the reading book,

  5  

question the child during recreation; gain his confidence, make him talk; show an

interest in his response, and question him upon his future projects, upon his

friendships, his duties, his life at home. Freed from the constraint of the class,

certain minds open, and thus one makes unexpected discoveries. This is the charm

of confidences; a silent child begins talking; one finds that he is full of

imagination, and often of mischief. (p. 308)

The work of Hurlock (1925) and Terman and Oden (1947) further developed this theme of

encouraging student excellence and giving supportive encouragement. Key studies in fostering talent

as a means to encourage excellence can also be tracked to the work of Arthur Chickering (1969;

Chickering & Gamson, 1991; and Chickering & Reisser, 1993), where once again it is suggested that

more focus should be applied to broader notions of talent in students rather than deficits. Another

manifestation of this development relates to what has become known as gifted and talented

education. Although the term itself seems to suggest similar ethos and sensibility to a strengths

approach, it has fundamentally different roots and contextual applications. Holland and Astin (1962)

are credited with engaging in a debate critiquing the merits and accuracy of describing talent on the

basis of reductive aptitude test scores. One of the definitions of talent that they use is this: “Human

talent is the potential for excellent and creative performance having value for the individual and for

society” (Holland & Astin, 1962, p. 77). It is easy to see from such a statement how even at this early

juncture in educational development, the potential for understanding and developing human assets

was becoming recognised. Holland and Astin (1962) go on to lament how this resource can be easily

squandered by ignorance around how such talent is developed, or “talent loss” as they describe it (p.

77). Thirty years later Holland (1992) would go on to suggest that individuals will thrive and achieve

levels of excellence in environments that best match their talents and attributes, echoing much of the

  6  

strengths philosophy from across the various sectors. In distinguished careers, both Astin and

Holland in many ways mirror the difference between the Clifton emphasis on talent and the

Peterson/Seligman model of viewing human strengths, with Astin supporting a more distinct

character and virtues development construct (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and Holland championing

a more distinct talent traits and strengths emphasis (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). VanTassel-Baska

(1994) suggests that talented individuals need specialised learning environments and customized

curriculum if they are to be engaged. In such a context, tasks should be both highly stimulating and

embody relevant real life research. It is onto this environment that the strengths-based approaches

seeks to make an impact, and research that studies its impact continues to emerge

Emerging Research in Higher Education

The central premise of privileging and developing strengths over concentrating on weaknesses in

the fields explored above is one that reflects an emerging momentum. It is in higher education in the

United States that much of the related research exists. U.S. higher education has traditionally used

remediation programs for its undergraduate starters; it assumes, as with traditional remedial approaches,

that an audit of weakness followed by the relevant repair program provides the best entry foundation for a

new student. Anderson (1995) identifies such an approach as deficit-based remediation, highlighting on

one level its positive ability to address certain academic deficiencies such as literacy skills, but at the

same time arguing that it has a stigmatizing effect on students at an early stage of their development,

potentially impacting confidence levels. Building on the educational experience of Edward Anderson and

his work on remediation projects at UCLA, Clifton and Anderson (2002) applied the strengths philosophy

and psychological inventories component to academics. StrengthsQuest sought to use the Clifton

StrengthsFinder model as the cornerstone psychological audit instrument in helping students to first

identify their talents and then to build their academic development using these unique capacities. Perhaps

  7  

tellingly, Clifton and Anderson (2002) make a strategic link between student motivation and the

“awareness, development and application of …strengths” (p.19). Earlier, Anderson (1995) had defined

strengths as, “the unique combination of attributes which enable a person to do certain things at levels of

excellence” (p. 5). Anderson and Schreiner (2004) reaffirm the motivational potential of strengths in

stating, “Becoming more aware of how their strengths relate to success in college reduces the students’

self-doubt and fears of failure” (p.4). They conclude that a strengths-based educator resembles a

conductor pulling together the resources of an orchestra, or an investigator where attention is focused on

the positive in drawing out a student’s talent. Anderson’s work built upon Astin’s (1983) research that

insisted that human talent could be capitalised upon by developing reflexive educational curriculum

focusing around changes in student development during the students’ period of study. Anderson,

Schreiner, and Shahbaz (2003) utilised a pretest-posttest research design in using a strengths-based

intervention with first-year students as its independent variable and scores on the Self-Reflection Scale

(Clifton, 1997 as the dependent variable. Although limited due to a lack of a control group, significant

gains in student optimism, strengths awareness, self-confidence and awareness of other’s strengths were

reported.

Cantwell’s (2005) study of the impact of a strengths-based intervention in an undergraduate

communications class utilised a strong quasi-experimental research design that included a control group,

random assignment to the strengths intervention, and various measures to control for possible extraneous

variables. She reported significantly higher levels of academic engagement in the treatment group, along

with overall satisfaction with the class and, most impressively, significantly stronger performance and

quality of presentations in the group who had encountered a strengths-based curriculum. In a rare

qualitative research study, Janowski (2006) used a grounded theory approach to explore how strengths-

based interventions had affected students in universities who were already using the Clifton

  8  

StrengthsFinder instrument in their undergraduate programs. She was interested in developing a theory of

how students move from identification of their strengths to the application of their strengths, what she

termed capitalizing on personal strengths (p. 3) She concluded that the students she interviewed saw their

ability to capitalise on their strengths as dependent on three elements: “perceived social support, their

experiences of success, and the reinforcement of the benefits of their strengths” (p.74). While this rare

grounded theoretical approach usefully attempts an insight into the framework from which strengths is

viewed as beneficial in an educational context, the study’s lack of detailed processing and analysis of the

collected data from the participant’s renders the work frustratingly limited. It is evident from the literature

on strengths-based approaches in education that identifying and developing student strengths offers much

potential. Strong evidence that a strengths approach has a positive impact on individual performance, in-

class behavior, and student engagement is obvious. The paucity of insight into the personal and subjective

experiences of individuals having encountered a strengths-based educational intervention, however,

demands more focused research. The literature relating to strengths-based educational studies also suffers

a credibility concern from the lack of research published in peer-reviewed journals and from the lack of

focused attention on the narrative experiences of students as they navigate through a strengths

intervention.

Aims and Objectives The purpose of this study was to gain a rich narrative description of students’ experiences when

exposed for the first time to an intervention that focuses on an individual’s strengths. It used a grounded

theory methodological approach to ascertain a theory or identifiable construct of experience that relates to

a particular context grounded in the experience and perceptions of the participants (Creswell 2002;

Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The intent was to generate or discover a theory or abstract framework that

relates to having encountered a strengths intervention grounded in the perceptions and experience of the

participants (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Creswell, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, (1998). The theory in such a

  9  

strategy is “grounded” in the participant’s observable experiences or descriptions and is supplemented by

the researcher’s insight into such an inductive process

Methodology and Data Collection

This strengths intervention study used a grounded theory methodological approach to

investigate the central question: What is the specific personal impact that students experience after a

strengths-based educational intervention? Grounded theory techniques by definition demand a fluid

qualitative construction in framing the study (Creswell, 2002). A grounded theory approach seeks to

ascertain a theory or identifiable construct of phenomena that relates to a particular context

grounded in the experience and perceptions of the participants. The intent is also to generate or

discover a theory or abstract framework of phenomenon that relates to a particular situation

grounded in the perceptions and experience of the participants (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Creswell,

1998; and Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The theory is grounded in the participants’ observable

experiences or descriptions and is supplemented by the researcher’s reflection and insight. The

Intervention

The intervention used the Clifton StrengthsFinder instrument as one of its key tools in helping the

participants understand their potential talents. The Clifton StrengthsFinder describes 34 themes of talent

and each participant receives his or her top five themes as a personal profile. The psychometric properties

of the Clifton StrengthsFinder have been assessed across a range of sample groups. Schreiner (2006)

reported that the construct validity of the instrument is strong by establishing its validity against two other

comparable instruments (the CPI-260 and the 16PF). The majority of the 34 Clifton StrengthsFinder

themes scored a mean test-retest reliability estimate of .70, which comfortably attains accepted standards

for instrument stability by most statisticians (AERA/APA/NCME, 1999).

  10  

Students accessed the online instrument and were provided with a profile of their top five themes of

strength. Clifton and Harter (2003) describe the anatomy of a ‘strength’ as containing three distinct

components: talent, knowledge and skills. Training sessions were designed to incorporate these

components and formed the customised curriculum over the two-day training period. Using the student

profiles as a direct reference, the programme included titles such as: Playing to Our Strengths,

Understanding and Affirming our Signature Themes, and Taking Strengths into the Future/Career

Planning and Strengths. The study used a convenience sample of student mentors from the undergraduate

cohort of the university. The number of participants was considered appropriate for grounded theory

research, but could have been adjusted to ensure that theoretical saturation has been reached (Creswell

2002; Fassinger, 2005; Patton, 2002). Data were gathered by utilising a range of interview protocols. Two

interviews with 12 mentors were conducted around their experiences of going through a strengths-based

educational intervention. The first round of interviews was conducted over the four days following the

intervention. There was a four-month gap between the first and second round of formal interviews. The

study used a combination of systematic and emerging design concepts (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). Initial

analysis of interviews used various established coding protocols to develop the emerging theory. It used

the seminal Strauss and Corbin (1990) model of open, axial and selective coding. Open coding forms

initial broad categories from the information gathered; axial coding then focuses on a specific category,

connects open-coded groupings, and views them in relation to other categories; and finally, selective

coding develops a theory based on the interrelationship between the categories from the axial coding

process. The analysis also employed the use of a Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software

(CAQDAS) package, to aid the process. Non-Numerical Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching and

Theorizing and Numerical Unstructured In-vivo coding (NUDIST NVIVO) draws upon in-vivo coding

(using the words of the participants) and NVIVO as its basis. Data from all interviews were imported into

  11  

NVIVO for analysis, and field notes were used alongside this as an ongoing reference and guide. .

Measures of Trustworthiness

Lincoln and Guba (1990) frame trustworthiness through the triangulation of data and name four

types: a) methods triangulation, b) data triangulation, c), triangulation through multiple analysts, and d)

theory triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They also frame the achievement of trustworthiness around

the satisfactory attainment of four key constructs that relate to a) credibility, b) transferability, c)

dependability, and d) confirmability, which together confirm the “applicability, consistency, and

neutrality” (p. 143) of the study. They argue that all four constructs must be attained for the research to

attain trustworthiness, and this study used this framework as its measure.

Results

The emerging model of the student strengths journey contains six key themes: a) short-term

psychosocial effects of a strengths intervention, b) positive initial mediators of intervention effect, c)

negative initial mediators of intervention effect, d) psychosocial effects of a strengths intervention after

four-months, e) positive four month mediators of intervention effect, and f) negative four month

mediators of intervention effect. This article focuses predominately on the first theme charting the short-

term psychosocial effects of a strengths intervention, but also briefly highlights the other themes as

critical components to the study. Theme 1: Short-term Psychosocial Effects of a Strengths Intervention

Learning Epiphany

The first sub-theme, learning epiphany, reflected the perception of students in describing the

most affected personal impact of the intervention. Several participants talked about a significant

personal moment of revelation or an intense intuitive leap of understanding. One student referred to

the experience as “life-changing,” and the catalyst for this encounter was a shift in perception of

herself from someone displaying challenging, even destructive, behaviors to someone who could now

  12  

clearly see her strengths and their potential. On such occasions the learning experience appears to

have a depth and breadth in its potency. Such a shift in personal understanding is congruent with

Tagg’s (2003) concept of meaning making when deep learning occurs. When students can connect

what they are learning to who they are as a person, or can make connections between their experiences

and new content, then learning becomes significant and lasting (Tagg, 2003). Olivia was the student in

this study who described the intervention as life changing. Having had a difficult year that included

personal tragedy and academic failure, she was able to make a significant connection between

receiving her strengths profile and her intuitive sense of self. As she said:

And so to have … feedback to me, that there is a reason why I think a lot, there is a reason why I collect things, there is a reason why I am empathic. You know, it’s … helped me re-focus … (to say) ‘right, that’s who you are, get on with it.’

Tagg’s (2003) deep learning construct is juxtaposed against a surface approach that relies on

memorising facts without necessarily relating them to concepts. Such an approach draws upon repetitive

memory patterns as a learning methodology, linked to historic patterning both in terms of one’s

constructed identity and knowledge. Such knowledge acquisition quickly fades when the learning context

is over (Tagg, 2003). Conversely, Tagg’s (2003) deep learning approach suggests supporting students to

connect academic content to personal experience. This attachment in turn encourages a habit of

considering ways in which subject matter can relate to students’ definitions of themselves and the world

in which they live. Many of the students in this study were able to make useful connections between their

strengths profiles and how these played out in life, and as such experienced a deep learning moment.

Andy epitomized his own learning epiphany when he stated, ‘When you are going through this two day

course you do feel like someone’s handing you the keys to your superpowers … And I kept thinking …

“we are all superheroes who just need to find out what our powers are.”’ This movement from superficial

towards deeper learning may help explain why some of the students in this study experienced so-called

  13  

“learning epiphanies.” In Olivia’s case, she moved from viewing historic behaviors and perceived

negative patterning to a positive view, or cognitive reframing of her character identity and capacity. As

she stated, ‘I don’t feel crazy anymore … I’ve considered (these attributes) very much to be weaknesses

... (in the past) … It sounds really dramatic … but it is kind of life-changing in a sense, because it has

been like a burden. I feel like a burden has been lifted from my shoulders. I don’t feel like I have to feel

guilty (any more)… Before I used to feel quite guilty …’ It appears that the identification and

confirmatory nature of her personalised strengths profile within the context of the intervention was able to

circumvent previously negative perceptions and transform them into empowering positive attributes.

Self-Reflection

One of the most potent facets of the intervention in this study was its ability to create a space for

students to self-reflect within the context of exploring their unique strengths profile. Crucially, this self-

reflection was not a static observational process, but a dynamic means to re-evaluate unexplored issues of

identity and cognitive patterning. These findings are congruent with research on self-reflection. Franken

(1994) examines how self-reflection can significantly empower individuals by reframing their notion of a constructed self. In this study, validation of the participants’ strengths themes by others seemed to be a crucial frame of reference component in making a strong emotional resonance with their profiles. This validation process mirrors several of Skaalvic and Skaalvic’s (2002) criteria of resonance.

Confidence

Academic Confidence. Self-confidence was a clear short-term psychosocial effect felt by students

as a result of the strengths intervention. All of the participants referenced increased confidence as a major

impact of the class, and in some cases it became a recurring phrase when describing their positive

emotional resonance. Self-confidence in individuals can emanate from a broad range of factors including

the mastery of certain skills, vicarious experiences, social popularity, and emotional support (Britner &

Pajares, 2006; Madewell & Shaughnessy, 2003; Pajares, 2000). Academic self-confidence also has a wide

  14  

spectrum of features and can be aligned to academic agency, motivation, goal setting, and effort (Pajares,

2000). Individuals who develop positive self-views have a greater capacity to overcome obstacles to

succeed than people with lower self-conceptions (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Pajares, 2000). This

confidence was reflected in the experiences of many of the students in this study. Academic Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as “people’s judgment of their capabilities to

organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (p. 2).

This judgment has a future-oriented motivation that is distinct from confidence with its primary

focus on domain-specific historic success as its motivational resource. Self-efficacy and academic

self-efficacy in particular became a clear theme to emerge from this study as demonstrated by

comments from the students. Self-efficacy has established itself as a strong strand of research that

describes perceived confidence in one’s ability to achieve (Bandura, 1997). Many of the participants

also exhibited a clear progressive sense of agency, often expressed as an increase in confidence as a

result of becoming aware of their strengths. These vicarious lived moments sometimes took the form

of mapping their understanding of their own unique capacities against others in the group and

individuals in their histories. This in turn seems to have led to an increased motivation to fully

exploit this now validated strengths profile

Appreciation of Others/Tolerance

Another key positive factor to emerge from this study was how gaining an understanding of their

own strengths gave students an appreciation of others’ attributes. This phenomenon was often expressed

as an increased tolerance for colleagues, family, and friends whose own unique strengths profiles may

have historically been viewed as negative or irritating. This trend aligns itself with studies of perspective

taking that have shown a broad application that challenges stereotypes (Davis, 2005; and Galinsky &

Moskowitz, 2000), supports identity formation (Van Boven & Loewenstein (2005), enhances

  15  

interpersonal relationships (Athay & Darley, 1982), and fosters altruism (Batson, Early, & Salvarani,

1997). Van Boven and Loewenstein (2005) describe emotional perspective taking as an integrative

developmental process that recognises and acknowledges difference and responds with empathy to others’

points of view. It could be construed that much of the dramatic positive initial language of several of the

participants in this study in describing the impact of the intervention is linked to Van Boven and

Loewenstein’s notion of identity formation. Many of the students referred to a renewed sense of

“knowing themselves” or “finding themselves” as a result of the intervention, often within the context of

understanding the unique nature of others’ strengths. While it would be overstating the case to suggest

that the intervention performed any comprehensive identity formation in the students, it could be seen that

the classes clarified certain aspects of this formative process for some participants.

Themes 2 and 3: Positive and Negative Initial Mediators of Intervention Effect

This study found that a range of initial mediators had an impact on the efficacy of the short-term

psychosocial effects of the strengths intervention on students. These included both positive and negative

mediators that would impact the effect. The positive mediators included how successfully (or otherwise)

the students engaged with the process. Another positive mediator reflected how easy it was for students to

map their strengths onto their everyday lives.

Two negative mediators had the reverse impact on students and threatened their positive

engagement with the class. Some students needed to overcome an initial suspicion of the online Clifton

StrengthsFinder instrument, equating it perhaps with trivial internet site questionnaires that were familiar

to them. They also needed to overcome a cultural barrier to become fully engaged with the class, with

several of the students highlighting a perceived association with a North American-style psychoanalytical

intrusion. As much of the material used in the intervention was written for an American audience, it was

not surprising to hear some initial reticence on the part of some of the participants to fully engage in the

  16  

experience. Both of these concerns were quickly overcome by careful handling by the instructor, but the

possibility of misunderstanding in other contexts remains.

Theme 4: Psychosocial Effects of a Strengths Intervention after Four Months

This theme also highlighted how strategic relationships were also crucial in reinforcing the

effect of strengths engagement with students. Those participants who initially reported the strongest

gains in self-confidence and self-awareness were those who also reported stronger positive

psychosocial effects four months after the intervention.

Themes 5 and 6: Positive and Negative Four-Month Mediators of Intervention Effect

The final two themes that form the basis of the theory are concerned with the mediating factors

that contributed to the level to which students remained engaged over the four-month period of the

project. Students who experienced the greatest impact from the intervention were those who engaged with

a cognitive reframing process. This enabled them to reconfigure what they had once held as negative

attributes into positive strengths. Students were also able to imagine how to continue to apply and develop

their strengths in future contexts. This positive investment in the strengths educational philosophy also

extended to students making suggestions on how a strengths approach could help faculty teach by

describing how energized they became when using their strengths in academics. Some participants saw

their themes of talent as raw potential that needed developing with knowledge and experience in order to

see them take maximum advantage of this prospect. This required a growth mindset on behalf of the

students and hinted at the possible curriculum content that strengths educators should consider in perusing

this model. The negative mediating factors in describing how students remained engaged over the four-

month period related to the efficacy of the initial effect losing momentum over time. This reduction of

impact began to be initially reflected in the blogs posted by the students after the intervention. It would

seem that without an active ongoing framework to continue the strengths journey an inevitable loss of

  17  

momentum occurred. This mirrors anecdotal evidence of such a phenomena in other trials and has

meaningful implications for curriculum development. Conclusions and implications

One of the substantive findings of this study is that students encounter a highly personalised

‘strengths journey’ when exposed to a strengths-based educational intervention. How that journey begins

is dependent on the level of resonance they experience with their strengths profiles, which is also

dependent on a number of mediating factors.

Implications for Practice

There are four primary implications for practice in higher education that arise from this study: (a)

educational strengths-based interventions should be integrated into the overall curriculum framework,

with its timing, post-intervention training and support carefully considered; (b) optimal conditions and

environmental factors that encourage a positive emotional engagement to positively mediate the impact

should be carefully planned; (c) potential negative mediating barriers to exploiting impact should be

minimized: and, (d) strategic faculty should be trained and/or imported to deliver the intervention and

follow-up from the highest professional standards and expertise.

Limitations

This study is substantive as it provides insight into students’ experiences when exposed for the

first time to an intervention that focuses on an individual’s strengths. The sample group, however, must

be viewed as limited for a number of reasons. The group formed a convenience sample of only twelve

participants, which is adequate for a grounded theory study but represents a limited student voice. Only

two racial-ethnic groups were represented and Caucasian students from middle class backgrounds

dominated the cohort demographic. As such, the study offers little in terms of generalizing findings to

other populations. Finally, in grounded theory approaches the researcher is the primary methodological

instrument employing an inductive process for data analysis. Despite the measures put in place as

  18  

suggested above, an unavoidable limitation of this study is that it is the researcher who interprets the

participants’ ideas, experiences, and perspectives. This results in the possibility that another researcher’s

approach might have resulted in different findings.

Conclusion

The study described how positive emotional resonance was achieved when students were able to

map their strengths profiles onto their everyday life experiences and have their themes validated by a

significant other. It also revealed that threats to receiving the potentially positive impact of an intervention

include not enough resonance with their strengths profiles, a lack of an experienced instructor to support

greater connection, and a cultural and/or technological barrier. The research also reported the students’

description of the impact of the intervention. This included a) cognitive reframing, b) improved positive

self-concept and self-awareness, c) increased confidence, d) individual learning epiphanies, e) tolerance

of others and f) increased self-efficacy. The study also documented an initial positive peak of engagement

by students with the strengths model, followed by an alarming drop-off in resonance four months later.

This provoked questions surrounding the timing of future interventions, the need to ensure professional

and expert instruction and leadership in the training, the need for effort and follow-up work by the student

on their profiles, and the need to integrate the class in to the existing curriculum where possible.

Hopefully, this study will serve as a catalyst for additional research exploring the optimum model of

delivering an educational strengths-based intervention.

  19  

References

Abelman, R., & Molina A. (2001). Style over substance revisited: A longitudinal analysis

of intrusive intervention. NACADA Journal, 21(1&2), 32–45

Anderson, E. C. (2000a). Keys to motivating students to persist and achieve in college.

Paper presented at the National Conference on Student Retention, Washington,

D.C. Anderson, E. C. (2000b). Affirming student’s strengths in the critical

years. Paper presented at the National Forum on Affirming Student’s

Strengths. Columbia, SC. Anderson, E. C. (2005). Strengths-based

educating: A concrete way to bring out the best in students—and yourself.

Educational Horizons, 83(3), 180-189.

Anderson, E. C., & McGuire, W. (1997). Academic advising for student success and retention: A

strengths perspective. In M. Hovland, E. Anderson, W. McGuire, D. Crockett, J. Kaufmann, & D.

Woodward (Eds.), Academic advising for student success and retention (pp. vii-xiii). Iowa City:

Noel-Levitz, Inc.

Anderson E. C. & Schreiner L. A. (2004) Strengths-based advising. Gallup Organization. Anderson E. C.

& Schreiner L. A. & Shahbaz (2003) Research and evaluation of strength

counsellors in a new beginnings course. Unpublished, Azusa Pacific University. Aspinwall, L. G.

& Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Some central

issues of an emerging field. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.),

A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive

psychology (pp. 26-31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  20  

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Austin, D.B. (2005). The effects of a strengths development intervention upon the self perceptions of

students’ academic abilities. (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, 2005).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(05A), 1631-1772.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barefoot, B.

O. (2000). The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus, 4(6), 12-

18.

Barnes-Holmes, Y., McHugh, L., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective taking and theory of mind:

A relational frame account. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(1), 15-25.

Baston, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels

versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7),

751-758.

Beitel, M., Ferrer, E., & Cecero, J. J. (2005). Psychological mindedness and awareness of self and others.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 739-750.

Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2007). Institutional responses to reduce inequalities in college outcomes:

Remedial and developmental courses in higher education. In S. Dickert-Conlin & R. Rubenstein,

(Eds.) Economic Inequality and Higher Education: Access, Persistence and Success (pp. 69-100).

New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

Binet, A. & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. (E. S. Kit trans)

Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from http://

ia340921.us.archive.org/2/items/developmentofint00bineuoft/developmentofint00

bineuoft_djvu.txt

  21  

Bong, M. & Clark (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic

motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 139-153.

Britner, S., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school

students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.

Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cantwell, L. (2005). A comparative analysis of strengths-based versus traditional teaching methods in

a freshman public speaking course: Impacts on student learning and engagement. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 67(02A), 478700. (UMI No. AAT3207574).

Cave, S. L. (2003). The effects of strengths education on the academic motivation of first year college

students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (02), 417A. (UMI No. 3082036).

Chickering, A. W. (1969) Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Appendix A: Seven principles of good practice in

undergraduate education. In, A. W. Chickering, & Z. F. Gamson (Eds.) Applying the seven

principles of good practice in undergraduate education. (pp. 104-127) New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 47: San Francisco, Jossey Bass. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, No. 47.

Chickering, A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993) Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Clifton, D. O. & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with your strengths. New York: Delacourte.

Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. C. (2002) StrengthsQuest. Washington, The Gallup Organization.

Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Strengths investment. In K. S. Cameron, J .E. Dutton, & R. E.

Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 111-121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative

  22  

criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and

qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Davis, M.H. (2005). A “constituent” approach to the study of perspective taking: What are its

fundamental elements? In B. Malle & S. Hodges (eds.) Other Minds. (pp. 44-55). Guilford Press:

New York.

Ender, S. C., & Wilkie, C. J. (2000). Advising students with special needs. In V. N. Gordon & W. R.

Habley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 118-143). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Press.

Epstein, M.H., Rudolph, S.M., & Epstein, A.A. (2000). Using strength based assessment in transition

planning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(6), 50-54

Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise: Grounded theory in counseling

psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 156166.

Franken, R. (1994). Human motivation (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000), Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype

expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708-724

Gillum, W. M. (2005). The effects of strengths instruction on under-performing high school students

in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(01A), 86-238. (UMI No.

AAT3185052).

Holland, J. L. (1992) Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work

environments (2nd ed). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holland, J.L, & Astin, A. W. (1962, February) The need for redefining "talent" and "talent loss": A

plan for practical action and research. The Journal of Higher Education, 33(2), pp. 77-82.

  23  

Hurlock, E. B. (1925) An evaluation of certain incentives used in school work. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 16, 145-159.

Janowski, K. M. (2006). A theory of capitalizing on personal strengths. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Kansas.

Kreysa, P. G. (2006). The impact of remediation on persistence of under-prepared college students.

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(2), 251-270.

LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic

research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60.

Lincoln, Y.S, & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1990). Judging the quality of case study reports. Qualitative

studies in education (Vol. 3 (1), pp. 53-59).

Lopez, S. J., Janowski, K. M., & Wells, K. J. (2004). Developing strengths in college Strengths:

Exploring programs, contexts, theories, and research. The Gallup Organization.

Madewell, J., & Shaughnessy, M.F. (2003). An interview with Frank Pajares. Educational

Psychology Review, 15(4), 375-397.

Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational

correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267-281.

Moskowitz, G. B., (2005) Social Cognition. New York: The Guilford Press. Pajares, F. (1996a).

Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.

Pajares, F. (2000). Seeking a culturally attentive educational psychology. Paper presented at the meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Perin, D. (2006). Can community

  24  

colleges protect both access and standards? The problem of remediation.

Teachers College Record, 108(3), 339-373. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E.

P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.

New York: Oxford University Press. Plucker, J A., Wongsarnpigoon, R. L,

& Houser, J. H (2006, Spring). Examining college remediation trends in

Indiana. Education Policy Brief , 4.5, 1-10. Cabrillo

College Library, Aptos, CA.

Reid, R., Epstein, M. H., Pastor, D. A., & Ryser, G. R. (2000). Strengths-based assessment differences

across students with LD and EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 346-355.

Schreiner, L. A. (2006) A technical report on the Clifton StrengthsFinder with college students. The

Gallup Organization. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from

www.strengthsquest.com/content/?ci=25195

Schreiner, L. A., & Anderson, E. C. (2005). Strengths-based advising: A new lens for higher education.

NACADA Journal, 25(2), 20-27.

Skaalvik, E.M. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept. In M. L. Maehr &

P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol.10

(pp. 51–98). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2002, Winter). Internal and external frames of reference for academic self-

concept. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 233-244. Retrieved December 31, 2007, from

Academic Search Premier database.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tagg, J. (2003). The

  25  

learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a

superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In B. F. Malle

and S. D. Hodges (eds.) Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp.

284-297). New York: Guilford Press,

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Williamson, J. (2002). Doing what they do best. Gallup Management Journal, 2(3), 1-4.

Abstract and Paper – 7000 Words