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
Top Related