A systematic review: pedagogies and outcomes of formal leadership programs for college students

Abstract

Leadership programs for college students have significantly expanded over the past decades. However, there remains a lack of systematic synthesis regarding pedagogical practices employed in these programs. This article aims to fill this research gap by presenting a systematic review of empirical studies examining pedagogies in formal leadership programs and outcomes of those programs for college students in the United States. The objective of this review is to establish the links between pedagogies and leadership outcomes based on the evidence provided in existing studies so that it will inform the development of evidence-based leadership programs. We systematically collected and analyzed 40 studies published between 2001 and 2020. By extracting relevant information on pedagogies and leadership outcomes from the articles using a coding guide we developed, we identified nine distinct pedagogies and 14 leadership outcomes explored in the studies. By examining qualitative evidence from each article on the links between pedagogies and outcomes, our findings illuminated how each pedagogy contributed to student leadership development. Quantitative evidence occasionally supported our findings. Findings have important implications for both leadership educators and leadership researchers. For educators, this review informs the design of more robust evidence-based programs for college students, suggesting the use of different pedagogies in accordance with their program objectives. For researchers, this review identifies areas for future research on leadership education pedagogy and highlights appropriate research methods to examine connections between pedagogies and outcomes. The generalizability is limited to the United States because we only include the studies conducted within the country.

Keywords:

• Leadership
• pedagogy
• college students
• student development
• leadership education

Reviewing Editor:

• May Cheng, Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

SUBJECTS:

• Leadership
• Higher education
• Pedagogy

1. Introduction

Leadership development for college students has received increased attention from higher education researchers and practitioners (Dugan et al., 2009; Kezar et al., 2006). The past two decades have witnessed the proliferation of leadership programs at colleges and universities (Dugan et al., 2009; Guthrie et al., 2018). For instance, the number of formal leadership programs offered at colleges and universities increased from under 1,000 in 2006 to over 2,000 in 2020 around the world (International Leadership Association, 2020). In the United States, the number of leadership programs increased significantly over the years, with approximately 700 programs in 2001, 1000 programs in 2006, and over 1000 colleges and universities offering such programs by 2011 (Guthrie et al., 2018). The expansion of leadership programs has been driven by increased recognition of student leadership capacity as a critical collegiate outcome (Astin & Astin, 2000; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Posner, 2009) and by a shared belief that ‘leadership is inherently a learnable capacity’ (Dugan et al., 2011, p. 66; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 1999). Consistent with this notion, leadership scholars have offered empirical evidence over the past two decades suggesting that these programs have improved student leadership capacity.

Although empirical evidence has accumulated over time, both leadership research and education suffer from significant limitations. First, there is a lack of studies demonstrating how a specific pedagogy is associated with certain leadership outcomes among college students (Dugan et al., 2011; Posner, 2009; Rosch & Headrick, 2019). The paucity of research on important links has led to a lack of evidence-based practice in leadership programs. Rosch and Headrick (2019) have stated that there is ‘a clear need for more formal study regarding the types of curricular structures and classroom pedagogy that are associated with the development of leadership capacity in their participants’’ (p. 2) and ‘the programs designed to support student growth should be better matched with data-driven practices and empirical research’ (p. 68). Similarly, Dugan et al. (2011) suggest that future research should examine the differential influences of pedagogical approaches on various dimensions of leadership capacity.

Despite these critiques of leadership research and programs, some studies, especially those investigating a particular leadership program, have explored which pedagogical practices are linked to leadership outcomes. If we synthesize the findings from these separate studies, we can gain a better picture of the relationship between pedagogies and outcomes, which will inform the development of evidence-based programs. However, to date, no review or synthesis of such studies has been conducted. To fill this gap, we systematically reviewed existing studies on formal leadership programs for college students published in the past two decades. We explored pedagogical approaches and their connections with student leadership outcomes. This synthesis can inform leadership scholars to identify underexplored areas of leadership education pedagogies and educators in designing evidence-based leadership programs.

In this review, we conducted a systematic analysis of 40 studies published in the last two decades between 2001 and 2020. Through this analysis, we identified nine distinct pedagogies and 14 leadership outcomes examined in the 40 studies. Our findings provided compelling evidence of the connections between each pedagogy and leadership outcomes with qualitative evidence as primary support and occasional quantitative evidence. Importantly, our review illuminates how different pedagogical approaches contribute to the development of various leadership outcomes. Our systematic reviews suggest the areas that need further research to advance our understanding of the links between pedagogical practices and leadership outcomes. These areas include the need for additional evidence on specific forms of pedagogies, such as classroom practice, diversity awareness building, and knowledge dissemination mode. It is also imperative to explore demographic differences in the impacts of pedagogies on leadership development to benefit students of all backgrounds. Use of qualitative methods to develop more nuanced understandings of the impacts of pedagogies is another promising avenue for future investigation. By addressing these research gaps, we can advance our knowledge and inform the design of evidence-based leadership programs. Ultimately, our review underscores the importance of ongoing research and continued exploration to foster effective pedagogies for leadership education.

2. Background of the study

2.1. Leadership

The central concept explored in this study is leadership. Despite the proliferation of research on leadership, no singular definition of the term ‘leadership’ exists (Harrison, 2017). Diverse definitions of leadership reflect a wide variety of existing leadership theories that define the concept of leadership differently. For example, the social change model of leadership development (Astin et al., 1996) defines leadership as ‘a purposeful, collaborative, values-based process that results in positive social change’ (Dugan & Komives, 2007, p. 9). The relational leadership model sees leadership as a relational process that emphasizes inclusive, empowering, purposeful, process-oriented, and ethical attributes (Komives et al., 2007). In this review, we did not define the concept of leadership in a particular way and reviewed the studies that investigated ‘formal leadership programs’ for college students in any way leadership was defined by researchers.

2.2. Why does pedagogy matter to outcomes of formal leadership programs?

Haber (2011) defined a formal leadership program as ‘an intentional collection of leadership experiences integrated into an overall experience designed with the purpose of developing or enhancing leadership skills, knowledge, and capacity’ (p. 232). Formal leadership programs vary in type, duration, and content (Haber, 2011). There are curricular credit-based programs (e.g. academic course, minor, major, and certificate; Maniella & Love, 2011) and co-/extra-curricular non-credit-based programs (e.g. workshops, conference, service-learning; Smist, 2011). These programs also vary in duration, such as short-term (e.g. one-time lectures, workshops), medium-term (e.g. a semester academic course), and long-term (e.g. major, minor, certification programs; Dugan & Komives, 2010). Pedagogies and leadership activities range from classroom lectures to group discussions to community-immersed activities to internships (Haber, 2011). This review focuses on differences across pedagogies and their relationships with leadership outcomes.

Researchers have studied the impact of formal leadership programs on college students’ leadership capacity. Recognized as foundational research on leadership programs, Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (1999) evaluated 31 leadership programs with diverse forms and content and offered evidence that those programs had a positive influence on student leadership development. A follow-up study conducted by Cress et al. (2001) assessed the effects of leadership programs on leadership outcomes among college students across 10 institutions. They also found that these programs effectively improved college students’ leadership capacity. However, neither study revealed differential effects of programs that varied in their type, pedagogy, content, and curriculum (Dugan et al., 2011). To address this gap, Dugan et al. (2011) compared the effects of 12 different types of leadership programs (e.g. conferences, retreats, lecture/workshop series) on leadership capacity. However, they found considerable variability across program types that were not collapsible to represent the underlying constructs of the types through factor analysis. They discussed that this variability might reflect a wide range of pedagogical practices, indicating that pedagogies might predict leadership outcomes better than program types. Zimmerman-Oster and Burkhardt (1999) noted an important gap that future research should focus on the differential effects of varying pedagogies. Following their suggestion, this article explores pedagogies and their relationship with leadership outcomes.

2.3. Leadership education pedagogy

Meixner and Rosch (2011) synthesized leadership education pedagogies into seven types: experiential learning (Kolb, 1983), team-based learning (Michaelsen et al., 2002), peer education (Ender & Newton, 2000), sociocultural discussion (Meixner & Rosch, 2011), community service learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999), mentoring and advising (Zachary, 2005), and contemplative practice (Bolman & Deal, 2001). Experiential learning is a type of ‘learning through practice and experience’ (Meixner & Rosch, 2011, p. 317), in which students apply knowledge to their environments, reflect upon their experiences, and internalize their learning (e.g. internship). Team-based learning groups students into a team whose members possess complementary skills, and they work together to solve problems and achieve the team’s goals. In peer education, students develop leadership skills by playing the role of a peer mentor or by assisting and tutoring their peers after receiving training (e.g. residential advisor). Sociocultural discussion means that students with ideally diverse backgrounds and perspectives come together and discuss issues of differences, which helps them develop the capacity to share their own perspectives and listen to others (e.g. intergroup dialogue). In community service-learning, students participate in community service and work with or for members of a community to create positive changes in society (e.g. action research). Through mentoring and advising, students receive guidance and encouragement from mentors who possess and display the leadership skills they want to develop. Finally, contemplative practice is self-assessment and self-reflection through which students experience holistic learning about themselves and how they interact with the environment (e.g. reflection paper).

2.4. Leadership outcome

The final component of formal leadership programs is leadership outcome. As the theorization and definition of leadership vary significantly across leadership educators, scholars, and programs, there is also a considerable variety of leadership outcomes that programs intend to develop among students. Seemiller and Cook (2014) developed a list of 60 Student Leadership Competencies (SLC) based on existing leadership models. To categorize leadership outcomes while reviewing the studies, we primarily referred to the SLC list, but also referred to other studies (Hall, 2004; Rosch & Collins, 2019).

3. Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on pedagogies and outcomes in formal leadership programs for college students. The aim of this review was to establish the links between pedagogies and leadership outcomes in those programs by synthesizing the findings of empirical studies. We first thoroughly searched and identified relevant articles in ProQuest databases, using selected keywords and limitations. Second, we read the titles and abstracts to only select the articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Third, we read all the articles entirely to ensure that they met inclusion criteria and excluded those that didn’t. Fourth, we developed a coding guide based on the selected and other relevant literature. Fifth, we read the articles again to code information following our coding guide. Finally, we analyzed the coded data, which had four areas to analyze: (1) analyzing study characteristics, (2) categorizing leadership outcomes, (3) categorizing pedagogies, and (4) identifying evidence of the links between pedagogies and outcomes. In the following sections, we describe the process of our systematic review in more detail.

3.1. Literature search and screening

To collect the literature, we conducted electronic searches in all databases in ProQuest using the following keywords: (student OR ‘college student’ OR ‘undergraduate student’ OR undergraduate OR ‘student leader’) AND (‘leadership development’ OR ‘leadership education’ OR ‘leadership learning’ OR ‘leadership development program’) AND (‘effectiveness’ OR ‘program effectiveness’ OR ‘leadership skill’ OR ‘leadership competenc*’ OR ‘leadership abilit*’ OR ‘student leadership’ OR ‘leadership outcome’ OR ‘leadership capacity’ OR leadership). The search with these keywords, in addition to filters that were limited to articles written in English, peer-reviewed, full-text available, published between 2000 and 2021, and certain source types (i.e. books, reports, conference papers and proceedings, and scholarly journals), resulted in 529 relevant articles. We read the titles and abstracts of all articles and selected articles that met four major inclusion criteria: (1) a study focused on undergraduate education or undergraduate students; (2) a study conducted in the United States (based on the decision, it is important to have comparable cultural sites); (3) a study focused on a formal leadership program; (4) an empirical study; and (5) a study describing pedagogies used in the programs. Eighty articles were collected for this process. We screened them by skimming all the articles entirely to ensure that they met the inclusion criteria. During this screening process, we found that some articles were theoretical papers, opinion pieces, not describing pedagogies, or outside higher education contexts, which resulted in the removal of nearly half of the collected articles. The final sample included 40 articles from all scholarly journals. Figure 1 presents the literature screening process that led to a sample of 40 articles. Table 1 presents the information of the 40 articles included in this study.

Figure 1. A Flowchart for A Systematic Search.

Table 1. Forty studies included in this review.

	Author (Year)	Method	Pedagogy	Pedagogy-Outcome Connection
1	Andenoro et al. (2017)	Qual.	TBL, RWE, CP	RWE - motivation, systems thinking
2	Bowling et al. (2015)	Qual.	PE, CP, M&A	PE - interpersonal skills
3	Bright (2019)	Qual.	PE, M&A	PE - interpersonal skills, knowledge synthesis, leading teams
4	Brown and Rode (2018)	Mixed	PE, KDM	PE - knowledge synthesis, empowering others
5	Buschlen and Dvorak (2011)	Quant.	KDM	KDM - SRLS constructs
6	Chesnut and Tran-Johnson (2013)	Mixed	TBL, RWE, PE, CP, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
7	Collet-Klingenberg et al. (2015)	Mixed	RWE, CSL, CP, DAB	CSL - motivation, well-being
8	DiPaolo (2008)	Qual.	CLP, CP	CLP - understanding leadership
9	Franzen (2020)	Qual.	RWE, CSL, M&A, KDM	CSL - civic responsibility
10	Galuska (2015)	Mixed	TBL, RWE, M&A	TBL - interpersonal skills; RWE - confidence, interpersonal skills
11	Goertzen and Whitaker (2015)	Quant.	RWE, CSL, CP, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
12	Greenleaf et al. (2017)	Mixed	RWE, CSL, CP, M&A,	M&A - interpersonal skills
13	Haber-Curran and Tillapaugh (2013)	Qual.	TBL, CLP, CP,	CP - self-awareness
14	Katsioloudes and Cannonier (2019)	Qual.	TBL, RWE, CP	TBL - self-awareness, confidence, follow-through, interpersonal skills, leading teams; RWE - confidence, follow-through, organizational skills; CP - self-awareness
15	Keating et al. (2014)	Quant.	KDM
16	Marcketti et al. (2011)	Mixed	TBL, RWE, CP, M&A	TBL - empowering others; RWE - interpersonal skills, empowering others;
17	Mars (2015)	Qual.	TBL, RWE	TBL - systems thinking, collective values; RWE - confidence, motivation
18	McCormick et al. (2007)	Mixed	CP, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
19	McKim and Velez (2017)	Mixed	RWE, CSL, M&A, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
20	McKinney and Waite (2016)	Quant.	TBL, RWE, CSL, PE, CP, DAB, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
21	Micari et al. (2010)	Mixed	TBL, RWE, PE, CP, M&A, KDM	PE - knowledge synthesis, leading teams
22	Mikhaiel et al. (2020)	Qual.	CP, M&A, KDM	M&A - interpersonal skills
23	Morrison et al. (2003)	Quant.	TBL, RWE, CSL, CP, M&A	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
24	Navarro and Malvaso (2015)	Mixed	TBL, PE, M&A, KDM	TBL - interpersonal skills
25	Nolan-Arañez and Ludvik (2018)	Qual.	TBL, RWE, CSL, CP, M&A	CSL - well-being, valuing diversity; CP - self-awareness
26	Ohlson (2019)	Qual.	RWE, CSL, PE, CP, KDM	CSL - motivation, valuing diversity; PE - interpersonal skills
27	Outcalt et al. (2001)	Qual.	TBL, RWE, CSL, CP, M&A, DAB, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
28	Posner (2009)	Quant.	TBL, CLP, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
29	Priest and Donley (2014)	Qual.	M&A	M&A - self-awareness, confidence
30	Raffo (2012)	Mixed	RWE, CSL, CP, KDM	CP - self-awareness
31	Rosch and Imoukhuede (2016)	Quant.	TBL, CLP, CP, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
32	Rosch and Caza (2012)	Quant.	CLP, CP, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
33	Rosch and Collins (2019)	Quant.	TBL, CLP	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
34	Rosch and Headrick (2019)	Quant.	TBL, CLP, M&A	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
35	Stawiski et al. (2017)	Quant.	TBL, CLP, CP,	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
36	Swinford et al. (2019)	Quant.	TBL, CLP, CP, M&A	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
37	Tingle et al. (2013)	Quant.	TBL, PE, KDM	Effects of a single pedagogy could not be teased out.
38	Waite et al. (2014)	Mixed	TBL, CLP, CP, DAB	CP - self-awareness
39	Watkin (2019)	Mixed	PE, CP, M&A, KDM	PE - organizational skills, interpersonal skills, leading teams, valuing diversity; CP - self-awareness
40	Wiersema et al. (2013)	Qual.	TBL, CLP, CP, KDM	TBL - collective values

Note. Qual.: Qualitative methods. Quant.: Quantitative methods. Mixed: Mixed methods; CLP: Classroom leadership practice; CP: Contemplative practice; CSL: Community service learning; DAB: Diversity awareness building; KDM: Knowledge dissemination mode; M&A: Mentoring and advising; PE: Peer Education; RWE: Real-World Experience; TBL: Team-based learning.

3.2. Article review

We read all the articles entirely once and began developing a coding guide (Cooper, 2017).¹ We developed a coding guide based on the content of the 40 articles and the existing literature on leadership education. The coding guide had nine sections: article information, leadership program characteristics, pedagogies, intended leadership outcomes, samples, study settings, methods, measurements, and findings. Following the coding guide, we read all articles once again to extract and code information into a spreadsheet. The coding process was iterative and occurred simultaneously with the analysis; we re-organized codes multiple times as we made progress in the analysis and read articles multiple times to code the information according to the updated coding guides (Cooper, 2017).

3.3. Analysis

First, we analyzed sample study characteristics, including publication years, research designs, data collection methods, and ratios of white to non-white and female-to-male samples, to provide a snapshot of the studies included in our review. Second, we analyzed the leadership outcomes reported in the studies and categorized them into 14 different outcomes. I used the existing categories of leadership outcomes to organize them (Hall, 2004; Rosch & Collins, 2019; Seemiller & Cook, 2014) but created a few new categories that I did not find in the literature. Third, we analyzed pedagogical practices described in the studies and their characteristics and conceptualizations, which resulted in recategorizing the seven pedagogies defined by Meixner and Rosch (2011). Finally, we examined the study’s findings to identify the links between pedagogies and leadership outcomes reported in the studies. During this phase of analysis, we realized that the findings of leadership outcomes often could not be attributed to a single pedagogy because most programs incorporated multiple pedagogical practices. This problem was evident in the quantitative findings, which often indicated only whether participants improved their scores on certain leadership knowledge and skills after completing the programs. Because the programs often employed multiple pedagogies, which pedagogy contributed to increase these scores was unknown. However, qualitative data, such as student comments in interviews, often provided detailed descriptions of how a certain pedagogy contributed to leadership development. Therefore, we derived our results of the pedagogy-outcome connections primarily from qualitative evidence reported in the studies using qualitative or mixed-methods. Quantitative findings occasionally complemented our results.

4. Results

4.1. Sample study characteristics

An analysis of publication years showed that the number of articles published on the topic of formal leadership programs had significantly increased in the past decades. Only six articles were published between 2001 and 2010, while 34 articles were published after 2010. Methodological approaches were diverse. Overall, 14 studies used qualitative methods, 13 employed quantitative methods, and 13 used a mixed-methods approach.

To collect quantitative data, 13 studies used existing instruments with acceptable validity and reliability to measure leadership outcomes. The most frequently used instruments included the Student Leadership Practice Inventory (n = 5; SLPI; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Posner, 2004, 2009), Motivation to Lead Scale (n = 3; Chan & Drasgow, 2001), Leadership Behavior Scale (n = 3; Podsakoff et al., 1990), Self-Efficacy for Leadership (n = 3; Murphy, 1992), Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (n = 2; SRLS; Tyree, 1998), and Ethical Leadership Scale (n = 2; Brown et al., 2005). Qualitative data were collected from documents (n = 12; e.g. final paper, reflection paper, presentation, journals, portfolio, self-evaluation forms), individual interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 9), open-ended questionnaires (n = 8), and observations (n = 3; e.g. faculty/mentor evaluation). The samples were predominantly white and female across many studies that reported subsample ratios; of the 25 studies that reported the proportion of female participants, the female proportion was over 50% in 16 studies, and of 11 studies that reported the proportion of white participants, the white proportion was over 50% in 10 studies.

4.2. Leadership outcomes

In this study, we identified a total of 14 leadership outcomes, including nine individual-level and five collective-level outcomes.² Individual-level leadership outcomes refer to the intrapersonal quality of individuals related to leadership, including self-awareness (Hall, 2004), leadership confidence or self-efficacy (Rosch & Collins, 2019), motivation to lead (Rosch & Collins, 2019), knowledge synthesis (Seemiller & Cook, 2014), systems thinking (Seemiller & Cook, 2014), follow-through or resilience (Seemiller & Cook, 2014), well-being (i.e. feeling happy, fulfilled, hopeful, optimistic, and accomplished), organizational skills (Seemiller & Cook, 2014), and understanding leadership concepts (i.e. understanding the concepts of leadership theories, models, and skills). Collective-level leadership outcomes refer to the leadership quality of individuals in navigating social situations that involve others, including interpersonal skills (i.e. the ability to interact or work with others), leading teams (Seemiller & Cook, 2014), civic responsibility and collective values (Seemiller & Cook, 2014), empowering others (Seemiller & Cook, 2014), and valuing diversity and differences (Seemiller & Cook, 2014).

4.3. Recategorizing pedagogies

A close examination of each pedagogy described in sample studies led us to recategorize the pedagogies defined by Meixner and Rosch (2011). We came to understand that team-based learning, community service-learning, and peer education should all be considered experiential learning because these three pedagogies allowed students to learn through the experience and application of leadership skills and concepts. We also identified two other pedagogies that were not included in Meixner and Rosch’s categories: experiential learning, real-world experience, and classroom leadership practice. Real-world experience includes activities through which students apply and acquire leadership knowledge and skills in real-world situations (i.e. internships). Classroom leadership practice allows students to practice leadership through hands-on experience but in a non-real-world setting (i.e. workshops).

Meixner and Rosch’s (2011) seven pedagogies of leadership education include three more categories: contemplative practice, mentoring and advising, and sociocultural discussion. In sample studies, we found that contemplative practice as well as mentoring and advising described in sample studies were well aligned with Meixner and Rosch’s (2011) descriptions. Thus, we retained these pedagogies as defined by Meixner and Rosch (2011). However, we found that sociocultural discussion could be expanded to include broader activities to foster sociocultural awareness beyond discussion, such as workshops for diversity (Outcalt et al., 2001) and diversity and privilege exercise (McKinney & Waite, 2016), and labeled it diversity awareness building. Additionally, we found a pedagogy that was not included in Meixner and Rosch’s categories, often used in leadership programs: knowledge dissemination modes of pedagogy, a traditional way of teaching and learning by disseminating knowledge of leadership theories, models, and skills through lectures, guest/panel speakers, books, and articles.

4.4. Connections between pedagogies and outcomes

We found nine distinct pedagogies used in the leadership programs examined in the sample studies. In this section, we demonstrate evidence of pedagogy-outcome connections for each pedagogy, primarily using qualitative evidence and occasionally using quantitative evidence.³

4.4.1. Team-Based learning

Twenty-two studies (52%) examined leadership programs incorporating team-based learning, including seven qualitative studies, six mixed-methods studies, and nine quantitative studies. Of the 13 studies that used qualitative approaches, five provided evidence that team-based learning was linked to certain outcomes, including systems thinking (Mars, 2015), interpersonal skills (Galuska, 2015; Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019; Navarro & Malvaso, 2015), leading teams (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019), and civic responsibility and collective values (Mars, 2015; Wiersema et al., 2013). Mars (2015) found that students who worked in a cross-disciplinary team developed systems thinking to consider an issue through an expansive lens. Through team-based learning, students also learned interpersonal skills, such as teamwork, communication, and collaboration (Galuska, 2015; Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019; Navarro & Malvaso, 2015). A student commented, ‘I learned that by collaborating with others and listening to their ideas, their strengths made up for my weaknesses and together we created something much better than any of us could have created alone’ (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019, p. 56). Students also gained the ability of leading teams, such as having team members collaborating and involved in the decision-making process (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019). The outcome of civic responsibility and collective values emerged among those who worked in a team where they were initially reluctant to collaborate, but over time grew to rely on one another and take responsibility beyond themselves and for others (Wiersema et al., 2013).

4.4.2. Real-World experience

Eighteen studies (43%) examined leadership programs using real-world experience, including seven qualitative studies, eight mixed-methods studies, and three quantitative studies. Of the 15 studies that employed qualitative approaches, five studies demonstrated evidence linking real-world experience to certain outcomes, including leadership confidence or self-efficacy (Galuska, 2015; Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019; Mars, 2015), motivation to lead (Andenoro et al., 2017; Mars, 2015), systems thinking (Andenoro et al., 2017), follow-through or resilience (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019), organizational skills (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019), interpersonal skills (Galuska, 2015), and empowering others (Marcketti et al., 2011). Students who participated in real-world experience programs felt more confident in their leadership. For instance, a student commented, ‘I feel better about … leadership … because we lived it in the real world’ (Galuska, 2015, p. 387). Another student said, ‘Putting myself in the role of a leader and having to deal with real life situations and people, I gained more confidence in those few months than I did in all of college’ (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019, p. 59). Students also became more motivated to take leadership positions through real-world experiences. One student stated, ‘These are real problems affecting real people. This made me work harder because this is about more than a grade when real people are involved’ (Andenoro et al., 2017, p. 13). Systems thinking was also fostered in a program that allowed students to engage in real-world issues with real-world stakeholders and challenged them to think more deeply about complex problems (Andenoro et al., 2017). While planning and managing real-world projects, students developed organizational skills, such as project planning, developing goals, identifying opportunities, challenges, and stakeholders, and utilizing resources (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019).

Notably, studies have commonly reported that real-world experiences put students in challenging situations, which helped them develop interpersonal skills (Marcketti et al., 2011), follow-through or resilience (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019), and empowering others (Marcketti et al., 2011). Students acquired interpersonal skills, negotiation skills, conflict resolution, and effective communication during times of tension and disagreement (Marcketti et al., 2011). When encountering difficulties, they demonstrated follow-through or resilience – perseverance, creativity, resourcefulness, and initiatives to overcome problems and reach their goals (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019). They also realized that it was important to empower one another as colleagues to work together effectively at difficult times (Marcketti et al., 2011).

4.4.3. Community service-learning

Eleven studies (26%) examined leadership programs that employed community service learning, including four qualitative studies, four mixed-methods studies, and three quantitative studies. Of the eight studies that employed qualitative approaches, four provided qualitative evidence that demonstrated links between community service-learning and certain outcomes, including motivation to lead (Collet-Klingenberg et al., 2015; Ohlson, 2019), well-being (Collet-Klingenberg et al., 2015; Nolan-Arañez & Ludvik, 2018), civic responsibility and collective values (Franzen, 2020), and valuing diversity and differences (Nolan-Arañez & Ludvik, 2018; Ohlson, 2019). Collet-Klingenberg et al. (2015) found that students who participated in service learning in high school were motivated to continue doing a similar type of work in the future. Likewise, students who worked in a high-poverty K-12 school gained the motivation to become leaders. One student said, ‘I can’t wait to … further mold myself into the leader I want to be’ (Ohlson, 2019, p. 52). Community service learning motivated students to become leaders in serving others and the community, which was related to civic responsibility and collective values. Franzen (2020) reported that all students agreed after participating in the program that they had the responsibility and commitment to serve a community and society at large. Through community service learning, students also come to value diversity and differences. For instance, those who participated in mural painting projects reported that they learned that everyone has a place, purpose, and role to fulfill in this world (Nolan-Arañez & Ludvik, 2018). A student in a different program also stated, ‘I have learned that although we all come from different backgrounds, if we work together as a community, we can all succeed’. (Ohlson, 2019, p. 52). Interestingly, community service-learning also improved student well-being, which represented a sense of happiness, fulfillment, and accomplishment. A student said, ‘I can proudly say that by the end of the day, I really felt like I achieved something big and great, and it was nice I had my class and teacher to share it with’ (Collet-Klingenberg et al., 2015, p. 5).

4.4.4. Peer education

Ten studies (24%) examined leadership programs employing peer education, including three qualitative studies, five mixed-methods studies, and two quantitative studies. Of the eight studies that employed qualitative approaches, six studies offered qualitative evidence that supported connections between peer education and leadership outcomes, including knowledge synthesis (Bright, 2019; Brown & Rode, 2018; Micari et al., 2010), organizational skills (Watkin, 2019), interpersonal skills (Bowling et al., 2015; Bright, 2019; Ohlson, 2019; Watkin, 2019), leading teams (Bright, 2019; Micari et al., 2010; Watkin, 2019), empowering others (Brown & Rode, 2018; Ohlson, 2019), and valuing diversity and differences (Watkin, 2019). We consistently found the outcomes of knowledge synthesis across peer education programs. A student described the process of developing capacity by saying, ‘When you teach, concepts come together because you are … trying to draw connections in order to make it easier for the students to understand, and … you start understanding it better’ (Micari et al., 2010, p. 223). Student mentors also learned organizational skills, such as planning and problem solving, while facilitating a group of mentees (Watkin, 2019). Peer education programs also fostered interpersonal skills as well. They developed teamwork and collaboration skills by working with a group of mentees (Watkin, 2019) and learned the importance of building relationships to support others (Ohlson, 2019). By facilitating a group of mentees, students also gained the skills to lead teams. A student said, ‘Facilitating definitely trained me, and also made me realize that I can handle being in groups, speak to them, and get ideas across’ (Micari et al., 2010, p. 223). Student mentors also fostered empathy for less-experienced others and learned how to empower others (Brown & Rode, 2018). One student stated, ‘Before this program, I never knew how a normal student like me could make such an impact in my community, but I now know that I can, one mentee at a time’ (Ohlson, 2019). Student mentors also came to value diversity and differences by facilitating a group of mentees, understanding that individuals have different strengths, weaknesses, and cultural backgrounds that shape a group dynamic (Watkin, 2019).

4.4.5. Classroom leadership practice

Eleven studies (26%) examined leadership programs using classroom leadership practices, including three qualitative studies, one mixed-method studies, and seven quantitative studies. Of the four studies that employed qualitative approaches, no qualitative evidence demonstrated links between classroom leadership practices and outcomes (DiPaolo, 2008; Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013; Waite et al., 2014; Wiersema et al., 2013). However, two studies that examined programs incorporating team-based learning and contemplative practices along with classroom leadership practice demonstrated that students increased self-awareness through self-reflection activities, group processes, guided dialogue, and feedback in a classroom (Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013; Waite et al., 2014). These results suggest that contemplative practices, in combination with team-based learning, can be effective in fostering self-awareness within a simple classroom setting. Similarly, Wiersema et al. (2013) showed that students developed civic responsibility and collective values in a classroom setting that involved team-based learning, contemplative practice, and knowledge dissemination mode of pedagogy.

4.4.6. Contemplative practice

Twenty-six studies examined leadership programs incorporating contemplative practice, including ten qualitative, nine mixed-methods, and seven quantitative. Of 19 studies that employed qualitative approaches, six studies offered qualitative findings that demonstrated links between contemplative practices and leadership outcomes (Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013; Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019; Nolan-Arañez & Ludvik, 2018; Raffo, 2012; Waite et al., 2014; Watkin, 2019). These studies found that contemplative practice contributed to increasing students’ self-awareness and self-understanding regarding personal leadership styles and definitions (Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013; Nolan-Arañez & Ludvik, 2018), strengths and weaknesses (Katsioloudes & Cannonier, 2019), personal beliefs, values, and abilities (Raffo, 2012; Waite et al., 2014) and clarity of purpose (Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013).

4.4.7. Mentoring and advising

Seventeen studies (40%) examined leadership programs that incorporated a pedagogical approach to mentoring and advising: seven qualitative, seven mixed-methods, and three quantitative. Of the 14 studies that offered qualitative findings, three showed evidence of links between this pedagogy and certain outcomes, including interpersonal skills (Greenleaf et al., 2017; Mikhaiel et al., 2020), leadership confidence or self-efficacy (Priest & Donley, 2014), and self-awareness (Priest & Donley, 2014). In Mikhaiel et al.’s (2020) study, a student commented on one-on-one meetings with her coach, saying that ‘[A] coach provided me with an insightful perspective on how to listen to others as well as ask key questions that allow others to open up’ (p. 4). She learned how to approach others and become an effective leader by looking at how the coach approached her. Similarly, Greenleaf et al. (2017) found that students improved interpersonal skills, such as communication and collaboration, through mentoring. Students also reported that mentors served as role models who showed them how to take a leadership role in real-life situations. These students reported that they became more confident and self-reflective through mentoring (Priest & Donley, 2014).

Some studies offer a few caveats in achieving successful mentoring. Greenleaf et al. (2017) found that only half of mentor-mentee matches were successful. The primary reason for the failures identified by students and mentors was ‘an inability to solidify the relationship within the time constraints’ (p. 184). One student commented, ‘My mentor and I were unable to make a strong connection due to a lack of time. Our schedules did not match, and we were never able to truly connect on any topic other than surface material’ (p. 184). For successful mentoring, it is crucial to have consistent and sufficient meetings and communication between the mentors and mentees. Other studies found that the key to successful mentoring was students’ willingness to receive feedback and learn from mentors (Mikhaiel et al., 2020; Watkin, 2019). In Mikhaiel et al.’s (2020) study, all mentors agreed that students needed to have a desire to seek mentors; otherwise, they would not engage. It is better not to make mentoring the program requirements.

4.4.8. Diversity awareness building

Only four studies investigated leadership programs that incorporated diversity awareness building (Collet-Klingenberg et al., 2015; McKinney & Waite, 2016; Outcalt et al., 2001; Waite et al., 2014). We did not find any evidence to suggest how this pedagogy alone contributed to student leadership development because all four programs employed multiple pedagogies, and no participants described in the qualitative data how diversity awareness building helped their learning. However, an interesting pattern emerged. Of the four programs, three incorporated community service-learning (Collet-Klingenberg et al., 2015; McKinney & Waite, 2016; Outcalt et al., 2001). Two out of the three reported that students achieved a higher level of civic engagement or a higher rate of volunteer activities after completing the programs (Collet-Klingenberg et al., 2015; Outcalt et al., 2001). Although the data are scarce, the studies suggest that diversity awareness building and community service-learning might bring synergistic effects. While diversity awareness building widens students perspectives on diversity issues, the hands-on practice of community service-learning helps students see, feel, and experience what they have learned and examine their knowledge in the community. Additionally, all four programs incorporated contemplative practices, which may help students deepen their learning further.

4.4.9. Knowledge dissemination modes of pedagogy

Over half of the studies (n = 22, 52%), including five qualitative, nine mixed-methods, and eight quantitative, described a structured curriculum designed to disseminate knowledge of leadership theories, models, and skills. No qualitative evidence showed explicit links between pedagogy and leadership outcomes. However, two quantitative studies examined purely academic courses that involved only knowledge dissemination modes of pedagogy, revealing pedagogy-outcome links (Buschlen & Dvorak, 2011; Keating et al, 2014). Buschlen and Dvorak (2011) measured student gains in leadership concepts using SRLS in a quasi-experimental pre-post-test-designed study. They found that students in an experimental group who enrolled in a leadership academic course scored significantly higher on five of the eight SRLS constructs than those in a control group who did not take the course. Keating et al. (2014) measured student gains in leadership self-efficacy, motivation to lead, and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors through an academic course surveying leadership models and theories using valid and reliable instruments in a pre-post-test-designed study. They found that the students significantly improved their scores on all outcomes throughout the course.

However, we may not be able to draw a conclusion based on these results that knowledge acquisition activities alone can meaningfully foster students’ leadership capacity. Research has suggested that when students encounter challenging projects or situations during leadership programs, they realize the limitations of their own leadership knowledge, skills, and capacity, as well as the areas of improvement, which results in a decrease in their self-reported leadership outcomes (Goertzen & Whitaker, 2015; Swinford et al., 2019). Therefore, the increased scores after completing the courses might mean that the courses were not sufficiently challenging for students to realize their actual leadership capacity in real-life situations. Qualitative information, such as interviews with students, might illuminate more realistic benefits and limitations of purely knowledge-acquisition programs.

5. Discussion

This study is the first attempt to synthesize the literature on formal leadership programs and pedagogies for college students. We focused on how each pedagogy contributed to the development of student leadership across 40 studies that examined leadership programs. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the implications of leadership education practices and research.

5.1. Implications for practice

Our findings have implications for leadership educators who design formal leadership programs for undergraduate students and suggest that they can use different pedagogies in accordance with their program objectives. If a program aims to foster student collective-level leadership capacity, peer education and team-based learning pedagogies are favorable. To motivate students powerfully and develop their confidence in leadership, real-world experience works best. This pedagogy can also foster the widest range of leadership skills because of the higher level of challenges, complexity, and pressures that students face in real-life situations. If the objective is to foster student civic engagement, community service learning, possibly in combination with diversity awareness building and contemplative practices, is recommended. If resources are limited, classroom leadership practices can still develop some leadership capacity, such as self-awareness, civic responsibility, and collective values. Contemplative practices are the pedagogy recommended for any leadership program to improve student self-awareness, because recognizing one’s own strengths, weaknesses, beliefs, values, goals, purposes, and leadership styles is considered the foundation of effective leadership (Ashley & Reiter-Palmon, 2012; Hall, 2004). Mentoring and advising should be employed as an auxiliary component for students motivated to pursue one-on-one guidance and feedback rather than as a requirement for all students indiscriminately. Knowledge dissemination modes of pedagogy should be implemented in combination with other pedagogical approaches, such as real-world experiences and contemplative practices, to foster leadership capacity for students to apply in real-life situations.

5.2. Implications for future research

Our review offers suggestions for research methods to examine the connections between pedagogies and outcomes in leadership programs, and directions for future research. For research methods, qualitative or mixed methods rather than quantitative approaches are helpful in identifying a connection between pedagogy and outcome because the programs often employ multiple pedagogies whose effects are difficult to be disentangled by quantitative methods. During interviews, in reflection papers or open-ended questionnaires, participants can report which pedagogy has helped them gain a certain leadership outcome and how a pedagogy helps or does not help foster leadership capacity. By contrast, the utility of quantitative data is limited. It is useful to measure the extent to which the program overall improves student leadership capacity but cannot uncover whether and how each pedagogy helps students develop their capacity. However, there are exceptions: if a program uses only a single pedagogy, a quantitative estimation can suggest a clear pedagogy-outcome link. Alternatively, if an experimental or quasi-experimental approach compares student outcomes across groups, each of which employs a different pedagogy, it can also provide a clear link. Nevertheless, a situation in which a leadership program uses a single pedagogy is not common, and such a program is likely to be less effective and not recommended, given growing evidence that a cycle of gaining knowledge, reflection, feedback, and practice is a powerful pedagogical practice (Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2013; Watkin, 2019; Wiersema et al., 2013). Quantitative data alone is not helpful, but if we take a mixed-methods approach, quantitative evidence can strengthen qualitative evidence that connects pedagogy to an outcome. For instance, after finding a pedagogy-outcome link through qualitative data, we can examine whether quantitative evidence shows that a particular outcome, confirmed to be linked to pedagogy by qualitative data, has improved after students completed a program. If quantitative data shows that it has improved, evidence of the pedagogy-outcome link becomes stronger.

This review suggests several areas that require further research. First, we did not find any evidence that supported the links between specific leadership outcomes and pedagogies of classroom leadership practice and diversity awareness building. Both pedagogies require further research that examines whether and how they contribute to develop specific student leadership outcomes. Second, it remains unclear whether purely academic programs with a knowledge dissemination approach can foster students’ practical leadership capacity. Future research needs more qualitative approaches that provide nuanced information about students’ learning and experiences within these programs, such as academic leadership courses focusing on learning about leadership conceptually. Third, our review revealed that the demographic trends of college students who participated in leadership programs were predominantly white and female, and a few studies examined racial and gender differences in student experiences and outcomes of participating in leadership programs. Leadership educators need to make a conscious effort to diversify students who participate in these programs. At the same time, future research needs to disaggregate data by racial and gender demographics to provide evidence for more diverse students. Finally, future research on leadership education can utilize an emerging theory of Pedagogy-Andragogy-Heutagogy (PAH), which offers more nuanced definitions of instructional approaches (Blaschke & Hase, 2019). In the PAH, pedagogy is defined as a teacher-centered knowledge transmission approach, andragogy as self-directed learning facilitated by teachers, and heutagogy as self-determined learning that focuses on experiences, capacity development, and self-reflection (Akyıldız, 2019). These three approaches exist in continuum, rather than in a linear process, and are circular in nature (Akyildiz, 2019). The PAH has great relevance to leadership education for college students, as reviewed in this study, and therefore, has the potential to examine and develop instructional practices in leadership programs. The key to addressing any of these areas for future research, regardless of methodological approach, is to intentionally design a study to find a link between a specific pedagogical practice and a specific leadership outcome.

5.3. Limitations

We did not include articles published in 2021 and later because we were concerned that the educational contexts during the Covid-19 pandemic were significantly different. This review also excluded studies conducted outside of the U.S. due to different cultural contexts. Future meta-analyses or reviews of leadership education can address these limitations and expand generalizability by exploring student leadership development research in other countries and in different contexts. Our review also only included scholarly journal papers and excluded gray literature, and therefore, it is susceptible to publication bias if other types of publications and literature have systematically different findings from the scholarly papers used in this review (Cooper, 2017). Additionally, the findings of this review heavily depended on qualitative evidence, which could not draw conclusions about causal relationships between pedagogies and outcomes. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the same authors have written some of the articles reviewed in this study, which might have caused biases in the findings, although each article examines a different leadership program.

6. Conclusions

This review synthesized 40 empirical studies that examined formal leadership programs for college students. We identified nine distinct pedagogies and 14 leadership outcomes and demonstrated evidence of the connections between pedagogies and leadership outcomes. The findings suggest that formal leadership programs can be effective in developing a wide range of leadership capacity, but the particular types of outcomes vary across pedagogical practices used in the programs. The findings of this review have important implications for leadership educators and researchers, informing the design of more effective data-driven leadership programs for college students and suggesting the areas for future research.

Citation information

Cite this article as: A systematic review: Pedagogies and outcomes of formal leadership programs for college students, Natsumi Ueda & Adrianna Kezar, Cogent Education (2024), 11:2314718.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The datasets and additional information generated for this study can be found at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22272997.v2.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Natsumi Ueda

Natsumi Ueda, Graduate Research Assistant at Pullias Center for Higher Education and Ph.D. Candidate at Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Her research focuses on higher education leadership, organizational change, diversity, equity, and inclusion, intergroup relations, and Asian American and Asian international student experiences. For her dissertation, she explores the experiences of college student leaders from diverse cultural backgrounds and identities working together on equity and social justice initiatives on campus.

Adrianna Kezar

Adrianna Kezar, PhD, is Dean’s Professor of Leadership, Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of Higher Education, at the University of Southern California and Director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education within the Rossier School of Education. Dr. Kezar is a national expert of leadership, equity and diversity, change, student success, the changing faculty, and governance in higher education. Kezar is well published with 20 books/monographs, over 100 journal articles, and over a hundred book chapters and reports. Recent books include: Shared leadership in higher education (2021) (Stylus), Administration for social justice and equity (2019) (Routledge), and How Colleges Change (2018) (2nd ed) (Routledge Press).

Notes

1 The coding guide is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22272997.v2.

2 The definitions and examples of leadership outcomes are available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22272997.v2.

3 A table that summarizes the pedagogy-outcome connections is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22272997.v2.