1. Effects of Participation in Formal Leadership Training in International Students Compared to Domestic Students: A National Study
Daniel Collier, PhD
David Rosch, PhD
Derek Houston, PhD
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

3. International Student Growth on US Campuses
International student enrollment has exploded since the Great Recession (Institute of International Education, 2015)
Recent practices of international student enrollment connected to supplement tuition (Slaughter & Cantwell, 2012)
At many institutions, international students pay nearly double that of domestic students (Redden, 2015)

4. International Students and Campus Integration and Social Engagement
International Student Service Units (ISS)
Dual mission
Business and Regulatory Support (e.g. tuition and visas)
Social and Cultural Programming
Collier (in press): ISS units lack in providing support for and promotion of social and cultural programming
One solution could be encouraging engagement in Leadership Development courses and co-curricular programs
Collier and Rosch (in press): International students and domestic students grow similarly across several leadership constructs while engaging in co-curricular programs.

5. Research Questions
What differences exist between international and domestic students in incoming and post-training measures of leadership self-efficacy, motivation to lead, and leadership skills?
How do international students’ incoming measures of leadership self-efficacy, motivation to lead, and leadership skills change as a result of participation in a co-curricular leadership program?
To what extent do international students’ change in capacity after participating in leadership programs differ from that of domestic peers?

6. “Ready, Willing, and Able” Leadership

7. Sample Scales LeaderShape Institute participants 2013-2014
96% Domestic Students
67% Female
58% White
Leader Behavior Scale
Efficacy for Leadership Scale
Motivation-to-Lead Scale
Social Issues Advocacy Scale
Ethical Leadership Scale

8. Analysis
Inverse-Probability of Treatment-Weighting (IPTW) Propensity Score matching
To accommodate unequal sample sizes (with equal variances), weighted international student scores positively and domestic student scores negatively
Designed to provide equality of importance in responses while not eliminating responses common to more traditional propensity scoring
Independent sample T-tests to compare samples

9. International Students
Unweighted INCOMING Scores
Domestic Students
International Students
T-Test m SD t df p
Ethical Skill
4.14
0.39
0.34
-0.14
852
.887
Transactional Skill
4.25
0.52
4.13
0.50
1.54
867
.125
Transformational Skill
3.96
0.37
3.86
1.78
826
.076
Aff-Id Motivation
3.50
0.68
3.38
0.64
1.20
864
.229
Non-calc Motivation
3.95
0.67
3.85
0.73
1.01
874
.311
Soc-Norm Motivation
3.92
0.40
3.88
0.71
857
.480
Lead Efficacy
3.82
0.49
3.78
0.46
0.57
860
.571
Soc Issues Adv
3.79
0.51
3.90
0.41
-1.35
8.8
.177

10. International Students
Unweighted Post-Experience Scores
Domestic Students
International Students
T-Test m SD t df p
Ethical Skill
4.37
0.39
4.36
0.41
0.22
851
.825
Transactional Skill
4.44
0.53
0.54
1.11
857
.268
Transformational Skill
4.30
0.36
4.16
0.51
2.72
827
.007**
Aff-Id Motivation
3.51
0.72
3.34
0.73
1.59
859
.113
Non-calc Motivation
4.20
4.15
0.67
0.44
873
.657
Soc-Norm Motivation
3.99
0.42
4.05
-1.03
850
.304
Lead Efficacy
0.45
4.08
0.59
1.83
845
.068
Soc Issues Adv
4.17
0.52
4.22
-0.72
839
.475
*p < .05, **p < .01

11. International Students
UnWeighted Gains in Scores
Domestic Students
International Students
T-Test m SD t df p
Ethical Skill
0.24
0.36
0.19
0.37
0.84
822
.400
Transactional Skill
0.20
0.51
0.22
0.53
-0.31
841
.759
Transformational Skill
0.35
0.31
0.40
0.66
781
.512
Aff-Id Motivation
0.01
0.59
-0.07
0.42
0.87
.386
Non-Calc Motivation
0.27
0.56
-0.34
864
.735
Soc-Norm Motivation
0.08
0.41
-2.04
826
.041*
Lead Efficacy
0.39
0.46
1.01
824
.313
Soc Issues Advoc
0.30
1.14
800
.255
*p < .05, **p < .01

12. Table 4
IPTW Regression Predicting Leadershape Gains by International Status
Un-Weighted
Weighted β
S.E P
ELS
Inter
-0.07
0.07
-0.10
0.03
***
_cons
0.23
0.01
0.24
0.02
AI MTL
-0.16
0.11
-0.13
0.04 **
0.00
NC MTL
0.06
0.12
-0.02
SN MTL
0.16
0.08
-0.04
SEL
0.10
0.14
0.39
SIAS
inter
0.09
-0.05
0.40
T-Act
0.20
0.21
T-Form
-0.03
0.35
*p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

13. What Does It Mean?
Surprisingly, similar starting points (incoming capacity)
Similar trajectories of growth – many more similarities than differences
Small areas of difference emerge in all three clusters: skill (Transformational), motivation (Social-Normative), and Leadership Self-efficacy

14. Discussion
LeaderShape supports interactions between international and domestic students
Growing as leaders in an environment that encourages deep participation and interaction of all
Evidence suggests that such leadership development programs support international student growth in ways similar to domestic students
May result in greater ability to integrate onto campuses and connect with domestic students

15. Future Research & Limitations
More focus is needed on international students in US leadership development experiences
We only measured pre-to-post test scores and growth
Lagged survey to explore if students retained higher scores across the measures
Research that explores international student on-campus engagement previous to and after attending leadership development programs
Student organizations
Interactions with domestic students
In-class engagement

16. Conclusion Second study showing similar results
Leadership Development units and ISS units should develop deeper collaborations – which could solve some of ISS unit’s issues.
We need more research done on international students engaged in leadership development in the US
They are interested and engaged