dc.contributor.author	Paul, Alyson Rainwater
dc.coverage.spatial	Central and North America -- United States	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2017-01-05T20:27:39Z
dc.date.available	2017-01-05T20:27:39Z
dc.date.issued	2016-12
dc.identifier.citation	Paul, Alyson Rainwater. Effects of Strengths-Based Development on Self-Efficacy of Higher Education Professionals: A Mixed Methods Approach (Dissertation). Valdosta State University, Fall 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/10428/2497
dc.identifier.other	E23052D1-5BD8-4980-BD65-3212DDEF6270	UUID
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/2497
dc.description.abstract	This study focuses on the self-efficacy of higher education professionals within a state in the southeastern United States and uses a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. The purpose of the quantitative phase was to determine if Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) was related to participation in a Strengths-Based Development (SBD) intervention. The quasi-experimental design utilized an experimental group and a control group for comparison. Quantitative analysis determined that the independent variables (race, gender, institution type, leadership level, or occupational area) had no significant predictive relationship to change in GSE. Despite this, paired-samples t tests indicated a significant change from GSE pretest to posttest across groups. The study maximized the use of a follow-up qualitative phase to understand why this correlation existed and to more deeply understand the experiences that influenced the development of self-efficacy. Qualitative analysis provided support for Bandura’s Origins of Self-Efficacy and offered two additional themes that emerged to explain how self-efficacy is developed within individuals. The participants indicated that they adapted personal strategies for developing self-efficacy including utilizing their faith, breaking things down into small steps, and possessing a positive attitude. Participants also articulated that their self-efficacy was built through their Resilience Through Surviving tough circumstances. Finally, participants articulated the belief that SBD increased their self-awareness and caused changes in their perception of strengths and their behaviors. The findings of this mixed-methods study supported the use of SBD within institutions of higher education because of its influence on the self-efficacy of participants which increased self-awareness and changes in perceptions and behaviors. Suggested areas of future research include understanding if increases in GSE are sustained after extended periods of time and if increased GSE scores have other positive results, such as career success, career longevity, happiness, and supervisory satisfaction within the higher education environment. Institutions of higher education should embrace and invest in SBD because it can have a positive influence on the self-efficacy of participants. Leaders and supervisors can build self-efficacy in others through recognizing the success of others (Positive Experiences), allowing themselves to be models for others as well as encouraging mentors within the organization (Social Modeling), offering timely feedback and encouragement to others (Social Persuasions), and coaching participants to rebound and persist through challenges, while celebrating those who were able to overcome challenges (Physiological State). For SBD to be most beneficial, it needs to be incorporated into the regular business and communication of the organization. For example, organizations may assist supervisors and employees in learning and investing in the strengths of others by making it part of regular meeting agendas, professional development and orientation opportunities, and employee evaluations. Supervisors may utilize team mapping and complimentary partnerships in establishing project teams and committee structures.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	Chapter I: INTRODUCTION 1 Background of the Study 2 Higher Education 2 Self-Efficacy 4 Positive Psychology 5 Strengths-Based Development 5 Statement of the Problem 5 Purpose Statement and Research Questions 7 Significance of the Research 8 Definition of Terms 10 Summary 11 Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW 13 Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory/Self-Efficacy 17 Generalized Self-Efficacy 22 New Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale 22 Positive Psychology 26 The Science of the Brain 26 The Clifton StrengthsFinder 29 Strengths-Based Development 35 Strengths-Based Leadership 41 Summary 45 Chapter III: METHODOLOGY 47 Research Questions 47 Research Design 48 Phase I: Quantitative Research Design 53 Participants 53 Recruitment 54 Data Collection 55 Intervention 57 Data Analysis 58 Phase II: Qualitative Research Design 61 Participants 61 Choosing the Qualitative Cases 63 Extreme Changes in Self-Efficacy 64 No Changes in Self-Efficacy 65 Data Collection 66 Instrumentation 67 Analytic Procedures 69 Ethical Considerations 74 Points of Interface 74 Limitations 75 Researcher’s Position 76 Summary 77 Chapter IV: FINDINGS 79 Quantitative 79 Data Screening 80 Who Are the Participants 81 GSE Pretest Analysis 84 GSE Posttest Analysis 87 Additional GSE Posttest Analysis 89 Regression Analysis 89 Comparing GSE Pretest and Posttest Scores 90 Qualitative 90 Participant Profiles 93 Research Question 2 95 Research Question 3 108 Discussion of Themes 121 Bandura’s Origins of Self-Efficacy 122 Emergent Themes 126 Theme 1 – Breaking Things Down 126 Theme 2 – Positive Attitude 127 Theme 3 – Faith 129 Theme 4 – Resilience Through Surviving 130 RQ3: How Does SBD Influence Self-Efficacy 131 Theme 5 – Increased Self-Awareness 132 Theme 6 – Changes in Perception of Strengths 132 Theme 7 – Change in Behavior 135 Summary 135 Chapter V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 137 Review of Literature 138 Self-Efficacy 138 Generalized Self-Efficacy 142 Positive Psychology 142 Strengths-Based Development 143 Method 146 Quantitative Sample 147 Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis 148 Qualitative Sample 148 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis 151 Instrumentation 151 Results and Discussion 152 Quantitative 152 Qualitative 155 Quantitative and Qualitative Findings 166 Conclusions and Implications 170 REFERENCES 173 APPENDICES Appendix A: List of 34 Strengths 190 Appendix B: Strengths Domains 193 Appendix C: Participation Solicitation for Higher Education Supervisors 195 Appendix D: Participation Solicitations and Informed Consent 197 Appendix E: Pretest Survey 200 Appendix F: Email Instructions for Strengths-Based Development 205 Appendix G: Posttest Survey 207 Appendix H: Strengths-Based Development Workshop Outline 210 Appendix I: Interview Guide 213 Appendix J: Institutional Review Board approval 216	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	Dissertations	en_US
dc.subject	Education	en_US
dc.subject	Self-efficacy	en_US
dc.subject	Education, Higher	en_US
dc.subject	Career development;	en_US
dc.title	Effects of Strengths-Based Development on Self-Efficacy of Higher Education Professionals: A Mixed Methods Approach	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Fiester, Herbert
dc.description.committee	York, Travis
dc.description.committee	Truby, William
dc.description.committee	Kim, Daesang
dc.description.degree	Ed.D.	en_US
dc.description.major	Educational Leadership	en_US