1. Coaching College Students with an Appreciative Inquiry Foundation
Amanda Gilmore
CADR 610
Professor: Dr. Vitus Ozoke
Fall 2014/ November 30, 2014
The intellectual knowledge, ideas and opinions found in this assignment are mine and
mine alone. Any additional knowledge, ideas, thoughts, words, or phrases belonging
to others have been properly attributed using standard and approved citations.
–Amanda Gilmore
2. Gilmore 1
Introduction to the Appreciative Campus
This research investigates how Appreciative Inquiry (AI) could be adopted on
college campuses as the foundation for all administrators’ interactions with students.
By focusing on clients’ (i.e. students’) strengths, using positive language, and
implementing other AI coaching methods, campus administrators could transform
the college experience in a positive, revolutionary way (Orem, Binkert, & Clancy,
2007). Embracing AI as the overarching philosophy of a Student Affairs department
has the potential to streamline educational efforts through a consistent process.
Whether a student is seeking academic support, extracurricular involvement,
residential engagement, or career guidance, the professionals in those departments
and various other Student Affairs branches would all adhere to the uniform
methodology of Appreciative Coaching. It should underlie the culture of the
university so that every student interaction with a campus professional is shaped by a
consistently appreciative style.
To begin, it should be asserted that using a strength-based approach on an
entire college campus is not a novel, revolutionary idea. Many universities across the
United States take pride in calling their campus a “Strengths-based campus,” referring
to their adoption and implementation of the StrengthsQuest program, designed as
part of Gallup’s Education Practice. StrengthsQuest is a direct product of AI, using
positive psychology to focus on users’ top five “Signature Strengths” to capitalize on
their best natural traits as opposed to their inherent weaknesses (Clifton & Anderson,
2002).
3. Gilmore 2
However, this research purports that beyond making the StrengthsQuest
program available to students, faculty, and staff, universities should take this
initiative one step further by completely redesigning their vision and culture from an
AI basis. In order for Appreciative Coaching methods to underscore every
conversation with a student, it has to come from a guiding philosophy that is
paramount to the campus identity. The StrengthsQuest program is helpful, and could
be part of these universities’ AI model, but it would only be used as one venue
through which this larger campus philosophy takes shape.
The Potential Benefits of AI for Universities
Although there are no cases to study on this exact application, potential
benefits can be interpreted through the merits of other AI applications. For example,
in a recent study conducted by Conklin and Hartman (2014), they found that co-
creating classes for graduate and undergraduate university students using AI was
overwhelmingly successful. These students were better equipped through this
coaching relationship with the professor to hold themselves more accountable for the
outcome. Instead of the typical syllabus setting the framework for the class, students
co-created their own reality of what they wanted to achieve. Conklin and Hartman
found that students are better motivated to succeed when this AI method was applied
to the classroom (Conklin & Hartman, 2014). If this philosophy worked well in the
academic realm for a university, might it also work well in the entire student
experience?
4. Gilmore 3
To further exemplify the possible applicability of AI to the campus experience,
there has been a great deal of research that positively connects leadership
development to AI (Kaye, Conklin, & Allen, 2008; Walker & Carr-Stewart, 2004).
Universities, for obvious educational reasons, exist to develop students in one way or
another. Often, these institutions are in the business of creating the leaders of
tomorrow’s professional world. Because AI is being recognized by educators as a
reliable tool to empower leadership and grow their skills, it strengthens the argument
for AI on campus. The gap in this leadership-centered research is that it has not been
applied to student-leaders. Walker and Carr-Stewart (2004) researched AI’s impact
on Superintendents in the educational field, not college students. Another article
combining AI and leadership development by Kaye, Conklin, and Allen (2008)
researched mid-level managers already working in organizational leadership.
Although the later article also investigated leadership with students, it limited the
research purely to the classroom environment.
In addition to better academic performance and leadership development,
another benefit of using AI to foundationally reshape universities is its utility to
create meaningful ethics for organizations. According to the Journal of Business Ethics,
“AI, as a collaborative process that creates meaning and shared dreams of an ethical
future through participation and dialogue by focusing on the positive, views ethics as
an opportunity to be embraced rather than a problem to be solved, and assumes
system-wide involvement, appears to be a useful and powerful intervention to initiate
5. Gilmore 4
ethical change” (Vuuren & Crous, 2005, p. 410). There are two important assertions
to be noted in this statement. Firstly, just as any other organization needs powerful,
guiding ethical standards, universities are not an exception. Building a
comprehensive AI campus creates a convenient opportunity for universities to re-
envision their stagnant code of ethics, which are likely in need of a timely update.
Using AI, ethics can be seen as a point of pride and successes, instead of a negative list
of intimidating “we will not stand for…” statements. Secondly, it is interesting and
appropriate to notice that the article refers to system-wide involvement (Vuuren &
Crous, 2005). If a redesigned code of ethics can be rolled out and embraced by an
entire organization, it is not too ambitious to imagine that the AI philosophy and its
corresponding coaching methods can be implemented campus-wide for colleges and
universities.
AI as the Antidote
Beyond this vast list of potential benefits, restructuring and re-training the
campus community in the AI approach could serve as an effective antidote to the
myriad of current issues the field of Higher Education is facing. The process of
placing AI at the core of faculty, student, and staff interactions likely has
advantageous effects that serve as a catch-all to squash other deficiencies or points of
contention. For instance, it is widely accepted that colleges struggle with the issue of
students’ drug and alcohol abuse. Coincidentally, there is research that connects AI to
6. Gilmore 5
successful intervention in youth substance abuse cases (McAdam & Marza, 2009).
This research concluded that the use of AI coaching allowed students struggling with
addiction to dream a new dream and redirect their lives on a safer, more successful
path (McAdam & Marza, 2009). Speaking about their study participants, McAdam and
Marza wrote, “By being present for them, believing in their potential through
dreaming with them and taking them seriously, we created a space for them to move
into new identities” (2009). Given this correlation, universities may get the fringe
benefit of reducing substance abuse issues when the campus community is
empowered by AI.
Another challenge the field of Higher Education is facing is the increasing
levels of student dissatisfaction (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010).
Students are facing a tougher economic climate with increasing unemployment rates
while simultaneously coping with tuition increases. Funding for education continues
to be cut, and students are understandably frustrated with their crippling debt and
their limited post-graduation options. This may seem like a hopeless problem, but AI
could once again “save” Higher Education here by making the best out of rough times.
In 2009, a study was published in the Journal of Nursing Management that found AI
was able to help transform an environment of increasing dissatisfaction back into a
more productive and amicable culture (Richer, Ritchie, & Marichionni, 2009). This
was done by reframing negatives into positives and building on organizational
strengths to spark innovation (Richer et al., 2009). Although this research from the
7. Gilmore 6
healthcare field may not initially seem relevant to Higher Education, both fields are
trying to address dissatisfaction with dwindling resources. The parallels of this
research lend substantial credence to the proposed implementation of AI on college
campuses.
Furthermore, one of the most valuable assets that organizations have is the
potential of their people. The growth and development of employees is paramount to
long-term success. Performance improvement, precipitated by effective evaluation
processes, has monetary value to make employees more valuable and productive
while potentially lowering turnover (Dunlap, 2008). Fortunately, AI can add value to
this facet of university dynamics as well, according to an article by Cheryl Dunlap in
the Performance Improvement Journal (2008). This study determined that AI and the
evaluative practice have many similarities, and also that evaluations are strengthened
when AI is faithfully applied (Dunlap, 2008). This evidence makes the prospect of
adopting AI on college campuses more attractive, especially considering the
aforementioned budget cuts in Higher Education.
On a similar note, there is evidence to suggest that AI is a pertinent tool to
develop and empower otherwise disengaged students in a similar fashion. While AI-
centered evaluations could take employees’ performance to the next level, AI-
centered coaching could take students’ self-efficacy and confidence to new heights.
According to recent research conducted by Lara Christley (2013), underrepresented
students on StrengthsQuest campuses feel more fulfilled and empowered to reach
8. Gilmore 7
their academic and career aspirations through increased measures of self-efficacy.
Christley states, “If we want to see underrepresented students succeeding in college
at greater rates, taking the StrengthsQuest assessment and applying a strengths-
based approach to the challenges these students face is one way help them succeed in
college” (Christley, 2013, p. 64).
Having already established the relationship between the trailblazing AI
ideology and the subsequent StrengthsQuest system, this suggests that expanding the
StrengthsQuest campuses into entirely AI-grounded institutions could yield even
more help for struggling students. To further corroborate this assertion, Baxter’s
self-authorship student development theory explains how important it is for college
students to take ownership over their destiny and create their identity (Evans et al.,
2010). Appreciative Coaching could capitalize on students’ self-efficacy and self-
authorship in order to help underrepresented college student populations better
navigate the realm of Higher Education.
Implementation: Overcoming Potential Challenges
In order for these benefits to come to fruition and for AI to adequately offer aid
to issues in Higher Education, attention must be given to the weaknesses and
potential pitfalls of this broad application of AI. This vision of recreating college
campuses by stripping them of what they have built as a culture and only keeping
what works through AI and rebuilding upon that— it is an ambitious and
9. Gilmore 8
unconventional risk. Some administrators may view this proposition as too lofty of a
goal to seriously consider.
That being said, these administrators may turn to the safer, smaller option of
becoming yet another StrengthsQuest campus. It is tempting to avoid risks by
purchasing StrengthsQuest and settling for the limited benefits it has to offer (Austin,
2006; Hodges & Harter, 2005). This is not to undersell the clear merits of
StrengthsQuest. The StrengthsQuest system has been proven to be an extremely
effective mechanism to develop the natural skills and abilities in employees, students,
and managers alike (Clifton & Anderson, 2002). One researcher by the name of
Donald B. Austin writes, “One clear finding from the study was the determination that
academic efficacy levels in the strengths development intervention program were
significantly higher than in the control group” (Austin, 2006, p. 180). Looking to the
future, Austin also vehemently suggests that leadership in education should embrace
the strengths-centered lens of positive psychology in order to best serve diverse
students as their needs evolve over time (Austin, 2006).
In a similarly positive fashion, authors Hodges and Harter summarize the
overwhelmingly positive landscape of StrengthsQuest research to conclude that,
“Strengths development has a positive impact on student productivity, life choices,
self-confidence, goal-directed thinking, interpersonal relations, and academic
success” (Hodges & Harter, 2005, p. 190). However, as previously stated,
StrengthsQuest is just a glimpse into the vision that AI can create for a campus. The
10. Gilmore 9
challenge will be to convince campuses not to settle for this well-received educational
tool, but instead commit to embracing AI as a foundational recreation of the
university experience.
Recognizing the increased commitment of time, money, and energy that this
revolutionary leap of faith will take, this challenge must be addressed with adequate
evidence and thoughtful planning, and also creative methods to expedite the
transition process. One of these creative methods is the idea of training and
implementing AI by hosting a Virtual AI Summit. Training on AI using web-
technology allows coaches/facilitators to encompass a large group of people in a
feasible and convenient way. Beyond this advantage, this method has proven
successful. According to one facilitator, “The creativity, ownership, and accountability
that the AI Virtual Summit spurred have resulted in many positive outcomes. The pre-
summit survey, peer-to-peer interviews, summit sessions, and innovation team
collaboration invigorated and empowered the team” (Conkright, 2011, p. 36-37).
Having this cost-efficient yet highly effective option to implement an AI culture makes
the risk involving time and resources less daunting to university stakeholders and
decision-makers.
Lastly, a final challenge of this proposition lies in its unconventionality and
ingenuity. Put simply, it is intimidating to undertake this structural and culture
overhaul. Although similar applications have shown success, no campus has ever
attempted to apply AI this broadly. Nonetheless, some collegiate applications of AI
11. Gilmore 10
and their subsequent research have come close to scratching the surface of AI’s
educational possibilities. For example, a group of Canadian education professors have
co-authored research to suggest that Christian High Education should be re-
envisioned using AI (English, Fenwick, & Parsons, 2003). Even though this research
mostly stays with the dream stage by only using AI temporarily to induce change, it
was a step in the right direction. The co-authors stated, “Current educational tradition
has come to focus on the negative and the desire of some participants will be to focus
exclusively on the problems. If possible, these people need reminding that shifting
one’s focus or way of thinking and speaking are all part of effective appreciative
inquiry. Practicing appreciative inquiry will challenge teachers and learners in higher
education” (English et al., 2003, p. 86). When facing criticism or hesitancy from
stakeholders, change-makers can rely on these research cases or mini-successes to
inspire a well-educated leap of faith.
Conclusion: Creating a Lasting Transformation
In conclusion, the benefits of making AI a permanent fixture in the philosophy
of collegiate institutions outweigh the risks and challenges. AI is the catalyst Higher
Education needs to persevere through its current issues and struggles. As one AI
researcher states, “The value of an appreciative inquiry approach lies in its focus on
locating resources rather than identifying problems… This is especially important
when the current educational discourse is often quite negative and focused on
13. Gilmore 12
Annotated Bibliography
Austin, Donald B. (2006). Building on a foundation of strengths. Educational
Horizons, 84(3), 176-182.
This scholarly article intends to determine whether strength-based educational
methods are effective for high school freshmen struggling with low academic
achievement. The authors were attempting to find a correlation between academic
success and the development of strengths rather than weaknesses. Although this
article is not at the collegiate level, the topic is similar enough to give insight into
measuring the impact this philosophy has on students. The information appears
transferable to a collegiate population.
Christley, Lara. (2013). Do students who take the StrengthsQuest assessment
connect their strengths to statements indicating self-efficacy? University of
Minnesota Digital Conservancy.
Christley’s research project, a thorough 85 pages, delves into a case study of college
students’ success as it relates to self-efficacy and StrengthsQuest. This article does not
mention Appreciative Inquiry specifically, however, the philosophy that created
StrengthsQuest is Appreciative Inquiry. This makes the study transferable. One
benefit of this article is that it is directly studying the outcome of a strengths-based
approach applied to college students. It is probably the most closely related research
to my topic.
Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. C. (2002). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your
strengths in academics, career, and beyond. Washington, D.C: Gallup
Organization.
14. Gilmore 13
This book is what prompted the idea for my research. StrengthsQuest was my first
introduction into positive psychology as opposed to deficit-based development. This
book is a tool of the StrengthsQuest program that helps people best utilize their top
five strengths, which are identified online via a code in the book. This source,
although seemingly unrelated, is useful because some universities have adopted it for
all students and staff. That adoption of positive psychology mechanism is similar to
the thesis for my own research, although not as all-encompassing.
Conklin, T. A., & Hartman, N. S. (2014). Appreciative Inquiry and autonomy
supportive classes in business education: A semilongitudinal study of AI in the
classroom. Journal Of Experiential Education, 37(3), 285-309.
This study examines the effectiveness of undergraduate and graduate courses that
were co-created using Appreciative Inquiry methods with students. The study found
that students responded well to the courses when they were able to help form the
goals and vision, as appreciative coaching does. This source is extremely relevant
because it incorporates both Appreciative Inquiry and college students. The way that
this research differs from my own topic is that it is limited in looking only at academic
courses. My paper proposes that this philosophy should formulate and guide every
facet of the college experience. Faculty and staff in every department, not just in the
classrooms, should use Appreciative Inquiry. Conklin and Hartman’s research does
not go that far.
15. Gilmore 14
Conkright, Todd. (2011). Improving performance and organization value through a
virtual Appreciative Inquiry summit. Performance Improvement, 50(6), 31-37.
This article discusses the positive and negative factors when implementing
Appreciative Inquiry virtually in the workplace. Although it does not speak
specifically to anything within the realm of education, the subtopic of involving
technology could provide another dimension to my research. For the ambitious
implementation I’m proposing for universities, virtual implementation could be of
great assistance. Conkright’s research also sheds light on the challenges of large-scale
implementation in general.
Doveston, M. M., & Keenaghan, M. (2006). Growing talent for inclusion: Using an
Appreciative Inquiry approach into investigating classroom dynamics. Journal
of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6(3), 153-165.
This is another article that relates Appreciative Inquiry to classroom instruction. It
studies the result of this technique in the classroom and finds a positive correlation.
An especially poignant section of the article is titled, “Appreciative Inquiry in
educational settings.” This section alone is very valuable because it provides a short
synopsis of all the research to this point that has been done on this relationship
between students and Appreciative Inquiry.
Dunlap, Cheryl. (2008). Effective evaluation through appreciative inquiry.
Performance Improvement, 47(2), 23-29.
Dunlap’s research could add value to the idea my paper is proposing. This study
determines that Appreciative Inquiry and evaluation have many similarities, and also
16. Gilmore 15
that evaluations are strengthened when Appreciative Inquiry is applied. Having this
evidence behind my research provides another great reason to implement
Appreciative Inquiry at universities. This is because performance improvement has
monetary value to make employees more valuable and productive and potentially
lower turnover.
English, L. M., Fenwick, T. J., & Parsons, J. (2003). An Appreciative Inquiry into the
spiritual values of Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 2(1),
71.
This article is another source that will add great weight and evidence to my research.
The “Process of Changing: Using Appreciative Inquiry” section explains to readers
why Appreciative Inquiry should be used to revisit and reform the Christian college
education. I can use many of these same arguments in my research. As another note,
the focus in this piece seems to be on vision or the “dream” stage, mostly to create
new plans using Appreciative Inquiry as a methodology, not as a permanent fixture in
the philosophy of collegiate institutions as I envision.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
This 400+ page book is well known as a Student Affairs “bible.” It encompasses a
wide-range of student development and social identity theories. It was interesting to
encounter an entire chapter about Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in this text.
Although the information is largely unchanged, it presents it in student-centered
17. Gilmore 16
language. A section that may be relatable is regarding Baxter Magolda’s Theory of
Self-Authorship, which involves having a clear sense of self. This theory seems closely
related to Appreciative Inquiry and rejects the problem-based approach.
Hodges, T. D., & Harter, J. K. (2005). A review of the theory and research underlying
the StrengthsQuest program for students. Educational Horizons, 83(3), 190-
201.
One weakness of this source is that it spends a great deal of space and length on
simply describing and explaining the background and psychology behind
StrengthsQuest. However, it is useful to include this research in my paper because the
last few pages provide evidence to validate its successful implementation and usage
with student populations. Because StrengthsQuest is rooted in Appreciative Inquiry,
this evidence is transferable to my argument of applying Appreciative Inquiry on
campus.
Kaye, H. R., Conklin, T., & Allen, S. (January 1, 2008). Individual Leader
Development: An Appreciative Inquiry Approach. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 10(5), 632-650.
This article has a great deal of excellent information about the application of
Appreciative Inquiry as it relates to effectively developing leaders. It provides a
wealth of evidence to explain why leaders must know and develop their students to
best perform and grow. Universities are in the business of creating leaders.
Therefore, this research offers yet another compelling reason to revamp universities
with an Appreciative Inquiry foundation.
18. Gilmore 17
McAdam, E., & Marza, K. (2009). Drugs, hopes and dreams: Appreciative Inquiry with
marginalized young people using drugs and alcohol. Journal Of Family Therapy,
31(2), 175-193.
This research adds an interesting perspective to the landscape of my research. It is
well-known that the college student population is often plagued by drugs and alcohol.
If Appreciative Inquiry can be useful to address this issue, it identifies yet another
way that my research topic is valuable and necessary. According this article, the use
of an Appreciative Inquiry model allows students struggling with addiction to dream
a new dream and redirect their lives.
Orem, S. L., Binkert, J., & Clancy, A. L. (2007). Appreciative Coaching: A Positive Process
for Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Our textbook from class also inspired my idea for this research. It thoroughly explains
Appreciative Inquiry from the background and fundamentals, all the way through the
underlying principles and the stages. This text also has a glossary of terms and
appendices to refer to that could easily be adapted to the collegiate level. Although
this source does not specifically research the application of this philosophy into
higher education, it generally lays the theoretical foundation of Appreciative Inquiry
and is open to interpretation and various applications.
Richer, M., Ritchie, J., & Marichionni, C. (2009). If we can't do more, let's do it
differently!: Using appreciative inquiry to promote innovative ideas for
better health care work environments. Journal Of Nursing Management,
17(8), 947-955.
19. Gilmore 18
Although this may initially seem like a stretch to include as relevant research, I found
an interesting connection. As funding for education continues to be cut, tuition is
climbing, and employment and student satisfaction declines, Higher Education is
facing difficult times. This article, although about the healthcare system, has many
parallels in facing challenges. I could use this research to make a case for using
Appreciative Inquiry to “save” higher education.
Vuuren, L. V., & Crous, F. (2005). Utilizing Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in creating a
shared meaning of ethics in organizations. Journal Of Business Ethics, 57(4),
399-412.
This is the only source of research I have that intends to use Appreciative Inquiry as
part of a foundational, all-encompassing philosophy. These authors’
conceptualization of Appreciative Inquiry is a great example of how to use that
philosophy broadly to create widespread change. One weakness of this research,
however, is that it is one of my older, less-current sources of information.
Walker, K., & Carr-Stewart, S. (2004). Learning leadership through Appreciative
Inquiry. International Studies In Educational Administration, 32(1), 72-85.
This article is similar to the aforementioned research by Kaye, Conklin, and Allen. It
examines the usefulness of Appreciative Inquiry as it relates to developing leaders.
Although this source is from 2004, the idea of colleges creating leaders is timeless.
Specifically, their research was conducted with a group of Superintendents from an
educational system.
