Fraternity and Sorority Analysis at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The study analyzed 300 students who were members of either a multicultural or social fraternity/sorority. It found that about half had participated in at least one leadership training, most commonly a leadership lecture or workshop. It also found that sorority members participated in leadership certificate programs at higher rates than fraternity members. Additionally, students in fraternities/sororities scored higher on consciousness of self and citizenship outcomes of the Social Change Model of leadership compared to non-members, with small to moderate effect sizes.

1. 1
Fraternity and Sorority Analysis
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
12/04/15
Ismael Correa & Mia Xin
© MSL/ NCLP, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015

2. 2
Outline
Section I
Background and Purpose
Section II
Demographic findings
Section III
Leadership Training Experiences
Section IV
Group difference on the Social Change Model
Leadership Outcomes

3. 3
Section I
Background and Purpose

4. 4
MSL Overview
MSL is an international research study which studies the impact of
higher education on shaping socially responsible leadership capacity
and other leadership related outcomes in college students.
MSL can be gauged on 2 levels:
1.Theoretical level: The Social Change Model and 7Cs
2.Conceptual level: Astin’s (1993) inputs-Environment-Outputs (I-E-
O) Model.
Sample
FS Participants: 300 University of Illinois undergraduate students
who completed the MSL survey in its entirety and who indicated
membership in either a multicultural or social fraternity or sorority.

5. 5
Theoretical Framework: Social Change
Model (7 C’s)
Individual Values
Consciousness of Self- awareness of the beliefs, values, attitudes,
and emotions that motivate one to take action
Congruence- thinking, feeling, and behaving with consistency,
genuineness, authenticity, and a honesty toward others; actions
are consistent with the most deeply held beliefs and convictions
Commitment- The psychic energy that motivates the individual to
serve that drives the collective effort; implies passion, intensity,
and duration, and is directed toward both the group activity as well
as its intended outcomes.

6. 6
Group Values
Collaboration- To work with others in a common effort,
constitutes the cornerstone values of the group leadership
effort because it empowers self and others through trust.
Controversy with Civility- Recognizes two fundamental realities
of any creative group effort: that differences in viewpoint are
inevitable, and that such differences must be aired openly, but
with civility.
Theoretical Framework: Social Change
Model (7 C’s)

7. 7
Community Values
Citizenship – The process by whereby an individual and
the collaborative group become responsibly connected to
the community and society through the leadership
development activity.
Theoretical Framework: Social Change
Model (7 C’s)

8. 8
Section II
Demographic Findings

9. 9
Demographic Findings
Class Standing

10. 10
Demographic Findings
Grade Point Average

11. 11
Demographic Findings
Race

12. 12
Demographic Findings
Gender

13. 13
Section III
Leadership Training Experiences of
Fraternity and Sorority Members

14. 14
Fraternity and Sorority Members
Participation in Leadership Training
Experiences

15. 15
About 50% (152/300) of students participated in at least
one leadership training experience
Out of that 50%:
• 16% participated in 1 Leadership Training
Experiences
• 29% participated in 2 Leadership Training
Experiences
• 29% participated in 3 Leadership Training
Experiences
• 22% participated In 4 Leadership Training
Experiences
• 4% participated in 5 Leadership Training Experiences
Fraternity and Sorority Members
Participation in Leadership Training
Experiences

16. 16
Male Leadership Training Experiences

17. 17
Female Leadership Training
Experiences

18. 18
1. Most of men participated in a
Leadership Lecture/Workshop
(42.5%)
2. Most of women participated in a
Leadership lecture/workshop.
(44.2%)
3. Women participate in the
leadership certificate program at
a much higher rate than men.
Key Observations

19. 19
Section IV
Group Differences on the Social
Change Model (SCM) Leadership
Outcomes

20. 20
Group Differences on the Social
Change Model (SCM) Leadership
Outcomes
Hypothesis
Students who were involved in Fraternities and
Sororities scored the same on each of the 7
leadership outcomes than students who were
not involved in Fraternities and Sororities.
Alternative Hypothesis
Students who were involved in Fraternities and
Sororities scored differently on each of the 7
Leadership Outcomes than those students who
were not involved in Fraternities and Sororities.

21. 21
Group Differences on the Social
Change Model (SCM) Leadership
Outcomes

22. 22
Group Differences on the Social
Change Model (SCM) Leadership
Outcomes
Key Question: Is the effect size big enough to mean something?
Effect Size
• An effect size quantifies the difference between two groups.
o An effect size of .15 is trivial
o An effect size of .20 is small
o An effect size of .50 is medium
o An effect size of .80 is large
In higher education a small effect
size is very notable
Ellis, P.D. (2009), “Thresholds for interpreting effect sizes”,
http://www.polyu.edu.hk/mm/effectsizefaqs/thresholds_for_interpreting_effect_sizes2.html accessed on
November 16th, 2015

23. 23
Effect Size
Consciousness of Self  .27
Small to Moderate Effect Size
Citizenship  .18
Small
OMNIBUS  .15
Trivial/Small

24. 24
Conclusion
• Demographic Distributions
• 80% of the participants had a GPA of 3.00/4.00 and up
• About 68% of participants were Juniors and Seniors
• Leadership Training Experiences
• Most of Men participated in a Leadership
Lecture/Workshop (42.5%)
• Most of women participated in a Leadership
Lecture/Workshop (44.2%)
• Group Difference Analysis between individuals who belong to a
Fraternity or Sorority and individuals who do not belong to a
Fraternity or Sorority
• Those who belong to a Fraternity or Sorority on campus at U
of I indicate significantly higher leadership skills on
consciousness of self, citizenship and their overall
leadership capacity

25. Discussion
25
What does this data tell us about . . .
Our school’s students who are involved in
a Fraternity or Sorority?
Our school’s Fraternity and Sorority
system?
Our school’s culture?
Our school’s leadership programs?
Our school’s strengths and weaknesses?
Our school’s future strategies?

26. 26
Q & A