Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byGwen Mitchell Modified over 9 years ago
1
Alexis Kanda-Olmstead Office of Student Leadership, Involvement & Community Engagement Colorado State University March 27, 2008
2
Assessment fears National and in-house leadership assessments Key findings Unexpected perks
3
Fear of the Unknown ◦ Research ◦ Statistics ◦ Oh my! Fear of the Known ◦ Time commitment ◦ Results and their implications
4
Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL) ◦ Purpose – To examine student leadership values (outcomes) at both the institutional (CSU) and national levels with specific attention to the environmental factors that influence leadership development in college students. ◦ 55 campuses participated ◦ 63,000 students completed the survey (37% return rate)
5
“Leadership is a relational process of people together attempting to accomplish change or make a difference to benefit the common good.” - Susan Komives, Nance Lucas, & Timothy McMahon Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference (1998)
6
Theoretical Framework: Social Change Model of Leadership Development (HERI, 1996) Conceptual Framework: I-E-O College Impact Model (Inputs-Environment-Outcomes) (Astin, 1993, 2001)
8
Pre-college experience matters Leadership shows moderate gender differences Openness to change is greater for marginalized students Service and internship experiences develop student leadership Racial and ethnic groups differ
9
Mentoring develops leadership outcomes and leadership efficacy Depth of involvement is better than breadth of involvement Discussions about socio-cultural issues are powerful leadership development experiences
10
Alumni Leadership Development Survey ◦ Purpose: Investigate long-term affect of leadership programs/classes on CSU alumni ◦ Method: Student Voice survey based on outcomes identified by the leadership program administrators Student Leadership Assessment ◦ Purpose: Research the leadership development of CSU students enrolled in academic leadership classes ◦ Method: Student Voice survey based on Kouzes and Posner’s Student Leadership Practices Inventory (SLPI)
11
Leadership Resources Inventory ◦ Purpose: Catalog leadership programs/activities across campus to eliminate redundancy ◦ Method: Student Voice survey based on leadership outcomes determined by a CSU faculty and staff work group (Leadership Education Advisory Board) PLP CAS Standards Assessment ◦ Purpose: Benchmark survey for the President’s Leadership Program ◦ Method: In-class paper survey based on 2003 CAS standards for leadership programs
12
Highest Mean ScoresLowest Mean Scores Collaboration skills Understanding group dynamics Teambuilding Enhanced self-esteem Leadership development Intellectual growth Exploring career choices Learning healthy behaviors Developing spiritual awareness Leading change Assessing org effectiveness
13
“I describe a compelling image of what our future could be like.” ◦ 81% of males ◦ 51% of females “I support the decisions that people make on their own.” ◦ 86% of females ◦ 72% of males “I challenge people to try out innovative approaches to their work.” ◦ 63% of males ◦ 44% of females Gender Differences
14
669% of the respondents offer academic/curricular leadership development opportunities 664% of the respondents offer co-curricular leadership development opportunities 880% of the respondents offer leadership development opportunities through student employment TThere is a lot of leadership development going on across campus.
15
Students selected “Agree” to “Strongly Agree” for 17 of the 20 statements related to the CAS standards. Lowest scores were in the following areas: ◦ Clarification of career choices and options ◦ Importance of a healthy lifestyle ◦ Critical thinking skills
16
National Leadership Assessment In-House Leadership Assessment Results are more credible Opportunity to network with experts in the field Professional development Someone else designs the instrument and analyzes the data Focused on your research questions/areas of interest Opportunity to network with colleagues across campus Control of the data and its dissemination
17
National Leadership Assessment In-House Leadership Assessment Labor intensive Cost Difficult to correct mistakes Bureaucratic hoops Validity Reliability Expectation that you do something Political hoops
18
Grants Campus support Funding Donors Key stakeholders Credibility Alumni Community members Relationships
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.