Alexis Kanda-Olmstead Office of Student Leadership, Involvement & Community Engagement Colorado State University March 27, 2008



Assessment fears



National and in-house leadership assessments



Key findings



Unexpected perks



Fear of the Unknown

◦

Research

◦

Statistics

◦

Oh my!



Fear of the Known

◦

Time commitment

◦

Results and their implications

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)

“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)

Theoretical Framework: Social Change Model of Leadership Development (HERI, 1996) Conceptual Framework: I-E-O College Impact Model (Inputs-Environment-Outcomes) (Astin, 1993, 2001)



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



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

 ◦ ◦

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)

 ◦ ◦

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

Highest Mean Scores       Collaboration skills Understanding group dynamics Teambuilding Enhanced self-esteem Leadership development Intellectual growth Lowest Mean Scores      Exploring career choices Learning healthy behaviors Developing spiritual awareness Leading change Assessing org effectiveness

Gender Differences  “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

 69% of the respondents offer

academic/curricular

leadership development opportunities  64% of the respondents offer

co-curricular

leadership development opportunities  80% of the respondents offer leadership development opportunities through

student employment



There is a lot of leadership development going on across campus.

 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

National 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    In-House Leadership Assessment Focused on your research questions/areas of interest Opportunity to network with colleagues across campus Control of the data and its dissemination

National Leadership Assessment  Labor intensive  Cost  Difficult to correct mistakes  Bureaucratic hoops  In-House Leadership Assessment Validity  Reliability  Expectation that you do something  Political hoops

Funding

• Grants • Campus support

Credibility

• Donors • Key stakeholders

Relationships

• Alumni • Community members