Alexis Kanda-OlmsteadOffice of Student Leadership, Involvement & Community

EngagementColorado 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 McMahonExploring 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 Lowest 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

“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

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

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

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