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. 669% of the respondents offer academic/curricular leadership development opportunities 664% of the respondents offer co-curricular leadership development opportunities 880% of the respondents offer leadership development opportunities through student employment TThere 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