0.9 Koonce, g., & Kelly, m. (october 2011). effects of utilizing  (Page 2/7)

Research questions

Two research questions have emerged that focus on outcomes for evaluating principal internships:

• RQI: Are there significant differences in assessment outcomes for the PIMA, USA, and ISA?
• RQ2: If there are significant differences in assessment outcomes for the PIMA, USA, and ISA, what are they and what meaning do they have for program improvement?

Null-hypothesis

There will be no significant difference in the means of three assessments, the Principal Internship Mentor’s Assessment, the University Supervisor Assessment, and the Intern Self-Assessment for a university principal preparation program internship.

Literature review

There appears to be as many internship assessments as there are university principal preparation programs. In addition, states vary greatly in their principal internship requirements and accrediting agencies require that assessment data for the principal internship be analyzed for program improvement (TEAC, 2010).

Assessment of principal interns

Individual assessments from principal mentors in the field are common. Some programs use only a principal mentor’s assessment or university supervisor’s assessment while others utilize an intern’s self-assessment. Some programs use a combination of two of the assessments just noted, and a few use all three in their evaluation of the internship.

Several programs use only a mentor’s assessment in evaluating the internship. The University of Illinois (2008) utilizes an instrument titled Principal Preparation Program Redesign Internship Assessment Scoring Rubric . This instrument displays three assessment domains that include focus areas within each domain and a Likert-type rating scale; the assessment is completed by the mentoring principal in the field.

Washington College (2011) in Chestertown, Maryland utilizes the Site Supervisor Final Intern Assessment Form that is completed by the mentoring principal in the field. The instrument has a Likert-type scale with assessment ratings ranging from 1 (Unsatisfactory) to 5 (Exceptional). Categories for scoring are not aligned with the ISLLC standards and appear to be categories for feedback designed by program faculty.

Other programs directly link the ISLLC Standards to the assessments. Indiana State (2011) utilizes the Administrative Intern Evaluation form. The form includes three levels of measurement; “Exceeds Expectations, Meet Expectations, or Does Not Meet Expectations” (p. 29). Following the evaluation descriptions, a phrase from each of the six ISLLC standards is listed with three boxes where the evaluator can place a check indicating the score.

An instrument utilized by the Danforth Educational Leadership Program at the University of Washington (2005), located in Seattle, is designed using the ISLLC standards. Each ISLLC standard is stated followed by four to six elements defining the standards. There are four performance ratings for the mentoring principal to select. The ratings are designed as a check-off for the entire standard, not for each element.