0.9 Koonce, g., & Kelly, m. (october 2011). effects of utilizing  (Page 4/7)

Standard 3: the management of learning

• 3a. Making Management Decisions
• 3b. Developing Procedures to Ensure Successful Teaching and Learning
• 3c. Allocating Resources to Ensure Successful Teaching and Learning
• 3d. Creating a Safe, Healthy Environment to Ensure Successful Teaching and Learning

Standard 4: relationships with the broader community to foster learning

• 4a. Understanding Community Needs
• 4b. Involving Members of the Community
• 4c. Providing Opportunities for the Community and School to Serve Each Other
• 4d. Understanding and Valuing Diversity

Standard 5: integrity, fairness, and ethics in learning

• 5a. Demonstrating a Personal and Professional Code of Ethics
• 5b. Understanding One’s Impact on the School and Community
• 5c. Respecting the Rights and Dignity of All
• 5d. Inspiring Integrity and Ethical Behavior in Others

Standard 6: the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context of learning

• 6a. Operating Schools on Behalf of Students and Families
• 6b. Communicating Changes in Environment to Stakeholders
• 6c. Working Within Policies, Laws, and Regulations
• 6d. Communicating with Decision-Makers Outside the School Community

The instrument was piloted in the 2006-2007 academic year. The Educational Focus Group (Cannizzaro, 2007) provided feedback on the instrument and confirmed its content validity. To address inter-rater reliability, sets of two raters used the instrument and discussed the outcomes. The four teams of practitioners rated the PIMA similarly (Cannizzaro, 2007). Koonce and Causey (2011) found consistency of variance within the PIMA and its constituent items. For each standard the constituent items correlate robustly with the standard overall. Pearson’s r values ranged between .779 and .980. All findings fell within the .01 level of significance.

Upon establishing the validity and reliability of the PIMA, the USA and ISA assessments were subsequently designed using the PIMA as a model. Other than the title and lead in information, the assessments are identical with the same Likert-type ratings.

Participants

Fifty-four (54) educational leadership internship completers were studied in this research from one university Educational Leadership Preparation Program in southeast Virginia. The participants were uncompensated and were not interviewed, tested or surveyed beyond the normal program requirements. All were licensed and experienced educators (minimum three years teaching experience) prior to participating in the internship. The participant group makes up a purposeful sample consisting of all students that completed the internship between September 2009 and May 2011.

Data collection and statistical analysis

Data were collected online via Survey Monkey through the mentoring principals’ completion of the Principal Internship Mentor’s Assessment (PIMA), the university supervisor completing the University Supervisor’s Assessment (USA), and the intern completing the Intern Self-Assessment (ISA) for each semester and each student completing an internship (Figure 1). Data were then organized into an Excel spreadsheet entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).