0.14 Smith, p. (october 2011). using electronic portfolios to  (Page 4/4)

Data analysis

As seen in Table 1, related measure t -tests reveal that the posttest scores are significantly higher than pretest scores for each of the six standards. Total scores On the ISLLC Standards survey indicate that posttest total scores ( M = 4.70, SD = 0.38) were significantly higher than pretest scores ( M = 2.48, SD = 0.81), t (134) = 29.86, p <.01(two-tailed), d = 2.57.

Similarly, related-measure t -test results shown in Table 2 indicate that posttest scores are significantly higher than pretest scores for each of the 36 items on the Administrator Dispositions Index survey. Total scores on the ADI survey indicate that posttest total scores ( M = 4.94, SD = 0.11) were significantly higher than pretest scores ( M = 4.57, SD = 0.50), t (132) =8.56, p <.01, d = 0.74.

Table 1. Pretest and Posttest Results for the ISLLC Standards Survey

Table 2. Pretest and Posttest Results for the Administrator Dispositions Index Survey

Table 2 (continued)

Table 2 (continued)

Discussion

This study indicates that students who successfully completed the leadership program described, believed in themselves. The study participants indicated that they were ready to assume the mantle of leadership. It could be argued that those preparing to become administrators would have a false sense of readiness for the realities of school leadership, and that perhaps these study participants rated themselves more prepared than they actually were. Additional research the University of Nebraska at Omaha had the school district supervising site personnel responsible for these leadership program candidates rate the candidates in their disposition level. Using the same survey instrument, site supervisors actually rated the participants significantly higher than they rated themselves (Keiser&Smith, 2009).

The completion of standards and disposition inventories at the beginning of a leadership program help inform program participants what will be the program’s focus and goals. The development of an electronic portfolio provides candidates with real time access to program goals, individual progress, and a gathering place for artifacts demonstrating growth. Candidates’ portfolios, including their Administrator Dispositions Index and Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards survey scores can continue to serve the program participants after they leave the University.

The results of this study can also be very useful when planning and improving program and program delivery. This data and analyses have been used to report program success to accrediting bodies and to update and improve course syllabi (Smith, 2008). More importantly, professors in the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision can use this information to tailor their classroom activities and discussions to maximize student success.

References

• Anderson, G. L. (2002). A critique for the test for school leaders. Educational Leadership, 59(8). Retrieved September 28, 2005, from EBSCO Host Research Databases.
• Ary, D.,Jacobs, L. C., and Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to educational research (6 th ed.) . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Birch, L. W. (2001). Administration preparation: What works. Leadership , 30(5). Retrieved August 30, 2005, from EBSCO Host Research Databases.
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate school leaders licensure consortium: Standards for school leaders . Washington, DC: Author.
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 Adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration . Retrieved from: http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf
• Department of Education Administration and Supervision, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Administrative growth portfolio summary document . Omaha, NE: Author.
• Green, J. E. (2004). Principals’ portfolios. School Administrator , 61(9), 30-33.
• Keiser, K.&Smith, P. J. (2009). Walking the talk: Educational administration candidates’ espoused and observed professional dispositions. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4 (4). Retrieved from (External Link) (50%)
• MacDonald, L., Liu, P., Lowell, K., Tsai, H., and Lohr, L. (2004). Graduate student perspectives on the development of electronic portfolios. Tech Trends , 48(3), 52-55.
• Reames, E. (2010). Shifting paradigms: Redesigning a principal preparation program's curriculum. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5 (12.5), 436-459.
• Robbins, S. P. (2005). Essentials of organizational behavior (8 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Schulte, L. E.,&Kowal, P. (2005). The validation of the Administrator Dispositions Index. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 17 , 75-87.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning community . NY: Doubleday/Currency.
• Smith, P. J. (2008). Mini Folio – Advanced Level – Principal K-6, 7-12 . University of Nebraska at Omaha. Omaha, NE: Author.
• Reames, E. (2010). Shifting paradigms: Redesigning a Principal preparation Program’s Curriculum. Journal of Research on Leadership Education 5 (12.5), 436-459.