0.9 Koonce, g., & Kelly, m. (october 2011). effects of utilizing  (Page 3/7)

The University of Oklahoma (2010) lists the six ISLLC standards followed by a four point Likert-type scale under each in their Supervising Administrator’s Assessment of Intern . No rubric was found for the instrument but a university supervisor prepares a formal evaluation of the intern using the Principal Internship Scoring Criteria , a six item instrument with three rating scales.

At Seattle Pacific University (2011), both the principal and the intern rate the post-internship skill level on each of the ISLLC standards. The university supervisor can make comments on the Principal/ Program Administrator Intern Summative Evaluation form, but identifies no separate measurements indicating performance level of the intern. Even though all three, the mentoring principal, the intern, and the university supervisor have input, only one instrument is used to collect data.

The University of Wyoming (2011) incorporates two identical instruments, except for rating scale terminology, one titled the Intern Self-Evaluation - Pre and Post , and the Mentor/Supervisor Evaluation for Internship . There are 40 items describing leadership knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The scoring scales for each ISLLC standard are the only differences.

Baker University (2011) utilizes three assessments for the principal internship. The three are most similar to the PIMA, USA, and ISA. Baker University’s Administrative Mentor’s Evaluation of Field Experiences ; Supervisor’s Evaluation of Field Experiences , and Intern’s Self-Evaluation of Field Experiences are derived from the six ISLLC standards and includes a 4 point Likert-type scale.

It is widely known that principal preparation programs include an internship. In Virginia it is a mandate for approved programs (VDOE, 2011). The sixty-two (62) university programs reviewed in the literature produced a small number and variety of instruments but no formal analysis of outcomes or review of the outcomes for program improvement.

Methodology

Instruments

Three assessments were devised for collecting data in this study, the PIMA, the USA, and the ISA. Each is a 24-item Likert-type scale instrument derived from the ISLLC standards. There are four items per standard, and six standards, with each item being rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranges from: fails to address/no evidence of knowledge, understanding and/or application to very specific/convincing evidence of knowledge, understanding, and/or application .

There are four items per standard taken from Components of Professional Practice for School Leaders (Hessel&Holloway, 2002). The rating form reflects the 24 Components of Professional Practice for School Leaders derived from the ISLLC standards (Hessel&Holloway, 2002, p. 27). The 24 components are:

Standard 1: the vision of learning

• 1a. Developing the Vision
• 1b. Communicating the Vision
• 1c. Implementing the Vision
• 1d. Monitoring and Evaluating the Vision

Standard 2: the culture of teaching and learning

• 2a. Valuing Students and Staff
• 2b. Developing and Sustaining the Culture
• 2c. Ensuring an Inclusive Culture
• 2d. Monitoring and Evaluating the Culture