SOEAP Alumni Survey Report
May 2007
Two cohorts of alumni were identified to pilot test the alumni survey developed by the
SOEAP Assessment Committee. 2001 and 2006 graduates were asked to complete the
survey and to provide comment on its content and format. They were also asked to give
a general evaluation of the survey. Names, postal addresses, and e-mails of these
alumni were provided by the Alumni office. The 2001 alumni group numbered 650 and
the 2006 group numbered 560 (Table 1). Individuals for whom e-mails were available
where sent the survey electronically and asked to respond using WebCT. Postal
addresses were used for the remainder of the alumni. All alumni who returned the
survey and the comment sheet along with their mailing address were sent a custom
designed brass bookmark.
Table 1: SOEAP Alumni Groups Surveyed
Alumni
Number Sent
Groups
e-mail
postal
Totals
2001
89 (14%)
561
650
2006
161 (29%)
399
560
Number Returned
e-mail
postal
Totals
21 (24%)
58
77 (12%)
31 (19%)
40
73 (13%)
The survey return rates were 12% and 13% respectively for the 2001 and 2006 alumni
groups. The various departments ranged from 9% to 16% return rate for 2001 alumni
and from 5% to 16% for 2006 alumni (Table 2).
Table 2: Alumni Groups Surveyed by Department
Alumni
2001
Groups
Sent
Returned
Dept.
e-mail
postal Rate
EDA
157
3
11
9%
(24%)
EDC
133
2
19
16%
(20%)
EDT
278
9
22
11%
(43%)
HSS
82
5
5
12%
(13%)
Unknown
2
1
na
Total
650
21
56
12%
Sent
119
(21%)
78
(14%)
271
2006
Returned
e-mail
postal
2
12
Rate
12%
1
9
13%
24
18
16%
92
4
1
5%
0
560
0
31
0
40
na
13%
2001 Respondent Demographics
The demographics of the two groups are represented in Table 3. The 2001 alumni
group is 82% female and 18% male. Seventy-six (96%) of the respondents are white,
and two (3%) are Black non-Hispanic. Sixty-eight percent attended part time and 30%
attended full time. Individuals from every department responded. The majority (73%) of
the respondents are alumni of graduate level programs. Seventy-three percent took the
majority of their classes on-campus, 23% at a location off campus, and 4% online. The
majority indicated being employed in their major field of study (71%) and 46% are
employed in a suburban location.
7/11/2016D:\219468939.docDraft One – page 1
2006 Respondent Demographics
The 2006 alumni group is 87% female and 13% male. The respondents include one
Hispanic, one multiracial/multiethnic individual, three (4%) Black, non-Hispanic, and 66
(93%) white. Thirty-nine percent attended part time and 61% attended full time.
Individuals from every department except Health and Sports Science responded. The
majority (61%) of the respondents are alumni of graduate level programs. Seventy-three
percent took the majority of their classes on-campus, 20% off-campus, and 4% were
alumni of an on-line program. The majority indicated being employed in their major field
of study (83%) and 45% were in a suburban location.
Table 3: Demographics of Survey Populations
Alumni Year
Number of returns and % of return
Student Status
Full Time
Part Time
Blank
Gender
Male
Female
Nationality/Ethnicity
Non-resident alien (International)
Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Multiracial/multiethnic
Unknown
Department/Level
EDA (G)
EDC (G)
EDT (UG)
EDT (G)
HSS (UG)
HSS (G)
Unknown
Coursework Taken
On campus
Off campus
On line
Unknown
All the above
Current Employment
In major field
Out-of-field
Not working
Current Job Location
Urban
Suburban
Rural
NA
Blank
2001
79 (12%)
2006
71 (13%)
24 (30%)
54 (68%)
1
43 (61%)
28 (39%)
0
14 (18%)
65 (82%)
9 (13%)
62 (87%)
1
0
2 (3%)
76 (96%)
0
1
0
1 (1%)
3 (4%)
66 (93%)
1 (1%)
0
14 (18%)
21 (27%)
9 (11%)
22 (28%)
9 (11%)
1 (1%)
3 (4%)
14 (20%)
10 (14%)
23 (32%)
19 (27%)
5 (7%)
0
0
58 (73%)
18 (23%)
3 (4%)
0
0
52 (73%)
14 (20%)
3 (4%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
56 (71%)
18 (23%)
5 (6%)
59 (83%)
8 (11%)
4 (6%)
18 (23%)
36 (46%)
17 (22%)
8 (10%
0
19 (27%)
32 (45%)
13 (18%)
6 (8%)
1 (1%)
7/11/2016D:\219468939.docDraft One – page 2
Unit Outcome Results
The survey was designed to gather alumni responses about their knowledge, skills and
valuing of the four unit outcomes identified in the Conceptual Framework. Specific
questions were written to tap the outcomes. Items 10-14 addressed the outcome,
Developing of Scholarly Practitioners; items 15-17 addressed, Engaging in Critical
Reflection; 18 – 20 addressed, Building Community; and Items 21 -24 addressed the
outcome, Embracing Diversity for Promotion of Social Justice.
Alumni were asked to rate each of the items as to knowledge gained and ability to use
that knowledge on a agree-disagree scale where: 4 = agree, 3= agree somewhat, 2 =
disagree somewhat, and 1 = disagree. The value of these same items were rated on an
importance-unimportance scale where: 4 = Very important, 3= important, 2 =
unimportant, and 1 = very unimportant. Overall, as indicated by tables 4, 5, 6 and 7,
alumni gave high ratings to their knowledge gained, ability to use that knowledge and
the valuing of that learning by themselves and by their professions.
As scholarly practitioners (Table 4), alumni, in both 2001 and 2006 rated their
knowledge and skill acquisition for doing the jobs for which they were prepared at a 3.5
or better on the 4 point scale. Items 12, 13, and 14 were rated lower than items 10 and
11 by 2001 graduates. The ratings were still well above a 3.0 on the four point scale.
The importance of knowledge, skills, professional/student relationships, data driven
decision making and use of technology were generally rated higher than the acquisition
of the related knowledge and skills. Alumni largely acknowledge the importance of these
skills to themselves and their profession.
Table 4: Developing Scholarly Practitioners
2006
3.59
Ability to put
knowledge into
practice
2001
2006
3.65
3.65
Relative
Importance
to you
2001
2006
3.71
3.79
3.59
3.70
3.62
3.65
3.80
3.79
3.72
3.71
3.40
3.63
3.44
3.56
3.57
3.51
3.64
3.59
3.38
3.41
3.40
3.44
3.51
3.56
3.60
3.57
3.32
3.60
3.36
3.47
3.47
3.51
3.62
3.53
As a result of my learning at UD,
Knowledge
Alumni Year
10. I have the knowledge needed
to do the job for which I was
prepared.
11. I have the skills necessary to
do the job for which I was
prepared.
12. I study the links between what I
do as a professional and
students’ learning.
13. I use data to support my
professional decision-making,
and problem solving.
14. I incorporate technology into
my practice.
2001
3.58
Relative
Importance to
your profession
2001
2006
3.69
3.75
Alumni, both 2001 and 2006 groups, rated their knowledge of critical reflection (Table 5)
close to the same (3.5-3.71) as their skill at using it (3.41 to 3.84) for making personal
choices, examining the professional/student relationship or using it as a tool to guide
practice. Both groups rated the valuing of critical reflection at about the same level for
themselves and for their professions.
7/11/2016D:\219468939.docDraft One – page 3
Table 5: Engaging in Critical Reflection
As a result of my learning at UD,
Knowledge
Ability to put
knowledge into
practice
Relative
Importance
to you
Alumni Year
15. I take time to seriously reflect on
the professional choices I make.
16. I take time to seriously reflect on
the values that drive my decisions
affecting students/clients.
17. I take time to reflect upon how
professional knowledge guides the
practices of myself and my
colleagues.
2001
3.63
2006
3.71
2001
3.59
2006
3.69
2001
3.72
2006
3.67
Relative
Importance to
your
profession
2001
2006
3.74
3.69
3.65
3.64
3.60
3.63
3.72
3.64
3.71
.368
3.50
3.46
3.45
3.50
3.58
3.50
3.62
3.59
Alumni ratings by both groups on building community (Table 6) were consistently higher
than the other three outcome areas. Items 18 & 19 addressing knowledge, skill to use
that knowledge, and valuing the creation of positive environments as well as functioning
as a team member were rated above a 3.7 on a four point scale. Item 20, establishing
ethical partnerships, was rated lower with ratings ranging from 3.41 to 3.65.
Table 6: Building Community
As a result of my learning at UD,
Alumni Year
18. I create a positive learning
environment/ community for all
students/clients.
19. I function as a team member and
promote teamwork within my context.
20. I establish ethical partnerships with
stakeholders that promote the
development of the individual.
Knowledge
Ability to put
knowledge
into practice
Relative
Importance
to you
Relative
Importance to
your
profession
2001
2006
3.86
3.87
2001
3.87
2006
3.87
2001
3.78
2006
3.84
2001
3.92
2006
3.89
3.79
3.74
3.71
3.76
3.81
3.79
3.82
3.76
3.55
3.51
3.45
3.41
3.65
3.56
3.61
3.56
Alumni ratings centered around diversity are shown in Table 7. Items 21-24 relate to
awareness of personal biases, knowing that personal culture background and beliefs
are contextual, advocacy for social justice, and working with diverse populations.
Knowledge levels were rated relatively the same (3.58-3.36) although the highest
ratings were shown when indicating that individual beliefs vary. Alumni from both years
placed more value on the professional importance of working effectively with people
from diverse populations (3.76-3.84).
Table 7: Embracing Diversity for Promotion of Social Justice
As a result of my learning at UD,
Knowledge
Ability to put
knowledge
Relative
Importance
Relative
Importance to
7/11/2016D:\219468939.docDraft One – page 4
into practice
Alumni Year
21. I am aware of my own biases
regarding diverse populations.
22. I know that not everyone shares my
background and beliefs.
23. I am an advocate for social justice for
the students/clients with whom I now
work.
24. I work effectively with people from
diverse populations
to you
2001
3.66
2006
3.49
2001
3.57
2006
3.45
2001
3.71
2006
3.65
your
profession
2001
2006
3.73
3.72
3.74
3.86
3.69
3.80
3.71
3.69
3.72
3.67
3.58
3.67
3.51
3.54
3.68
3.64
3.64
3.66
3.69
3.70
3.62
3.71
3.89
3.74
3.84
3.76
General Candidate Support
In addition to tapping the alumni’s opinion about the unit’s four outcomes, alumni were
asked to respond items 25 to 30 related to faculty modeling, academic supports,
professional/leadership opportunities outside classes, class scheduling, and an
evaluation of online courses (if taken) as well as a general evaluation of their overall UD
experience. Table 8 shows that both groups rated class scheduling the highest (3.71 to
3.84) regarding their experience and the highest (3.86 to 3.93) regarding the importance
of classes scheduled to facilitate program completion. The ratings by both groups on
item 26 indicated that the SOEAP individuals responsible for advising, resolution of
problems, and professional guidance were available. Opportunities for professional
growth and development beyond class work were given the lowest marks (3.28) of the
2001 group. Item 25, relating to faculty as models of advocacy for social justice, was
perceived as present, and was rated as important. Both alumni groups rate their overall
experience high.
Table 8: General SOEAP Candidate Support
Additional Questions about the SOEAP
Read each item and fill in the word and number that most
closely represent s your opinion.
Alumni Year
25. SOEAP faculty members model advocacy for social justice.
26. SOEAF faculty, staff and administrators were available to
me for advising, resolution of personal issues, and
professional guidance.
27. I was given opportunities, beyond class work, to develop
professional and leadership skills.
28. The way courses were scheduled aided me to complete my
program in a timely fashion.
Alumni Year
29. How would you evaluate the value of online course(s) that
you took in the SOEAP?
30. How would you evaluate your entire educational experience
in the SOEAP?
Your
Experience
4 = Often
3 = Seldom
2 = Rarely
1 = Never
2001
2006
3.65
3.64
3.67
3.64
Relative Importance
to you
4 = Very Important
3 = Important
2 = Unimportant
1 = Very Unimportant
2001
2006
3.57
3.58
3.63
3.81
3.28
3.45
3.49
3.62
3.71
3.84
3.86
3.93
2001
2006
3.53
3.54
7/11/2016D:\219468939.docDraft One – page 5
SOEAP Climate Assessment
The final ratings the two alumni groups were asked to provide were related to personal
observations of behaviors toward individuals of diversity by SOEAP faculty, staff, and
students. Respondents were asked to respect/disrespect scale where: +2 = very
respectful, +1 = respectful, 0 = no observation, −1= disrespectful, −2= very
disrespectful.
Table 10 shows that both the 2001 and the 2006 found faculty, staff and fellow students
respectful toward all groups identified. The highest ratings were given to the most visible
of the diversity aspects: gender, age, race, and ethnicity.
Table 10: Climate Assessment Results
Respect/Disrespect Related to SOEAP Faculty SOEAP Staff SOEAP Student body
Alumni Year 2001
2006 2001 2006
2001
2006
31. Gender
1.66
1.65
1.47 1.55
1.58
1.62
32. Age
1.67
1.62
1.47 1.51
1.56
1.39
33. Race
1.50
1.70
1.48 1.58
1.53
1.55
34. Ethnicity
1.60
1.68
1.35 1.58
1.44
1.56
35. Religion
1.25
1.56
1.15 1.46
1.21
1.45
36. Language
1.24
1.49
1.08 1.43
1.21
1.30
37. Exceptionalities
1.30
1.41
1.13 1.42
1.28
1.48
38. Geographical Area
1.36
1.46
1.21 1.41
1.26
1.39
39. Socioeconomic Status
1.33
1.52
1.19 1.145
1.21
1.36
40. Sexual Orientation
.92
1.20
.89
1.14
.90
1.22
7/11/2016D:\219468939.docDraft One – page 6