THE NEAG SCHOOL OF
EDUCATION’S TEACHER
PREPARATION PROGRAM:
ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE
GRADUATES OF 2003-2007
Madeline Sedovic, Qing Li, and Mary Yakimowski
In conjunction with the TNE Assessment Committee
September 2008
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 What were their reflections about the teaching
training program?
The purpose of this study was to gather information from
alumni of the Neag Teacher Preparation Programs in order to
improve the programs and enhance pupil achievement. This
survey was designed to provide evidence on the value of
teacher preparation in promoting pupil learning and relates to
all tenants of the Teachers for a New Era (TNE) initiative,
funded by the Carnegie Corporation with additional funding
from the Annenberg and Ford Foundations.
In total 90.1% of alumni said they would choose UConn
again, showing a general satisfaction with the program.
There were also generally high satisfaction ratings for
program components of content and/or area specialty,
creating meaningful learning experiences for students in
English, and the degree of preparation for working in the
teaching profession.
Participants in this survey were alumni who graduated
between 2003 and 2007 from the Neag Teacher Preparation
Program, both the Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s Teacher
Education (IB/M) and Teacher Certification Program for
College Graduates (TCPCG) components. The original
sample consisted of 131 alumni, 92 from the IB/M program,
and 29 from TCPCG.
 What were their reflections about being a teacher?
Almost all of the alumni, 93.1%, were currently involved
in education. Most endorsed that they enjoyed working
with students (87.8%) and found it rewarding when their
students learned (86.3%).
Research questions focused on alumni satisfaction with
multi-faceted aspects of their teacher education program
including diversity.
 What were their overall dispositions?
Overall, teacher dispositions that had the highest
endorsements included valuing diversity, belief that all
students can learn, intellectual enthusiasm, and the desire
to make the learning process enjoyable.
For the procedures, individuals were contacted through a
mailed cover letter, a series of e-mails and one postcard as
follow-up. The survey itself was completed online.
 What were some of their standards?
Data for analyses were entered into SPSS. Missing data and
less than five group responses were excluded. Frequency
distributions, means, and standard deviations were calculated
as appropriate. Significance levels for t-tests are reported at
the .05 level and effect sizes were calculated using the
Cohen’s d formula.
The standards that were shown to be especially important
by alumni included knowledge of their subject area (in
English education), respect for students as unique human
beings (in special education), and desire for growth and
betterment (in science education).
The results produced the following highlights.
 How do they “grade” the Neag School of Education?

What are some background statistics?
Overall, most of the alumni seemed satisfied with the
quality of the program, as 51.9% awarded the teacher
education program an A and 38.2% gave the program a
“B.”
The majority of alumni were Caucasian (83.2%), female
(79.4%), and identified English (87%) as their primary
language. Most had not obtained further degrees (93.1%),
but a large percentage were planning, or in the process of
furthering their education (45%).
i
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………….
6
METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………...
7
Participants …………………………………………………………………….
7
Instrumentation ………………………………………………………………..
7
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………
9
Procedures ……………………………………………………………………..
10
RESULTS ……………………………………………………………...
10
Background Information ………………………………………………………
11
Reflection on Teacher Education Program ……………………………………
16
Reflections on You as a Teacher ………………………………………………
43
Dispositions and Standards …………………………………………………....
48
Grade for Overall Quality...………….………………………………………...
62
SUMMARY …………………………………………………………….
64
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page(s)
Table 1
Personal Background Information Overall and by Program……………
11
Table 2
Personal Background Information by Field…………………………….
12
Table 3
Professional Background Information Overall and by Program………..
13
Table 4
Respondents’ Year of Graduation………………………………………
14
Table 5
Respondents’ Years of Graduation by Program………………………...
14
Table 6
Respondents Level of Education Attainment by the Parents…………...
15
Table 7
Overall Ratings with Program Components…………………………….
17
Table 8
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components……………
18
Table 9
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings…………………...
19
Table 10
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Rating: Previous and
Current Year……………………………………………………………
20
Table 11
Ratings with Satisfaction for Program Components by IB/M Alumni…
22
Table 12
Ratings with Satisfaction for Program Components by TCPCG
Alumni………………………………………………………………….
23
Table 13
Ratings with Importance for Program Components by IB/M Alumni….
24
Table 14
Ratings with Importance for Program Components by TCPCG
Alumni…………………………………………………………………...
25
Table 15
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Rating for IB/M Alumni….
26
Table 16
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Rating for TCPCG
Alumni…………………………………………………………………...
27
Table 17
Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components by Field…………...
29
Table 18
Ratings for Importance with Program Components by Field…………....
31
Table 19
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Rating by Field……………
32
Table 20
Overall Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Select
Diversity Statements……………………………………………………..
iv
33
Table 21
Overall Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Select
Diversity Statements by IB/M Alumni…………………………………..
Table 22
Table 23
Overall Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Select
Diversity Statements by TCPCG Alumni…………………………………
38
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching
Profession by TCPCG Alumni…………………………………………..
Table 27
37
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching
Profession by IB/M Alumni………………………………………………
Table 26
36
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching
Profession………………………………………………………………...
Table 25
35
Overall Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Select
Diversity Statements by Field…………………………………………….
Table 24
34
38
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching
Profession by Field……………………………………………………….
39
Table 28
Overall Ratings of the Neag School………………………………………
40
Table 29
Ratings of the Neag School by IB/M Alumni…………………………….
41
Table 30
Ratings of the Neag School by TCPCG Alumni………………………….
41
Table 31
Ratings of the Neag School by Field………………………………………
42
Table 32
Teacher Education Program Completed Overall and by Program…………
43
Table 33
Teacher Education Program Completed by Field………………………….
43
Table 34
Current Involvement in Education Overall and by Program……………….
44
Table 35
Current Involvement in Education by Field………………………………..
44
Table 36
Grade Level Current Taught by Neag Alumni……………………………..
45
Table 37
Type of Teaching Position Currently Held by Neag Alumni………………
45
Table 38
Overall Explanation for Involvement in Education: Previous and
Current Year………………………………………………………………..
46
Table 38
Overall Explanation for Involvement in Education by Program……………
47
Table 40
Teacher Dispositions Overall and by Program……………………………..
48
Table 41
Teacher Dispositions by Field………………………………………………
49
Table 42
Special Education Standards………………………………………………..
50
Table 43
English Standards…………………………………………………………...
54
Table 44
History/Social Studies Standards……………………………………………
55
Table 45
Science Standards…………………………………………………………...
56
v
Table 46
Mathematics Standards……………………………………………………...
58
Table 47
World Language Standards………………………………………………….
60
Table 48
Likelihood of Alumni Choosing to Attend UConn Again, If Possible
Overall and by Program……………………………………………………
Table 49
Table 50
Table 51
Likelihood of Alumni Choosing to Attend UConn Again, If Possible
by Field……………………………………………………………………..
Grade for Overall Quality of Teacher Education Program Overall
and by Program……………………………………………………………
Grade for Overall Quality of Teacher Education Program Overall
and by Field……………………………………………………………….
vi
62
62
63
63
NEAG SCHOOL OF EDUCATION’S
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE GRADUATES OF 2003-2007
Madeline Sedovic, Qing Li, Mary Yakimowski
September 2008
Teachers who graduated from the Neag School of Education’s Teacher Preparation
Program at the University of Connecticut (UConn) from 2002-2007 were asked to
complete a survey by January 30 2008. The purpose of this report is to summarize the
results.
INTRODUCTION
As stated in Neag School of Education’s Teacher Preparation Program 2002–2007
Alumni Survey Results (Yakimowski, Li, & Nicholson, 2008):
The UConn Neag School of Education’s1 Teacher Preparation Program is
comprised of two components: the Integrated Bachelors/Masters (IB/M)
Program and the Teacher Certification Program for College Graduates
(TCPCG). The IB/M is a five-year teacher preparation program that integrates
coursework and school-based clinical experiences. In addition, the UConn
Music Department offers a four-year dual-degree program in music education
with courses taken with IB/M students. The school developed the second
component of the Teacher Preparation Program, TCPCG, for individuals with
a college degree who wish to gain secondary level teacher certification. For
example, an individual with a bachelor’s degree in biology may attend TCPCG
for a secondary level certification in biology or science education.
In addition to the Teacher Preparation Program, UConn is one of 11
institutions receiving the Teachers for a New Era (TNE) grant award from the
Carnegie Corporation. The TNE project adheres to three main principles: (1)
using evidence to drive decision-making; (2) supporting collaboration between
the schools of arts and sciences and the school of education; and (3) clinical
practice as a foundation for pre-service and induction of new teachers. The
2007-2008 year represents UConn’s fifth year participating in TNE.
1
Herein referred to as the Neag School. A full introduction and a review of literature can be found in
Yakimowski, Li, and Nicholson’s Neag School of Education’s Teacher Preparation Program 2002-2007
Alumni Survey Results (2008).
7
Both components of the Teacher Preparation Program and the TNE project work
collaboratively to improve pre-service teacher quality. Together, they were interested in
gathering information from alumni of the Neag Teacher Preparation Program. But, what
are the views today of the UConn alumni? Are they similar or different than those found
in the past?
METHOD
Keeping in mind the national and state perspectives detailed in the last TNE report on
alumni, pertinent university scholarship, and UConn data, a survey was developed with
three goals in mind: (1) identifying alumni feelings about diversity; (2) determining
alumni satisfaction with multi-faceted aspects of their program/department such as course
content, faculty involvement, and job readiness; and, (3) informing the principle(s) of the
TNE project.
Participants
There were a total of 121 alumni of the Teacher Preparation Programs, 92 who were
graduates of the IB/M program, and 29 from the TCPCG program.
Instrumentation
The instrument was designed with general research questions to explore what graduates’
reflections have on their teacher education program, perceive themselves as teachers, and
background characteristics. The survey represents several different themes which can be
displayed in graphic form (see Figure A). The items contained within the survey align
with those administered at other institutions, as well as previously administered surveys
within UConn. A full detailed explanation of the survey may be found in Yakimowski,
Li, and Nicholson, 2008).
8
Reflections
on Self
Reflections on Teacher
Education Program
Classroom
Management
SocioEconomic
Status
Special
Education
Background
Information
Neag
Qualities
As a Teacher
Preparation for
Teaching
English
Language
Learners
Diversity
Faculty
Overall
Grade
Program
Race/
Ethnicity
Advanced
Degrees
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Parents’
Education
Language
Professional
Development
Job
Readiness
Difficulty
Current
Position
Racial/
Ethnic
Gifted &
Talented
Standardized
Assessment
Strengths &
Weaknesses
Socio-political
Practical
Experiences
Different
Pedagogical
Approaches
Dealing
With
Changes
Parents
Formative
Assessment
CT Common
Core of
Teaching
Collaboration
Paperwork
Time
Management
Figure A. Graphic depiction of the first two major areas of questions, reflections on your teacher education program and on you as a
teacher, onFigure
the survey.A: Graduate survey graphic
9
Research Questions
Keeping in mind the conceptual model and the instrument design, the following research
questions were posed and are addressed in this ordered under the results section:
Q1: Background information
Q2:
Q3:
A.
What are the gender, ethnicity, and primary language of the
respondents overall, by program, and by field?
B.
What is the professional background information of the
respondents overall and by program?
C.
In which year did the respondents’ graduate?
D.
What are the levels of education attained by the parents of the
respondents overall and by program?
Reflections on the teacher education program and diversity
A.
What are the overall ratings for satisfaction and importance
with the teacher education program components?
B.
How do respondents’ importance and satisfaction ratings
compare?
C.
Are there any interesting patterns by IB/M and/or TCPCG
alumni on the overall ratings for satisfaction and importance
with the teacher education program components?
D.
How do IB/M alumni’s importance and satisfaction ratings
compare? How about TCPCG? How about by field?
E.
How do respondents feel about diversity preparation overall,
by program, and by field?
F.
What are the ratings for satisfaction with learning about
teaching overall, by program, by field?
G.
What are the overall ratings of the Neag School for
satisfaction with qualities of the Neag School of Education
overall, by program, by field?
J.
What are the ratings by IB/M and/or TCPCG alumni on the
overall ratings for satisfaction of the Neag School? By field?
Reflections on you as a teacher
A.
From which teacher program did the respondents graduate
overall, by program, and by field?
B.
How many respondents are currently involved in the field of
education overall, by program, and by field?
C.
What grade levels are taught by the respondents?
10
Q4:
D.
What types of teaching positions are currently held by the
respondents?
E.
Why are the respondents involved in field of education?
Dispositions and standards
Q5:
A.
What are the teacher dispositions overall, by program, and by field?
B.
What is the self-reported level of attainment of the respective
standards overall and by program?
Grade for overall program quality
A.
What is the likelihood of the alumni choosing to attend
UConn again?
B.
What is the grade for the overall quality of the Teacher
Education Program?
C.
What do dissatisfied alumni say about the program?
Procedures
The alumni were contacted with a cover letter, post card, and emails. An incentive was
also offered. Alumni who completed the survey had one chance at winning one of 10
amazon.com gift cards. The files were later migrated from Persius into SPSS and all
quantitative data was analyzed using this software. Preliminary results were analyzed by
two graduate assistants overseen by the Neag School’s Director of Assessment.
Scores reflect those obtained from the available survey responses. Any missing data was
not included. Group level analyses responded to by fewer than five alumni were
excluded. Results were compiled to reflect all Neag alumni, as well as distributed by
program component and, at times, by field. The number of students and the mean score
are summarized in charts and trends described. Finally, significance levels for t-tests are
reported at the .05 level and effect sizes were calculated using the Cohen’s d formula.
RESULTS
The general characteristics of respondents along with their assessment of the program and
descriptions of themselves as educators are presented. More specifically, results will be
presented in the following order:
Q1: Background information,
Q2: Reflections on teacher education program and diversity,
Q3: Reflections on you as a teacher,
Q4: Dispositions and standards, and
Q5: Grade for overall program quality.
11
Background Information
There were four general questions addressed in background information.
Q1a: What are the gender, ethnicity and primary language of the
respondents overall, by program component, and by field?
Alumni provided general background information regarding gender, race/ethnicity and
primary language. Table 1 shows that 79.4% of the total students who have completed
this program are female, which is consistent with data from past surveys. Alumni from
both the IB/M and TCPCG were predominantly female, at 79.3% and 82.8% respectively.
IB/M had a higher percentage of white/Caucasian alumni, 84.8%, versus 79.3% from the
TCPCG program. The primary language of both the IB/M and TCPCG alumni is
predominantly English, with 88% of IB/M alumni and 89.7% of TCPCG alumni rating it
as their first language.
TABLE 1
Personal Background Information Overall and by Program1
Sex
Female
Male
Missing
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
Black or African American
Hispanic American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American
Other
Missing
Primary Language
English
Spanish
Other
Missing
Previous2
Total
%
N
214
78.7
47
17.3
11
4.0
N
104
23
4
%
79.4
17.6
3.1
N
73
18
1
%
79.3
19.6
1.1
N
24
4
1
%
82.8
13.8
3.4
240
2
9
8
0
1
12
88.2
0.7
3.3
2.9
0.0
0.4
4.4
109
1
5
6
1
3
6
83.2
.8
3.8
4.6
.8
2.3
4.6
78
1
4
4
1
1
3
84.8
1.1
4.3
4.3
1.1
1.1
3.3.
23
0
1
2
0
2
1
79.3
.0
3.4
6.9
.0
6.9
3.4
245
7
13
7
90.0
2.6
4.8
2.6
114
1
11
5
87.0
.8
8.4
3.8
81
0
9
2
88.0
.0
9.8
2.2
26
1
2
0
89.7
3.4
6.9
0
Total
IB/M
1 Note: IB/M n = 92, TCPCG n = 29. 2 Data from previous survey includes graduates from 1995-2006.
12
TCPCG
Table 2 illustrates that the alumni in elementary education and special education were
comprised mainly of females, at 90.6% and 100%, while alumni in secondary education
comprised 73.8% of the participants. Caucasian alumni represented 84.4% of alumni in
elementary education, 90% in special education, and 82% in secondary education. The
primary language for the majority of alumni in all three fields was English (90.6% in
elementary education, 90% in special education, and 88.5% in secondary education).
Of the three alumni working as educators in agriculture, all of them identified themselves
female, Caucasian, and speaking English as their first language. Of those teaching
English, 14 out of the 18 alumni were female, 14 out of 18 were Caucasian, and 17 chose
English as their primary language. The only alumnus teaching reading was a Caucasian
male who spoke English as his first language. Nine of the 10 teachers of math were
female, 8 were Caucasian, and 8 consider their primary language to be English. In music,
4 of the 6 alumni were female, 4 were Caucasian, and 4 spoke English as their primary
language, with the information on the other 2 alumni missing. Ten of the 12 science
teachers were female, 10 of whom were Caucasian, and 2 of whom were of Asian or
Pacific Island descent, and 10 spoke English primarily, while 2 had other first languages.
In contrast to most of the other fields, alumni in social studies were predominantly male
with 8 out of the 13 alumni. Twelve identified themselves as Caucasian, and 11 chose
English as their primary language.
TABLE 2
Personal Background Information by Field
Sex
Female
Male
Missing
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
Black or Afr Am
Hispanic Am
Asian/Pac Isl
Native Am
Other
Missing
Primary Language
English
Spanish
Other
Missing
N
ElEd
%
29
3
90.6
9.4
0
0.0
27
1
1
2
0
0
1
84.4
3.1
3.1
6.3
0.0
0.0
3.1
29
0
3
0
90.6
0.0
9.4
0.0
SpEd
N
%
10 100.0
0
0.0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
1
0
0.0
90
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
90
0.0
10
0.0
SecEd
N
%
45
73.8
15
24.6
Agr
N
3
0
Eng
N
14
4
Rdg
N
0
1
1
1.6
0
0
0
50
0
3
3
1
2
2
82.0
0.0
4.9
4.9
1.6
3.3
3.3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
1
6
0
88.5
1.6
9.9
0.0
3
0
0
0
17
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
Ma
N
9
1
Mu
N
4
0
Sci
N
10
2
SS
N
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
12
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
1
0
0
0
8
0
2
0
4
0
0
2
10
0
2
0
5
8
11
0
2
0
Q1b: What is the professional background information
of the respondents overall, by program?
As shown in Table 3, 3.8% of respondents earned an additional degree since the
completion of their program at UConn, a significant drop from 21.3% in the previous
survey. However, the percentage of alumni considering or currently enrolled in an
advanced degree program has remained consistent, at 45% of 2002-2007 alumni from
46% previously. Only 2.2% of IB/M alumni and none of the TCPCG alumni have earned
an additional degree, however, 41.3% of IB/M and 48.3% of TCPCG alumni are
currently enrolled or planning on earning an advanced degree.
TABLE 3
Professional Background Information Overall and by Program
Previous
Total
Have you earned an additional
degree since the completion of your
degree in education?
Yes
No
Missing
Are considering or currently enrolled
in an advanced degree program?
Yes
No
Missing
Total
IB/M
TCPCG
N
58
198
16
%
21.3
72.8
5.9
N
5
122
4
%
3.8
93.1
3.1
N
2
89
1
%
2.2
96.7
1.1
N
0
28
1
%
0.0
96.6
3.4
125
134
13
46.0
49.3
4.8
59
66
6
45.0
50.4
4.6
38
51
3
41.3
55.4
3.3
14
14
1
48.3
48.3
3.4
14
Q1c: In which year did the respondents’ graduate overall, by field?
The majority of alumni in the sample who responded, 27%, graduated in the year 2003,
(omitting those whose date of graduation was not identified). The largest percentages of
alumni graduating from teacher education programs graduated in 2006 (26%) or 2007
(33.6%; see Table 4).
TABLE 4
Respondents’ Year of Graduation
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Missing
N
75
6
13
11
1
166
Sample
% of Resp
27.6
2.2
4.8
4.0
0.4
61
Teacher Education
N
% of Total
19
14.5
10
7.6
24
18.3
34
26.0
44
33.6
19
14.5
Table 5 shows that 2006 and 2007 had the highest percentages of IB/M graduates, 28%
and 32% respectively. The greatest amount of graduates from the TCPCG program, 45%
of the program’s 2002-2007 alumni, graduated in 2007.
TABLE 5
Respondents’ Year of Graduation by Program
IB/M
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Missing
N
15
5
17
26
29
0
TCPCG
%
16.0
5.0
18.0
28.0
32.0
0.0
15
N
1
1
6
8
13
0
%
3.0
3.0
21.0
28.0
45.0
0.0
Q1d: What are the levels of education attained by the parents of the respondents?
Twenty-six percent of the mothers of the education alumni attended some college, 26%
completed a graduate degree, 20.6% received a high school diploma, and 18.3%
completed an undergraduate degree.
Of the fathers of alumni, 38.2% completed an undergraduate degree, 21.4% completed a
graduate degree, and 16% attended some college (see table 6).
TABLE 6
Respondents Level of Education Attained by the Parents
Mother
N
4
27
2
34
24
34
1
5
Did not receive a high school diploma
Received a high school diploma
Earned a GED
Attended some college
Completed an undergraduate degree
Completed a graduate degree
Don’t know
Missing
16
%
3.1
20.6
1.5
26.0
18.3
26.0
0.8
3.8
Father
N
5
19
2
21
50
28
2
4
%
3.8
14.5
1.5
16.0
38.2
21.4
1.5
3.1
Reflections on Teacher Education Program
The survey asks alumni to reflect on several aspects of the Neag School. Aspects of the
program that were addressed included: preparation for diversity, assessment skills,
effective classroom management, and program difficulty. There were nine general
questions asked.
Q2a: What are the overall ratings for satisfaction and importance with the
teacher education program components?
As Table 7 shows, the teacher education alumni had the highest satisfaction ratings for
the following program components: content and/or area specialty (mean rating of 4.2),
creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English (4.2), and the degree of
preparation for working in the teaching profession (4.0). The components with the
lowest satisfaction ratings were teaching students who are both in special education and
English language learners (2.9), working effectively with parents (3.0), and classroom
management skills (3.1).
Table 8, displaying the overall ratings for importance of program components, shows that
classroom management skills, content and/or area specialty, creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in English, and the degree of preparation for working in the
teaching profession had the highest importance ratings, with mean scores of 4.8, 4.7, 4.7,
and 4.7 respectively. Those rated as least important were integrating technology into
classroom instruction (3.8 mean rating) and standardized assessment skills (3.8 mean
rating).
17
TABLE 7
Overall Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components
Missing
1.
2.
M
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
1
2
3
4
5
4
4.2
1.0
7
2
7
54
57
4
4.2
0.9
3
4
13
55
52
3.
The content and/or area specialty.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in
English.
Classroom management skills.
6
3.1
1.3
16
31
22
36
20
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
4
3.5
1.2
11
19
18
52
27
5.
Working effectively with parents.
4
3.0
1.1
14
28
40
35
10
Formative classroom assessment skills.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
8. Teaching English language learners.
9. Teaching special education students.
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
5
3.9
1.0
3
8
19
59
37
4
3.4
1.0
4
16
43
48
16
5
5
3.4
3.5
1.1
1.1
6
6
28
19
23
24
48
56
21
21
4
2.9
1.1
17
30
41
32
7
5
3.4
1.1
7
18
32
53
16
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
4
3.7
1.1
5
15
25
56
26
4
3.9
1.0
5
10
20
56
36
4
3.7
1.0
4
13
33
49
28
6.
7.
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different
backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
6
3.8
1.0
4
11
22
61
27
16. The difficulty level of the program.
5
3.8
1.1
5
8
27
47
39
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
4
3.8
1.0
2
13
26
51
35
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching
profession.
5
4.0
1.1
5
10
13
51
47
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
18
TABLE 8
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components
Missing
1.
2.
M
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
1
2
3
4
5
7
4.7
0.5
0
0
2
38
84
8
4.7
0.5
0
0
3
27
93
3.
The content and/or area specialty.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in
English.
Classroom management skills.
7
4.8
0.6
1
0
3
19
101
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
6
3.8
0.9
1
12
22
62
28
5.
Working effectively with parents.
7
4.2
0.8
0
3
18
49
54
Formative classroom assessment skills.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
8. Teaching English language learners.
9. Teaching special education students.
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
7
4.3
0.7
1
1
10
62
50
7
3.8
1.0
5
6
29
52
32
7
7
3.9
4.5
1.0
0.7
2
0
11
2
27
9
42
36
42
77
7
4.0
1.0
3
8
22
47
44
7
3.9
0.9
2
7
27
53
35
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
6
4.3
0.8
1
3
12
46
63
6
4.4
0.8
1
0
14
43
67
6
4.3
0.8
1
2
14
44
64
7
4.4
0.8
1
1
12
49
61
16. The difficulty level of the program.
7
3.9
0.9
2
5
25
59
33
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
7
4.6
0.5
0
0
2
48
74
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching
profession.
6
4.7
0.6
1
1
2
29
92
6.
7.
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different
backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
19
Q2b: How do respondents’ importance and satisfaction ratings compare?
Table 9 shows that the program components with the greatest disparities in their rankings by alumni
of importance and satisfaction were working effectively with parents, which had a mean difference
of -1.3, and teaching students who are both in special education and English language learners, with
a mean difference score of -1.2. The mean differences were obtained by calculating the mean
scores for satisfaction and for importance from those participants who completed both satisfaction
and importance ratings. Finally, the mean rating for importance was subtracted from the mean
rating for satisfaction and the mean difference for each aspect was obtained.
TABLE 9
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for
students in English.
Classroom management skills.
3.
4.
5.
Integrating technology into classroom
instruction.
Working effectively with parents.
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
7.
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT,
CMT, norm-referenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
9.
Teaching special education students.
10.
Teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
1.1
95% CI of the
Difference
Lower Upper
-0.7
-0.3
0.00
-0.6
1.0
-0.7
-0.4
0.00
-1.7
1.3
-1.9
-1.4
0.00
-0.3
1.5
-0.6
-0.1
0.01
-1.3
1.3
-1.5
-1.0
0.00
-0.3
1.0
-0.5
-0.2
0.00
-0.4
1.2
-0.6
-0.2
0.00
-0.5
1.3
-0.7
-0.3
0.00
-1.0
1.3
-1.2
-0.8
0.00
-1.2
1.4
-1.4
-0.9
0.00
-0.5
1.3
-0.7
-0.3
0.00
-0.7
1.2
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
-0.6
1.1
-0.8
-0.4
0.00
-0.7
1.1
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
-0.6
1.1
-0.8
-0.4
0.00
-0.1
1.2
-0.3
0.1
0.37
-0.8
1.0
-0.9
-0.6
0.00
-0.7
1.1
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
Mean Diff
SD
-0.5
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds.
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic backgrounds.
Encouraging interaction with students from
different backgrounds.
Educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
The difficulty level of the program.
Challenging students to meet their fullest
potential.
The degree of preparation for working in the
teaching profession.
20
Sig.
The current mean differences between satisfaction of program components and ratings of their
importance have remained consistent with previous ratings. The two components which currently
have the highest mean difference also had the greatest mean difference previously, (working
effectively with parents and teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners), and have remained consistent in their ratings. Working effectively with parents,
previously had a mean difference of -1.5, consistent with its current mean difference of -1.3, and
teaching students who are both in special education and English language learners, had a mean
difference of -1.0 previously, similar to its -1.2 rating currently. (see table 10)
TABLE 10
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings: Previous and Current Year
Previous
Current Year
Mean Diff
Mean Diff
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
-0.5
-0.5
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students.
-0.4
-0.6
3.
Classroom management skills.
-1.7
-1.7
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
-0.7
-0.3
5.
Working effectively with parents.
-1.5
-1.3
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
-0.5
-0.3
7.
-0.5
-0.4
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
-0.7
-0.5
9.
Teaching special education students.
-0.9
-1.0
10.
Teaching students who are both in special education and
English language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
-1.0
-1.2
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.7
-0.4
-0.6
-0.5
-0.7
-0.4
-0.6
11.
12.
15.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds.
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
Encouraging interaction with students from different
backgrounds.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
-0.2
-0.1
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
-0.6
-0.8
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching
profession.
-0.8
-0.7
13.
14.
21
Q2c: Any interesting patterns by IB/M and/or TCPCG alumni on the overall ratings
for satisfaction with teacher education program components?
The components with the highest satisfaction ratings among IB/M alumni were content and/or area
specialty (4.3), creating meaningful learning experiences for all students in English (4.2), and the
degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession (4.0). The lowest satisfaction rankings
were given to teaching students who are both in special education and English language learners
(2.8 mean score), classroom management skills (2.9), and working effectively with parents (2.9)
(Table 11).
As shown in Table 12, the TCPCG alumni gave the highest satisfaction ratings to understanding
people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds (4.4), educating students from diverse cultural
background (4.3), and creating meaningful learning experiences for all students in English (4.2).
The TCPCG alumni had the least satisfaction with teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners (3.1), teaching gifted and talented learners (3.1), and
integrating technology into classroom instruction (3.1).
Table 13 shows that alumni gave their highest ratings of importance to classroom management
skills (4.8), creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English (4.8), content and/or
area specialty (4.7), and the degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession (4.7).
As Table 14 shows, the components with the highest ratings of satisfaction for TCPCG alumni were
classroom management skills (4.9) and the degree of preparation for working in the teaching
profession (4.7). They gave their lowest ratings of satisfaction to teaching English language
learners (3.6) and teaching students who are both in special education and English language learners
(3.6)
22
TABLE 11
Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components by IB/M Alumni
Missing
M
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
1 (%)
2 (%)
3 (%)
4 (%)
5 (%)
The content and/or area specialty.
1
4.3
0.8
3.3
1.1
2.2
52.2
40.2
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
1
4.2
0.9
2.2
3.3
8.7
40.2
44.6
3.
Classroom management skills.
3
2.9
1.3
15.2
26.1
16.3
30.4
8.7
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
1
3.7
1.1
3.3
16.3
10.9
44.6
23.9
5.
Working effectively with parents.
1
2.9
1.1
9.8
26.1
30.4
26.1
6.5
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
1
4.1
0.9
1.1
5.4
10.9
51.1
30.4
7.
1
3.5
0.9
2.2
12.0
29.3
42.4
13.0
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
2
3.4
1.2
4.3
23.9
14.1
37.0
18.5
9.
Teaching special education students.
1
3.5
1.1
5.4
14.1
20.7
46.7
12.0
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
1
2.8
1.1
14.1
25.0
30.4
23.9
5.4
1
3.5
1.0
4.3
13.0
20.7
45.7
15.2
1
3.6
1.0
4.3
10.9
21.7
44.6
17.4
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1
3.7
1.0
4.3
8.7
17.4
45.7
22.8
1
3.6
1.0
3.3
12.0
25.0
41.3
17.4
2
3.7
1.0
3.3
9.8
19.6
46.7
18.5
16. The difficulty level of the program.
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
2
3.8
1.0
2.2
7.6
22.8
37.0
28.3
1
3.8
0.9
1.1
8.7
20.7
43.5
25.0
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
2
4.0
1.0
4.3
5.4
9.8
42.4
35.9
1.
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
23
TABLE 12
Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components by TCPCG Alumni
Missing
M
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
1 (%)
1.
Very
Satisfied
2 (%)
3 (%)
4 (%)
5 (%)
The content and/or area specialty.
1
4.0
1.4
10.3
3.4
13.8
13.8
55.2
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
1
4.2
0.8
.0
3.4
10.3
48.3
34.5
3.
Classroom management skills.
1
3.8
1.4
3.4
24.1
6.9
20.7
41.4
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
1
3.1
1.4
24.1
6.9
17.2
34.5
13.8
5.
Working effectively with parents.
1
3.4
1.2
10.3
6.9
31.0
34.5
13.8
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
2
3.9
0.9
.0
6.9
24.1
34.5
27.6
7.
1
3.3
1.0
3.4
13.8
44.8
24.1
10.3
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
1
3.4
1.1
6.9
13.8
20.7
41.4
13.8
9.
Teaching special education students.
2
3.9
1.1
3.4
10.3
6.9
41.4
31.0
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
1
3.1
1.1
10.3
13.8
34.5
31.0
6.9
2
3.1
1.1
6.9
20.7
31.0
27.6
6.9
1
4.0
1.0
.0
10.3
13.8
37.9
34.5
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1
4.4
0.8
.0
3.4
6.9
34.5
51.7
1
4.1
0.9
.0
3.4
24.1
31.0
37.9
2
4.3
0.7
.0
.0
10.3
48.3
34.5
16. The difficulty level of the program.
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
1
4.1
1.0
3.4
3.4
13.8
34.5
41.4
1
3.9
1.1
.0
13.8
17.2
27.6
37.9
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
1
4.1
1.1
.0
17.2
3.4
31.0
44.8
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
24
TABLE 13
Ratings for Importance with Program Components for IB/M Alumni
Missing
M
SD
Not at all
Important
Very
Important
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
3
4.7
0.5
1 (%)
.0
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
4
4.8
0.4
.0
.0
1.1
17.4
77.2
3.
Classroom management skills.
3
4.8
0.6
1.1
.0
1.1
17.4
77.2
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
2
3.9
0.9
1.1
8.7
15.2
48.9
23.9
5.
Working effectively with parents.
3
4.3
0.8
.0
3.3
10.9
32.6
50.0
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
2
4.3
0.7
1.1
.0
4.3
55.4
37.0
7.
3
3.9
0.9
1.1
6.5
16.3
45.7
27.2
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
3
4.0
1.0
1.1
6.5
20.7
28.3
40.2
9.
Teaching special education students.
2
4.6
0.6
.0
1.1
5.4
23.9
67.4
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
3
4.1
1.0
2.2
3.3
16.3
33.7
41.3
2
4.0
1.0
1.1
5.4
22.8
34.8
33.7
2
4.4
0.8
.0
2.2
10.9
30.4
54.3
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
2
4.4
0.7
.0
.0
12.0
30.4
55.4
2
4.4
0.7
.0
.0
10.9
34.8
52.2
3
4.4
0.7
.0
.0
8.7
38.0
50.0
16. The difficulty level of the program.
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
3
3.9
0.9
2.2
3.3
19.6
44.6
27.2
2
4.6
0.5
.0
.0
1.1
39.1
57.6
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
2
4.7
0.5
.0
.0
1.1
22.8
73.9
1=Not At All Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important
25
2 (%)
.0
3 (%)
1.1
4 (%)
30.4
5 (%)
65.2
TABLE 14
Ratings for Importance with Program Components for TCPCG Alumni
Missing
M
SD
Not at all
Important
Very
Important
1 (%)
2 (%)
3 (%)
4 (%)
5 (%)
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
2
4.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.4
27.6
62.1
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
2
4.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
6.9
24.1
62.1
3.
Classroom management skills.
2
4.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.4
86.2
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
2
3.9
0.8
0.0
6.9
17.2
48.3
20.7
5.
Working effectively with parents.
2
4.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
17.2
55.2
20.7
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
3
4.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
20.7
27.6
41.4
7.
2
3.7
1.0
3.4
0.0
37.9
31.0
20.7
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
2
3.6
1.0
3.4
13.8
13.8
48.3
13.8
9.
Teaching special education students.
3
4.3
0.8
0.0
3.4
6.9
34.5
44.8
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
2
3.6
1.0
3.4
10.3
20.7
44.8
13.8
3
3.9
0.7
0.0
3.4
13.8
58.6
13.8
2
4.2
0.8
0.0
3.4
6.9
48.3
34.5
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
2
4.4
0.7
0.0
0.0
10.3
34.5
48.3
2
4.3
0.9
0.0
6.9
3.4
34.5
48.3
2
4.3
0.8
0.0
3.4
10.3
34.5
44.8
16. The difficulty level of the program.
2
4.0
0.9
0.0
6.9
10.3
48.3
27.6
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
2
4.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.5
58.6
2
4.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.4
17.2
72.4
1=Not At All Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important
26
Q2d: How do IB/M alumni’s importance and satisfaction ratings compare? How about
TCPCG? How about by field?
Table 15 shows the program areas that had the greatest differences in ratings of satisfaction versus
importance by the IB/M alumni. These areas were classroom management skills (-1.9), working
effectively with parents (-1.4), teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners (-1.3), and teaching special education students (-1.2).
TABLE 15
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings for IB/M Alumni
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences
for students in English.
Classroom management skills.
3.
4.
5.
Integrating technology into classroom
instruction.
Working effectively with parents.
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
7.
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g.,
CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
9.
Teaching special education students.
10.
Teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds.
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic backgrounds.
Encouraging interaction with students
from different backgrounds.
Educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
The difficulty level of the program.
Challenging students to meet their fullest
potential.
The degree of preparation for working in
the teaching profession.
27
95% CI of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Mean
Diff
SD
-0.4
0.9
-0.6
-0.2
0.00
-0.6
1.0
-0.8
-0.4
0.00
-1.9
1.3
-2.1
-1.6
0.00
-0.2
1.4
-0.5
0.1
0.21
-1.4
1.2
-1.7
-1.1
0.00
-0.2
1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.02
-0.4
1.2
-0.7
-0.2
0.00
-0.6
1.3
-0.9
-0.4
0.00
-1.2
1.3
-1.4
-0.9
0.00
-1.3
1.3
-1.6
-1.1
0.00
-0.4
1.4
-0.7
-0.1
0.00
-0.8
1.1
-1.0
-0.6
0.00
-0.7
1.1
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
-0.8
1.1
-1.1
-0.6
0.00
-0.8
1.1
-1.0
-0.5
0.00
-0.1
1.1
-0.4
0.1
0.36
-0.7
1.0
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
-0.7
1.0
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
Sig.
The TCPCG alumni had the largest mean differences in ratings of satisfaction versus importance for
the following program components: classroom management skills (-1.1), integrating technology into
classroom instruction (-0.9), and teaching gifted and talented learners (-0.9; Table 16).
TABLE 16
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings for TCPCG Alumni
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences
for students in English.
Classroom management skills.
3.
4.
5.
Integrating technology into classroom
instruction.
Working effectively with parents.
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
7.
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT,
CMT, norm-referenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
9.
Teaching special education students.
10.
Teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds.
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic backgrounds.
Encouraging interaction with students from
different backgrounds.
Educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
The difficulty level of the program.
Challenging students to meet their fullest
potential.
The degree of preparation for working in
the teaching profession.
28
95% CI of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Sig.
Mean
Diff
SD
-0.6
1.4
-1.2
-0.1
0.03
-0.4
0.7
-0.7
-0.2
0.00
-1.1
1.4
-1.7
-0.6
0.00
-0.9
1.6
-1.5
-0.2
0.01
-0.7
1.3
-1.2
-0.2
0.01
-0.4
0.8
-0.7
-0.1
0.02
-0.5
1.0
-0.9
0.0
0.05
-0.2
1.2
-0.7
0.3
0.43
-0.4
1.2
-0.9
0.1
0.09
-0.5
1.3
-1.0
0.0
0.05
-0.9
1.3
-1.4
-0.4
0.00
-0.3
1.1
-0.7
0.2
0.21
0.0
1.0
-0.4
0.4
0.85
-0.3
1.0
-0.7
0.1
0.12
0.0
0.9
-0.4
0.3
0.82
0.0
1.3
-0.5
0.5
0.88
-0.7
1.1
-1.2
-0.3
0.00
-0.7
1.2
-1.2
-0.2
0.00
As shown in Table 17, alumni in elementary education had the highest satisfaction ratings for the
program components of content and/or area specialty (4.4), creating meaningful learning experiences
for students in English (4.4), formative classroom assessment skills (4.1), and challenging students to
meet their fullest potential (4.1). Their lowest rating scores of satisfaction were given to working
effectively with parents (2.7), teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners (2.8), and classroom management skills (2.9). Those in special education gave their
highest satisfaction ratings to content and/or area specialty (4.8), teaching special education students
(4.6), and the degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession (4.6). The alumni working
in special education rated as least satisfying the areas of teaching talented and gifted learners (3.0) and
teaching English language learners (3.0). Alumni working in secondary education gave their highest
satisfaction ratings to creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English (4.2), the
content and/or area specialty (4.1), and the degree of preparation for working in the teaching
profession (4.1) and their lowest satisfaction ratings to teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners (2.8), and working effectively with parents (3.1).
The secondary education fields with the highest numbers of alumni were English (n=18), social studies
(n=13), and science (n=12). The alumni teaching English gave their highest ratings of satisfaction to
the content and/or area specialty (4.7), and to creating meaningful learning experiences for students in
English (4.6) as components with which they were most satisfied. The areas in which they were least
satisfied were teaching students who are both in special education and English language learners (2.7)
and standardized assessment skills (2.8). Alumni teaching social studies gave their highest ratings, all
of which had a mean rating of 4.2, to the content and/or area specialty, creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in English, formative classroom assessment skills, and the degree of
preparation for working in the teaching profession. They gave their lowest ratings to teaching students
who are both in special education and English language learners (2.5), classroom management skills
(2.8), and working effectively with parents (2.9). Alumni working in science education had the highest
satisfaction ratings in creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English (4.0) and the
degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession (3.9). These alumni rated the areas of
classroom management skills, teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners, and teaching gifted and talented learners as being least satisfying, giving all three
components a rating of 2.9.
29
TABLE 17
Means for Satisfaction with Program Components by Field
ElemEd
SpEd
SecEd
Agr
Eng
ForL
Ma
Mu
Sci
SS
Total number
32
10
61
3
18
7
10
6
12
13
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
4.4
4.8
4.1
2.0
4.7
4.2
3.9
4.0
3.3
4.2
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
4.4
4.5
4.2
2.7
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.5
4.0
4.2
3.
Classroom management skills.
2.9
4.1
3.2
2.3
3.7
4.0
2.4
3.3
2.9
2.8
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.7
3.6
2.5
3.9
3.0
3.4
3.5
5.
Working effectively with parents.
2.7
3.9
3.1
1.7
3.2
3.7
2.7
2.5
3.3
2.9
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.5
3.8
4.2
3.7
2.8
3.4
4.2
7.
3.7
3.9
3.2
4.0
2.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.2
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
3.6
3.0
3.3
4.0
3.3
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.2
9.
Teaching special education students.
3.4
4.6
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.2
2.8
3.5
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.5
3.8
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.8
2.9
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.7
2.3
4.0
3.8
3.2
2.8
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.8
4.0
2.3
4.2
4.5
3.6
3.0
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.3
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.7
4.1
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.4
2.8
3.8
3.6
16. The difficulty level of the program.
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
3.8
4.5
3.8
4.7
4.2
4.2
3.8
3.3
3.5
3.3
4.1
4.2
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.3
3.6
3.8
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
4.0
4.6
4.1
2.0
4.2
4.0
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.2
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
30
Table 18 shows the alumni’s mean ratings for importance of program components. Elementary
education alumni ranked classroom management skills as being most important, with a mean score of
4.9 on a scale of 1-5, followed by creating meaningful experiences for students in English, teaching
special education students, and the degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession, all
rated 4.7. They gave their lowest ratings to integrating technology into classroom instruction (3.8) and
teaching gifted and talented learners (3.9). Alumni in special education gave their highest ratings of
importance to teaching special education students (5.0), creating meaningful experiences for students
in English (4.9), and teaching students who are both in special education and English language learners
(4.8). Special education alumni gave their lowest ratings of importance to teaching gifted and talented
learners (4.0), integrating technology into classroom instruction (4.1), teaching English language
learners (4.1), and the difficulty level of the program (4.1). Secondary education alumni gave their
highest ratings of importance to classroom management skills (4.8), the degree of preparation for
working in the teaching profession (4.7), and creating meaningful experiences for students in English
(4.7), and gave their lowest ratings to teaching English language learners (3.7), teaching students who
are both in special education and English language learners (3.8), and teaching gifted and talented
learners (3.8).
Alumni working in English education rated the following components as the most important: creating
meaningful experiences for students in English (4.9), the content and/or area specialty (4.8), classroom
management skills (4.8), and the degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession (4.8).
They gave their lowest ratings of importance, all of which were rated a 3.8, to integrating technology
into classroom instruction, standardized assessment skills, teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners, and teaching gifted and talented learners. Alumni in social
studies education ranked as most important creating meaningful learning experiences for students in
English (4.8), classroom management skills (4.6), and the degree of preparation for working in the
teaching profession (4.6). Their lowest ratings were given to teaching English language learners (3.2),
and teaching gifted and talented learners (3.4). Alumni in science education rated the program
components of classroom management skills (4.7), and the degree of preparation for working in the
teaching profession (4.6) as being the most important. These alumni gave their lowest ratings of
importance to the difficulty level of the program (3.1), and teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners (3.3).
31
TABLE 18
Means for Importance with Program Components by Field
ElemEd
SpEd
SecEd
Agr
Eng
ForL
Ma
Mu
Sci
SS
Total number
32
10
61
3
18
7
10
6
12
13
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
5.0
4.5
4.5
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
4.7
4.9
4.7
4.3
4.9
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.8
3.
Classroom management skills.
4.9
4.7
4.8
5.0
4.8
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
3.8
4.1
3.9
5.0
3.8
4.0
4.4
3.0
3.6
3.8
5.
Working effectively with parents.
4.5
4.7
4.1
4.7
3.9
4.3
4.4
3.8
3.9
4.0
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.8
3.8
4.5
7.
4.0
4.3
3.9
3.3
3.8
3.5
4.4
2.8
3.5
3.9
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
4.1
4.1
3.7
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.2
3.5
3.4
3.2
9.
Teaching special education students.
4.7
5.0
4.4
4.7
4.5
4.8
4.7
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.1
4.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.3
4.2
3.8
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.7
4.4
4.5
4.3
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.3
4.7
4.4
4.7
4.5
3.8
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.4
4.7
4.4
4.8
4.5
3.5
3.9
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.4
4.7
4.4
4.8
4.5
3.8
3.9
4.4
16. The difficulty level of the program.
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.7
4.1
4.2
4.2
3.5
3.1
3.8
4.5
4.6
4.6
5.0
4.7
4.5
4.8
5.0
4.5
4.5
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.6
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1=Not At All Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important.
32
Alumni working in elementary education had the greatest difference in satisfaction versus importance
scores in their ratings of working effectively with parents (-1.8), teaching students who are both in
special education and English language learners (-1.4), and teaching special education students (-1.3).
Alumni in the field of secondary education had the highest disparity ratings for classroom management
skills (-1.6), teaching special education students (-1.0), and teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners (-1.0). The greatest difference in satisfaction versus
importance ratings for alumni in English education were in teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners (-1.2), standardized assessment skills (-1.1), and classroom
management skills (-1.1; Table 19).
TABLE 19
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings by Field
ElemEd
SecEd
Eng
M.D
M.D.
M.D.
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
-0.2
-0.5
-0.1*
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
-0.3
-0.5
-0.3*
3.
Classroom management skills.
-2.0
-1.6
-1.1
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
-0.2
-0.5
-0.3*
5.
Working effectively with parents.
-1.8
-0.9
-0.6*
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
-0.3*
-0.4
-0.6
7.
-0.4*
-0.7
-1.1
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
-0.5
-0.4
-0.8*
9.
Teaching special education students.
-1.3
-1.0
-0.8
10.
-1.4
-1.0
-1.2
11.
Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
-0.2*
-0.6
-0.7*
12.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
-0.6
-0.6
-0.5*
13.
-0.6
-0.4
-0.3*
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
15.
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
Encouraging interaction with students from different
backgrounds.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
-0.7
-0.6
-0.4*
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
-0.2*
-0.1
0.1*
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
-0.4
-0.8
-0.9
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
-0.7
-0.7
-0.6
14.
*Indicates the result is statistically significant. Only sample size n>15 are reported in the table.
Q2e: How do respondents feel about diversity preparation overall, by program, and by field?
Overall, alumni had the highest satisfaction ratings for understanding people from other racial
background (with a mean score of 3.9 on a scale of 1-5) and educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds (3.8). The alumni gave their lowest ratings of satisfaction to teaching students who are
both in special education and English language learners (2.9). In regard to importance, the highest
ratings were given to teaching special education students (4.5), understanding people from other racial
background (4.4), and educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds (4.4). The lowest ratings
were both a 3.9, given to teaching English language learners and teaching gifted and talented learners.
The greatest difference between ratings of importance and satisfaction were in teaching students who
are both in special education and English language learners, with a mean difference of -1.2, and
teaching special education students, with a mean difference of -1.0 (Table 20).
TABLE 20
Overall Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Selected Diversity Statements
Satis.
M
Impor.
M
Mean
Diff
SD
95% CI of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Sig.
A.
Teaching English language learners
3.4
3.9
-0.5
1.3
-0.7
-0.3
0.00
B.
Teaching special education students
3.5
4.5
-1.0
1.3
-1.2
-0.8
0.00
C.
Teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners
2.9
4.0
-1.2
1.4
-1.4
-0.9
0.00
D.
Teaching gifted and talented learners
3.4
3.9
-0.5
1.3
-0.7
-0.3
0.00
E.
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds
3.7
4.3
-0.7
1.2
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
F.
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic background
3.9
4.4
-0.6
1.1
-0.8
-0.4
0.00
G.
Encouraging interaction with students
from different backgrounds
3.7
4.3
-0.7
1.1
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
H.
Educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds
3.8
4.4
-0.6
1.1
-0.8
-0.4
0.00
The IB/M alumni had the highest satisfaction ratings for educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds, and understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic background, with a 3.7 rating
for both. Their lowest rating of satisfaction was for teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners, with a 2.8. In terms of importance, the highest rating was
given to teaching special education students (4.6), and the lowest rating was given to educating
students from diverse cultural backgrounds (1.1). The largest disparity between satisfaction and
importance ratings as ranked by IB/M alumni were in teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners, with a mean difference of -1.3, and teaching special
education students, with a mean difference of -1.2 (see Table 21).
TABLE 21
Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Selected Diversity Statements for IB/M Alumni
Satis. M
Impor.
M
Mean
Diff
SD
95% CI of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Sig.
A.
Teaching English language learners
3.4
4.0
-0.6
1.3
-0.9
-0.4
0.00
B.
Teaching special education students
3.5
4.6
-1.2
1.3
-1.4
-0.9
0.00
C.
Teaching students who are both in
special education and English language
learners
2.8
4.1
-1.3
1.3
-1.6
-1.1
0.00
D.
Teaching gifted and talented learners
3.5
4.0
-0.4
1.4
-0.7
-0.1
0.00
E.
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds
3.6
4.4
-0.8
1.1
-1.0
-0.6
0.00
F.
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic background
3.7
4.4
-0.7
1.1
-0.9
-0.5
0.00
G.
Encouraging interaction with students
from different backgrounds
3.6
4.4
-0.8
1.1
-1.1
-0.6
0.00
H.
Educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds
3.7
1.1
-1.0
-0.5
0.00
-0.8
1.1
35
As shown in Table 22, TCPCG alumni gave their highest satisfaction ratings on selected diversity
statements to understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds (4.4), and educating
students from diverse cultural backgrounds (4.3). The lowest ratings in regard to satisfaction were
given to teaching students who are both in special education and English language learners (3.1) and
teaching gifted and talented learners (3.1). The areas these alumni found most important were
understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds (4.4), encouraging interaction with
students from different backgrounds (4.3), educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds (4.3),
and teaching special education students (4.3). The least important areas according to these alumni,
with a rating a 3.6 each, were teaching English language learners, and teaching students who are both
in special education and English language learners. Teaching gifted and talented students had the
greatest discrepancy between its satisfaction rating and its importance rating, with a mean difference of
-0.9.
TABLE 22
Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Selected Diversity Statements for TCPCG Alumni
Impor.
M
Mean
Diff
SD
3.4
3.6
-0.2
1.2
-0.7
0.3
0.43
3.9
4.3
-0.4
1.2
-0.9
0.1
0.09
3.1
3.6
-0.5
1.3
-1.0
0.0
0.05
3.1
3.9
-0.9
1.3
-1.4
-0.4
0.00
4.0
4.2
-0.3
1.1
-0.7
0.2
0.21
4.4
4.4
0.0
1.0
-0.4
0.4
0.85
4.1
4.3
-0.3
1.0
-0.7
0.1
0.12
4.3
4.3
0.0
0.9
-0.4
0.3
0.82
Satis. M
A.
Teaching English language learners
B.
C.
Teaching special education students
Teaching students who are both in
special education and English language
learners
Teaching gifted and talented learners
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic background
Encouraging interaction with students
from different backgrounds
Educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
95% CI of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Sig.
Only sample size n>15 are reported in the table.
Table 23 shows the difference in ratings between satisfaction and importance on various diversity
statements, according to elementary education, secondary education, and English education alumni.
The elementary education alumni had the highest satisfaction ratings for teaching gifted and talented
learners, educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, and understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic background, giving all three a rating of 3.8. The statement given the lowest
satisfaction rating was in teaching students who are both in special education and English language
learners, which had a mean rating of 2.8. They gave the highest importance ratings to teaching special
education students (4.7), understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic background (4.5), and
encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds (4.5), and the lowest rating was
given to teaching gifted and talented learners (3.9). The largest disparities between ratings of
importance and of satisfaction, as rated by English education alumni, were for teaching students who
36
are both in special education and English language learners, with a mean difference of -1.4, and
teaching special education students (-1.3).
Alumni in secondary education gave their highest rating of satisfaction to understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic background, with a mean score of 4.0, and the lowest rating to teaching
students who are both in special education and English language learners, with a score of 2.8. The
statements rated most important by the alumni in secondary education were teaching special education
students (4.4), encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds (4.4), and educating
students from diverse cultural backgrounds (4.4). Given the rating of least important was teaching
English language learners (3.7). The largest disparity between the ratings of satisfaction and
importance was a mean difference of -1.0 for both teaching special education students and teaching
students who are both in special education and English language learners. Among alumni working in
the field of English education, understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic background had
the highest satisfaction rating (4.2), while teaching students who are both in special education and
English language learners had the lowest rating (2.7). Teaching special education students had the
highest importance rating, a 4.5, while teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners and teaching gifted and talented learners had the lowest ratings, with both receiving
a 3.8. The greatest difference between these two ratings was for teaching students who are both in
special education and English language learners, with a mean difference of -1.2.
TABLE 23
Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Selected Diversity Statements by Field
ElemEd
Satis Impor.
M
M
SecEd
Mean Satis.
Diff
M
Eng.
Impor. Mean Satis
M
Diff M
Impor.
M
Mean
Diff
A.
Teaching English language learners
3.6
4.1
-0.5
3.3
3.7
-0.4
3.3
4.0
-0.8*
B.
Teaching special education students
3.4
4.7
-1.3
3.5
4.4
-1.0
3.8
4.5
-0.8
C.
Teaching students who are both in
special education and English language
learners
2.8
4.1
-1.4
2.8
3.8
-1.0
2.7
3.8
-1.2
D.
Teaching gifted and talented learners
3.8
3.9
-0.2*
3.3
3.8
-0.6
3.2
3.8
-0.7*
E.
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds
3.8
4.4
-0.6
3.7
4.3
-0.6
4.0
4.4
-0.5*
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic background
3.8
4.5
-0.6
4.0
4.3
-0.4
4.2
4.4
-0.3*
Encouraging interaction with students
from different backgrounds
3.7
4.5
-0.8
3.7
4.4
-0.7
3.9
4.4
-0.6
Educating students from diverse
cultural backgrounds
3.7
4.4
-0.7
3.8
4.4
-0.6
3.9
4.4
-0.4*
F.
G.
H.
*Indicates the result is statistically significant. Only sample size n>15 are reported in the table.
37
Q2f: What are the overall ratings for satisfaction with learning about the teaching overall,
by program, and by field?
In regard to satisfaction with learning about the teaching profession, alumni overall had the
highest scores of satisfaction for understanding how students learn (4.3), using different
pedagogical approaches (4.3), and collaborating with other adults (4.2). Their lowest satisfaction
rating was for handling the paperwork associated with your job (3.0) and for managing time
throughout the school day (3.3) (see Table 24).
Table 25 shows IB/M alumni had the highest satisfaction ratings pertaining to learning about the
teaching profession for using different pedagogical approaches (with a mean score of 4.4 on a
rating scale of 1-5), understanding how students learn (4.2), and collaborating with other adults
(4.2). Their lowest satisfaction rating was given for handling the paperwork associated with the
job (2.8).
TABLE 24
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching Profession
Missing M
1. Understand how students learn.
2. Use different pedagogical
approaches.
3. Implement Connecticut’s Common
Core of Teaching.
4. Handle the paperwork associated
with your job.
5. Manage time throughout the
school day.
6. Collaborate with other adults.
7. Adapt to changes in content and/or
resources.
8. Deal with changes in the
classroom or school.
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
1
2
3
4
5
6
4.3
0.7
.0
2.3
5.3
52.7
35.1
6
4.3
0.8
0.8
3.1
3.8
42.7
45.0
7
3.6
1.1
4.6
9.2
27.5
27.5
26.0
6
3.0
1.2
7.6
32.8
18.3
25.2
11.5
7
3.3
1.1
3.8
22.1
24.4
26.7
17.6
6
4.2
0.9
2.3
3.1
12.2
34.4
43.5
6
3.9
1.1
2.3
3.1
12.2
34.4
43.5
6
3.8
1.1
3.1
13.0
16.8
34.4
28.2
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
TABLE 25
Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching Profession for IB/M Alumni
Missing M
1. Understand how students learn.
2. Use different pedagogical
approaches.
3. Implement Connecticut’s
Common Core of Teaching.
4. Handle the paperwork
associated with your job.
5. Manage time throughout the
school day.
6. Collaborate with other adults.
7. Adapt to changes in content
and/or resources.
8. Deal with changes in the
classroom or school.
SD
Very
Satisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
5
4.2
0.6
.0
2.1
4.3
58.5
29.8
5
4.4
0.6
0.0
1.1
5.3
45.7
42.6
5
3.6
1.1
3.2
10.6
29.8
27.7
23.4
5
2.8
1.1
8.5
37.2
17.0
24.5
7.4
5
3.3
1.1
4.3
22.3
25.5
26.6
14.9
5
4.2
0.9
1.1
3.2
10.6
38.3
41.5
5
3.9
1.1
3.2
8.5
16.0
38.3
28.7
5
3.7
1.1
3.2
13.8
17.0
31.9
28.7
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
As is shown in Table 26, TCPCG alumni had the highest satisfaction ratings for understanding how
students learn (4.5 on a scale of 1-5), and using different pedagogical approaches (4.5). The lowest
rating of satisfaction was given to handling the paperwork associated with the job (3.4).
TABLE 26
Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching Profession by TCPCG Alumni
Missing M
1. Understand how students learn.
2. Use different pedagogical
approaches.
3. Implement Connecticut’s
Common Core of Teaching.
4. Handle the paperwork
associated with your job.
5. Manage time throughout the
school day.
6. Collaborate with other adults.
7. Adapt to changes in content
and/or resources.
8. Deal with changes in the
classroom or school.
SD
Very
Satisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
1
4.5
0.6
.0
.0
3.4
41.4
51.7
1
4.5
0.7
.0
3.4
.0
37.9
55.2
1
3.9
1.2
3.4
6.9
24.1
20.7
41.4
1
3.4
1.3
3.4
27.6
17.2
20.7
27.6
1
3.6
1.2
.0
27.6
13.8
24.1
31.0
1
4.4
0.9
.0
3.4
13.8
24.1
55.2
1
4.1
0.8
.0
.0
24.1
37.9
34.5
1
3.9
0.9
.0
10.3
13.8
44.8
27.6
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
39
Satisfaction ratings for elementary education alumni were highest for using different pedagogical
approaches (4.4) and collaborating with other adults (4.4), but lowest for handling the paperwork
associated with the job (2.9). Alumni in special education gave their highest rating of
satisfaction to using different pedagogical approaches (4.4), and lowest rating to handling the
paperwork associated with the job. The highest satisfaction ratings for secondary education
alumni were given for using different pedagogical approaches (4.3) and for collaborating with
other adults (4.3). They gave their lowest rating, a 2.9, to handling the paperwork associated
with the job.
In the specific fields of secondary education, alumni working in English education also gave
using different pedagogical approaches their highest satisfaction rating (4.4). Alumni in science
education gave their highest ratings for understanding how students learn (4.3), and collaborating
with other adults (4.3), while those in social studies rated collaborating with other adults and
using pedagogical approaches as the most satisfactory, with a mean rating of 4.2 for both.
Alumni of all three fields, English, science, and social studies, rated handling the paperwork
associated with the job as lowest is satisfaction, with scores of 2.9, 3.1, and 2.2 respectively (see
Table 27).
TABLE 27
Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching Profession by Field
1. Understand how students learn.
2. Use different pedagogical
approaches.
3. Implement Connecticut’s
Common Core of Teaching.
4. Handle the paperwork
associated with your job.
5. Manage time throughout the
school day.
6. Collaborate with other adults.
7. Adapt to changes in content
and/or resources.
8. Deal with changes in the
classroom or school.
Elem
SpEd
Ed
4.3
4.3
SecEd
Agr
Eng
ForL
Ma
Mu
Sci
SS
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.2
3.5
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.3
5.0
4.4
4.2
4.3
3.3
4.2
4.2
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.6
3.5
2.9
3.9
2.9
3.3
2.9
2.8
3.2
3.8
3.1
2.2
3.3
4.2
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.6
2.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
3.3
4.3
3.8
4.3
3.0
4.3
4.2
3.9
4.3
3.9
3.0
4.0
3.8
3.9
3.0
3.7
3.8
3.8
4.3
3.7
3.0
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.7
3.7
1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
40
Q2g: What are the overall ratings of the Neag School overall, by
program, and by field?
As shown in Table 28, overall, the alumni gave the highest rating to the Neag School for student
teaching (4.5) and overall preparedness (4.3). The lowest rating was given to cooperation
between the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the Neag School of Education (3.1).
TABLE 28
Overall Ratings of the Neag School
Excellent
Poor
Missing
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sense of community with
other students
Faculty involvement with
students
Faculty with experience as
practitioners
Cooperation between the
College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences and Neag
School of Education
M
SD
4
3.9
5
1
2
3
4
5
1.0
3.8
7.6
9.2
45.8
30.5
4.1
1.0
2.3
6.1
13.7
32.1
42.0
7
3.9
1.1
3.1
9.2
11.5
37.4
33.6
5
3.1
1.2
8.4
19.8
32.1
22.1
13.7
5.
Quality of teaching
4
4.1
0.9
3.1
3.1
6.9
53.4
30.5
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Quality of advising
Clinic experiences
Master’s internship
Student teaching
Job readiness of graduates
Overall preparation
5
3.9
1.2
5.3
6.9
16.0
28.2
39.7
4
4.2
0.9
0.8
6.1
9.2
35.9
45.0
6
3.9
1.1
5.3
3.1
19.8
32.8
34.4
4
4.5
0.8
1.5
2.3
5.3
29.0
58.8
4
4.1
0.9
2.3
4.6
6.9
45.8
37.4
4
4.3
0.8
1.5
0.8
6.9
49.6
38.2
1=Poor, 2=Needs Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent.
Table 29 shows that the IB/M alumni gave the highest ratings to the Neag School for student
teaching (mean rating of 4.5) and overall preparation (4.3). The lowest rating for the Neag
School was given for cooperation between the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the
Neag School of Education, with a mean rating of 3.1.
TCPCG alumni gave their highest satisfaction ratings to faculty involvement with students,
which had an average rating of 4.5 on a 1-5 scale, a sense of community with other students
(4.4), and overall preparation (4.4). The lowest rating given was a 3.4, for cooperation between
the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the Neag School of Education.
41
TABLE 29
Ratings of the Neag School by IB/M Alumni
Excellent
Poor
Missing M
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Sense of community with
other students
Faculty involvement with
students
Faculty with experience as
practitioners
Cooperation between the
College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Neag School
of Education
Quality of teaching
Quality of advising
Clinic experiences
Master’s internship
Student teaching
Job readiness of graduates
Overall preparation
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1
3.9
1.0
3.3
6.5
10.9
51.1
27.2
1
4.1
1.0
2.2
5.4
16.3
35.9
39.1
3
3.9
1.0
2.2
9.8
13.0
43.5
28.3
1
3.1
1.1
7.6
23.9
30.4
23.9
13.0
1
4.1
0.8
1.1
4.3
3.3
62.0
28.3
2
4.0
1.2
5.4
7.6
13.0
31.5
40.2
1
4.2
0.9
0.0
6.5
8.7
38.0
45.7
1
3.9
1.1
5.4
4.3
19.6
31.5
38.0
1
4.5
0.8
1.1
3.3
4.3
29.3
60.9
1
4.2
0.9
2.2
6.5
4.3
45.7
40.2
1
4.3
0.7
1.1
1.1
6.5
53.3
37.0
1=Poor, 2=Needs Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent.
TABLE 30
Ratings of the Neag School by TCPCG Alumni
Excellent
Poor
Missing M
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Sense of community with
other students
Faculty involvement with
students
Faculty with experience as
practitioners
Cooperation between the
College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences and Neag
School of Education
Quality of teaching
Quality of advising
Clinic experiences
Master’s internship
Student teaching
Job readiness of graduates
Overall preparation
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1
4.4
0.9
0.0
2.0
1.0
10.0
15.0
2
4.5
0.8
0.0
6.9
3.4
34.5
51.7
2
4.3
0.9
0.0
3.4
6.9
24.1
58.6
2
3.4
1.1
0.0
6.9
6.9
27.6
51.7
1
4.3
0.7
3.4
13.8
37.9
17.2
20.7
1
4.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
13.8
41.4
41.4
1
4.2
1.0
0.0
3.4
20.7
20.7
51.7
1
4.1
0.9
3.4
3.4
10.3
31.0
48.3
1
4.5
0.6
3.4
0.0
17.2
41.4
34.5
1
4.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
6.9
31.0
58.6
1
4.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
17.2
37.9
41.4
1=Poor, 2=Needs Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
42
As shown in Table 31, alumni working in elementary education gave Neag the highest ratings,
on a scale of 1-5, in faculty involvement with students (4.3) and student teaching (4.3). Alumni
who studied special education gave their highest ratings to overall preparation (4.6), job readiness of
graduates (4.5), and student teaching (4.5). Alumni in secondary education rated student teaching
highest, with a mean score of 4.5. All gave their lowest rating to cooperation between the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences and the Neag School of Education.
Alumni in English education and science education ranked student teaching highest, with scores of 4.7
and 4.4 respectively. The highest ranking for alumni in social studies was a 4.4 for faculty involvement
with students. Alumni for all three of these disciplines also gave their lowest rating to cooperation
between the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Neag School of Education, with scores of 3.4 (by
alumni in English education), 3.2 (science), and 2.7 (social studies).
TABLE 31
Ratings of the Neag School by Field
Elem
SpEd
Ed
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Sense of community with
other students
Faculty involvement with
students
Faculty with experience as
practitioners
Cooperation between the
College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Neag School
of Education
Quality of teaching
Quality of advising
Clinic experiences
Master’s internship
Student teaching
Job readiness of graduates
Overall preparation
SecEd
Agr
Eng
ForL
Ma
Mu
Sci
SS
4.0
4.3
4.1
3.7
4.4
3.8
4.3
2.5
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.2
4.2
3.7
4.5
3.8
4.0
2.8
3.9
4.4
3.9
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.6
3.3
4.1
2.8
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.9
3.1
3.7
3.4
2.5
3.1
2.8
3.2
2.7
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.4
3.4
4.4
2.5
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.3
4.2
3.3
4.6
3.8
3.8
2.3
3.8
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
5.0
4.4
4.2
4.5
4.8
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.0
3.8
3.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.7
4.8
4.6
5.0
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.2
3.0
4.3
3.6
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.3
3.3
4.6
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.2
1=Poor, 2=Needs Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent.
43
Reflections on You as a Teacher
In this section of the survey, alumni answered questions related to current employment, reasons
for remaining in or leaving the field of education, and desired professional development
opportunities. The questions regarding at which grade level alumni are currently teaching and
explanations for current involvement in, as well as decisions to leave, the field of education are
the only ones on which alumni were able to select multiple responses.
Q3a: From which teacher program did the respondents graduate overall, by
program, and by field?
As shown in Table 32, the largest percentage of alumni graduated from the IB/M program
(70.2%), followed by 22.1% from TCPCG, 5.3% from music education, 1.5% from other
education disciplines, and 0.8% from bilingual education.
TABLE 32
Teacher Education Program Completed Overall and by Program
Missing
N
%
131
0.0
IB/M
N
%
92
70.2
TCPCG
N
%
Bilingual
N
%
N
Music
%
N
Others
%
29
1
7
5.3
2
1.5
22.1
0.8
Table 33 shows that the largest percentage of alumni work in Secondary Education (46.6%),
followed by 24.4% in Elementary Education. English teachers make up 13.7% of alumni, while
9.9% work in social studies, 9.2% in science, 7.6% in special education, 7.6% in mathematics,
4.6% in music, 4.6% in foreign languages, and 2.3% in agriculture.
TABLE 33
Teacher Education Program Completed by Field
ElemEd
N
32
SpEd
%
24.4
N
10
ForL
N
6
SecEd
%
7.6
N
61
Ma
%
4.6
N
10
Agr
%
46.6
N
3
Mu
%
7.6
N
6
44
Eng
%
2.3
N
18
Sci
%
4.6
N
12
%
13.7
SS
%
9.2
N
13
%
9.9
Q3b: How many respondents are currently involved in the field of education overall,
by program, and by field?
The majority of the total alumni from teacher education programs, 93.1%, are currently involved
in education. Specifically, 95.7% from the IB/M program and 93.1% from the TCPCG program
have continued involvement in education (see Table 34).
All of the alumni in the fields of special education, agriculture, English, mathematics, and social
studies are currently involved in education. Of those in elementary education, 96.9% are
involved, as well as 96.7% in secondary education, 91.7% in science, and 83.3% each in foreign
language and music education, as shown in Table 35.
TABLE 34
Current Involvement in Education Overall and by Program
Total
N
122
6
3
Yes
No
Missing
IB/M
TCPCG
%
N
%
N
%
93.1
88
95.7
27
93.1
4.6
3
3.3
1
3.4
2.3
1
1.1
1
3.4
TABLE 35
Current Involvement in Education by Field
ElemEd
N
SpEd
%
31
96.9
N
10
ForL
N
5
SecEd
%
100
N
59
Ma
%
83.3
N
10
%
96.7
Agr
N
3
Mu
%
100
N
5
45
Eng
%
100
N
18
Sci
%
83.3
N
11
%
100
SS
%
91.7
N
13
%
100
Q3c: What grade levels are taught by the respondents?
Table 36 notes that the highest percentage of alumni from the education program teach 11th grade
(32.1%), followed by 30.5% each for 9th and 10th grade, and 28.2% for 12th grade.
TABLE 36
Grade Level Currently Taught by Neag Alumni
Pre-K
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
N/A
N
0
9
14
16
18
18
18
14
17
17
40
40
42
37
7
%
0
6.9
10.7
12.2
13.7
13.7
13.7
10.7
13.0
13.0
30.5
30.5
32.1
28.2
5.3
Q3d: What types of teaching positions are currently held by the respondents?
As Table 37 shows, the most common teaching position of a Neag School alumni is as an
elementary school teacher (25.7%), followed by “other teacher” roles, 16.2%, secondary social
studies teacher (11%), and special education teacher (9.2%).
TABLE 37
Type of Teaching Position Currently Held by Neag Alumni
Previous Yr
N
%
Elementary school teacher
Secondary level teacher – Math
Secondary level teacher – Science
Secondary level teacher – Social Studies
Secondary level teacher – Reading
Secondary level teacher – English
Secondary level teacher – Foreign Language
Special education teacher
Music teacher
Substitute teacher
Administrator
Other teacher
Other – not in education
Missing
46
Current
N
%
70
25.7
32
24.4
20
7.4
10
7.6
11
4.0
12
9.2
30
11.0
13
9.9
0
.0
1
0.8
24
8.8
18
13.7
7
2.6
7
5.3
25
9.2
10
7.6
7
2.6
6
4.6
3
1.1
2
1.5
6
2.2
16
12.2
44
16.2
4
3.1
18
6.6
32
24.4
7
2.6
0
0
Q3e: Why are the respondents involved in field of education overall and by
program?
Table 38 shows overall explanations for involvement in education. The statements with the
greatest student endorsement of alumni currently involved in the field are “I enjoy working with
the students,” with 87.8% agreeing, and “it’s rewarding for me when my students learn,” with
86.3% agreeing. The numbers are similar to the previous year, which had alumni agreement of
84.2% and 81.3%, respectively. Of those not currently involved in the field of education, the
highest percentage left the profession because demands of the job led to burnout (5.3%),
however, most simply responded with “N/A” (46.6% currently, 24.3% previously).
TABLE 38
Overall Explanations for Involvement in Education: Previous and Current Year
Previous Yr
Currently involved in field of education
I enjoy working with the students
I enjoy being in a diverse student population
I like the schedule
It is rewarding for me when my students learn
I work in a supportive and challenging atmosphere
I like the building leaders
Other
N/A
N
%
N
%
229
84.2
115
87.8
100
36.8
72
55.0
107
221
169
39.3
81.3
62.1
53
113
83
40.5
86.3
63.4
85
31.3
51
38.9
46
16.7
24
18.3
13
4.8
5
3.8
4
1.5
2
1.5
6
2.2
0
0.0
Not currently involved in field of education
I had unrealistic expectations about what an education career would
be like
There was a lack of opportunity for advancement
I wanted a better salary
Demands of job led to burnout
My employer did not provide the mentoring or additional training I
needed
My career interests changed
Family obligations
Lack of status
Other
N/A
47
9
3.3
1
0.8
12
4.4
7
5.3
5
1.8
4
3.1
10
3.7
2
1.5
8
2.9
2
1.5
3
1.1
1
0.8
10
3.7
9
6.9
66
24.3
61
46.6
Of those alumni that were part of the IB/M program and are currently involved in the field of
education, the majority explained their involvement in education as due to the enjoyment in
working with the students (63.4%) and the reward to the teacher when their students learn
(62.6%). TCPCG alumni had the highest ratings for the same two explanations, with 19.8% of
TCPCG alumni agreeing to each of the statements. For those alumni from both programs no
longer involved in education, the largest percentage chose “N/A” as their explanation for leaving
(32.8% of IB/M alumni and 9.9% of TCPCG alumni), (see Table 39).
TABLE 39
Explanations for Involvement in Education by Program
IB/M
Currently involved in field of education
I enjoy working with the students
TCPCG
%
N
%
N
83
63.4
26
19.8
I enjoy being in a diverse student population
I like the schedule
It is rewarding for me when my students learn
I work in a supportive and challenging atmosphere
I like the building leaders
Other
N/A
53
40.5
18
13.7
34
26.0
17
13.0
82
62.6
26
19.8
59
45.0
19
14.5
34
26.0
15
11.5
15
11.5
7
5.3
2
1.5
1
0.8
Not currently involved in field of education
N
%
N
%
2
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
5
3.8
1
0.8
3
2.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.8
2
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.8
6
4.6
2
1.5
43
32.8
13
9.9
I had unrealistic expectations about what an education
career would be like
There was a lack of opportunity for advancement
I wanted a better salary
Demands of job led to burnout
My employer did not provide the mentoring or additional
training I needed
My career interests changed
Family obligations
Lack of status
Other
N/A
48
Dispositions and Standards
Q4a: What are the teacher dispositions overall, by program, and by field?
Overall, teacher dispositions given the highest rating, all of which received a 3.7 on a scale of 1-5,
were curiosity/intellectual enthusiasm, a desire to make the learning process enjoyable, a belief
that all students can learn, and the value of diversity in our culture. The lowest rating, a 3.1, was
given to the use of technology to enhance learning. IB/M alumni ranked highest the desire to
make the learning process enjoyable (3.8) followed by a belief that all students can learn (3.7), the
value of diversity in our culture (3.7), and curiosity/intellectual enthusiasm (3.7). IB/M alumni
gave their lowest rating to the use of technology to enhance learning (3.1). TCPCG alumni gave
their highest ratings for curiosity/intellectual enthusiasm (3.7) and a desire to make the learning
process enjoyable (3.7), and their lowest rating for using appropriate classroom management (2.8),
(see Table 40).
TABLE 40
Teacher Dispositions Overall and by Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7.
8.
9.
Content
Theory
Pedagogy
The use of technology to enhance learning
Curiosity/intellectual enthusiasm
A desire to make the learning process enjoyable
A belief that all students can learn
The value of diversity in our culture
Working with diverse student population
Asking reflective questions about important
10
problems.
11.
Producing new instructional methods
Using multiple methods to enhance learning
12.
opportunities
C Constructing knowledge around the abilities,
13.
interests, & learning styles of all students
Using varied methods to assess student
14.
learning
15.
Using differentiated instruction
16.
Using appropriate classroom management
17.
Collaborative learning communities
49
Total
M
SD
IB/M
M
SD
TCPCG
M
SD
3.4
0.7
3.4
0.7
3.6
0.7
3.3
0.6
3.3
0.7
3.1
0.6
3.4
0.7
3.4
0.7
3.4
0.8
3.1
0.8
3.1
0.8
3.0
0.8
3.7
0.6
3.7
0.7
3.7
0.7
3.7
0.6
3.8
0.6
3.7
0.7
3.7
0.7
3.7
0.7
3.6
0.7
3.7
0.7
3.7
0.7
3.6
0.7
3.5
0.8
3.5
0.8
3.4
0.7
3.5
0.7
3.6
0.7
3.4
0.8
3.3
0.8
3.4
0.8
3.1
0.9
3.4
0.8
3.5
0.8
3.3
0.9
3.3
0.8
3.3
0.9
3.1
0.8
3.4
0.8
3.4
0.8
3.1
0.9
3.2
0.8
3.3
0.8
3.0
0.8
3.2
0.9
3.2
1.0
2.8
0.8
3.3
0.8
3.3
0.9
3.1
0.8
Both elementary and special education alumni rated highest a desire to make the learning
process enjoyable (3.9 for elementary education and 3.4 for special education) and a belief that
all students can learn (3.9 for elementary education and 3.4 for special education). Secondary
education alumni ranked curiosity/intellectual enthusiasm and the value of diversity in our
culture as the highest, with a mean rating of 3.7 for each. Elementary education and special
education also both gave their lowest rating for the use of technology to enhance learning, with
a 3.2 and 2.6 respectively. Alumni in secondary education gave their lowest score, a 3.0, to
using appropriate classroom management (see Table 41).
TABLE 41
Teacher Dispositions by Field
ElemEd
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7.
8.
9.
Content
Theory
Pedagogy
The use of technology to enhance learning
Curiosity/intellectual enthusiasm
A desire to make the learning process enjoyable
A belief that all students can learn
The value of diversity in our culture
Working with diverse student population
Asking reflective questions about important
10
problems.
11.
Producing new instructional methods
Using multiple methods to enhance learning
12.
opportunities
C Constructing knowledge around the abilities,
13.
interests, & learning styles of all students
14.
Using varied methods to assess student learning
15.
Using differentiated instruction
16.
Using appropriate classroom management
17.
Collaborative learning communities
50
SpEd
SecEd
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3.5
0.5
2.9
1.2
3.4
0.7
3.3
0.6
2.8
1.0
3.2
0.6
3.4
0.5
2.8
1.0
3.4
0.7
3.2
0.7
2.6
1.1
3.2
0.8
3.8
0.4
3.3
1.3
3.7
0.7
3.9
0.4
3.4
1.3
3.6
0.6
3.9
0.5
3.4
1.3
3.6
0.6
3.8
0.6
3.3
1.3
3.7
0.6
3.5
0.9
3.2
1.2
3.5
0.7
3.7
0.7
3.2
1.2
3.5
0.7
3.5
0.6
3.1
1.2
3.2
0.8
3.7
0.7
3.1
1.2
3.3
0.8
3.4
0.7
3.3
1.3
3.2
0.9
3.4
0.7
3.1
1.2
3.3
0.8
3.4
0.7
3.2
1.2
3.1
0.8
3.4
0.8
3.1
1.2
3.0
0.9
3.4
0.8
2.7
0.9
3.2
0.9
Q4b: What is the self-reported level of attainment of the respective standards
overall and by program?
Table 42 displays the scores of special education standards as rated by IB/M and TCPCG alumni.
IB/M alumni gave their highest ratings to the statements declaring that they view themselves as
lifelong learners and regularly reflect on and adjust their practice, with a mean score of 4.9, and
that they are aware of how their own and others attitudes, behaviors, and ways of communicating
can influence their practice (4.7). The statements with the lowest ratings, a 3.4 for each, were
given to being comfortable using appropriate technologies to support instructional planning and
individualized instruction and to being familiar with augmentative, alternative, and assistive
technologies to support and enhance communication of individuals with exceptional needs. Only
one alumna from TCPCG gave a response to these statements.
TABLE 42
Special Education Standards
IB/M
Standards
TCPCG
M
SD
M
Understand the field as an evolving and changing discipline based on
philosophies, evidence-based principles and theories, relevant laws and
policies, diverse and historical points of view, and human issues that have
historically influenced and continue to influence the field of special
education and the education and treatment of individuals with exceptional
needs both in school and society.
3.7
0.5
5.0
.
Understand how these influence professional practice, including
assessment, instructional planning, implementation, and program
evaluation.
4.1
0.3
5.0
.
Understand how issues of human diversity can impact families, cultures,
and schools, and how these complex human issues can interact with issues
in the delivery of special education services
4.1
0.7
5.0
.
4.
Understand the relationships of organizations of special education to the
organizations and functions of schools, school systems, and other agencies.
3.9
0.7
4.0
.
5.
Use this knowledge as a ground upon which to construct my own personal
understandings and philosophies of special education.
4.1
0.3
4.0
.
6.
Know and demonstrate respect for my students first as unique human
beings.
4.5
0.7
4.0
.
7.
Understand the similarities and differences in human development and the
characteristics between and among individuals with and without exceptional 4.0
learning needs (ELN).
0.7
4.0
.
3.9
0.7
5.0
.
4.2
1.0
5.0
.
1.
2.
3.
8.
9.
Understand how exceptional conditions can interact with the domains
of human development and use this knowledge to respond to the
varying abilities and behaviors of individual’s with ELN.
Understand how the experiences of individuals with ELN can impact
families, as well as the individual’s ability to learn, interact socially, and
51
SD
live as fulfilled contributing members of the community.
10.
Understand the effects that an exceptional condition can have on an
individual’s learning in school and throughout life.
4.3
0.9
5.0
.
11.
Understand that the beliefs, traditions, and values across and within cultures
can affect relationships among and between students, their families, and the
school community.
4.1
0.7
5.0
.
Are active and resourceful in seeking to understand how primary language,
culture, and familial backgrounds interact with the individual’s exceptional
condition to impact the individual’s academic and social abilities, attitudes,
values, interests, and career options.
3.6
0.7
5.0
.
13.
Individualize instruction to provide meaningful and challenging learning for
individuals with ELN.
4.1
1.1
5.0
.
14.
Possess a repertoire of evidence-based instructional strategies to
individualize instruction for individuals with ELN.
15.
Select, adapt, and use these instructional strategies to promote challenging
learning results in general and special curricula and to appropriately
modify learning environments for individuals with ELN.
16.
Enhance the learning of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance
skills of individuals with ELN, and increase their self-awareness, selfmanagement, self-control, self-reliance, and self-esteem.
4.1
1.0
5.0
.
17.
Emphasize the development, maintenance, and generalization of knowledge
and skills across environments, settings, and the lifespan.
3.8
0.8
5.0
.
18.
Actively create learning environments for individuals with ELN that foster
cultural understanding, safety and emotional well being, positive social
interactions, and active engagement of individuals with ELN.
4.5
0.5
4.0
.
19.
Foster environments in which diversity is valued and individuals are taught
to live harmoniously and productively in a culturally diverse world.
4.1
0.7
4.0
.
20.
Shape environments to encourage the independence, self-motivation, selfdirection, personal empowerment, and self-advocacy of individuals with
ELN.
4.4
0.7
4.0
.
Help my general education colleagues integrate individuals with ELN in
regular environments and engage them in meaningful learning activities and
interactions.
4.1
0.3
3.0
.
22.
Use direct motivational and instructional interventions with individuals with
4.3
ELN to teach them to respond effectively to current expectations.
0.5
4.0
.
23.
When necessary, can safely intervene with individuals with ELN in crisis.
4.3
0.7
5.0
.
24.
Coordinate all these efforts and provide guidance and direction to
paraeducators and others, such as classroom volunteers and tutors.
4.0
0.7
4.0
.
25.
Understand typical and atypical language development and the ways in
which exceptional conditions can interact with an individual’s experience
with and use of language.
3.5
0.8
4.0
.
Use individualized strategies to enhance language development and teach
communication skills to individuals with ELN.
3.7
0.5
4.0
.
12.
21.
26.
52
.
3.9
0.9
4.0
0.8
5.0
5.0
.
Am familiar with augmentative, alternative, and assistive technologies to
support and enhance communication of individuals with exceptional needs.
3.4
1.1
4.0
.
Match my communication methods to an individual’s language proficiency
and cultural and linguistic differences.
3.8
1.0
4.0
.
Provide effective language models, and use communication strategies and
resources to facilitate understanding of subject matter for individuals with
ELN whose primary language is not English.
3.7
0.8
4.0
.
30.
Develop long-range individualized instructional plans anchored in both
general and special curricula.
3.8
0.8
4.0
.
31.
Systematically translate these individualized plans into carefully selected
shorter-range goals and objectives taking into consideration an individual’s
abilities and needs, the learning environment, and a myriad of cultural and
linguistic factors.
3.7
0.5
Facilitate this instructional planning in a collaborative context including the
individuals with exceptionalities, families, professional colleagues, and
personnel from other agencies as appropriate.
3.7
0.5
4.0
.
Develop a variety of individualized transition plans, such as transitions from
preschool to elementary school and from secondary settings to a variety of
3.7
postsecondary work and learning contexts.
0.7
4.0
.
34.
Comfortable using appropriate technologies to support instructional
planning and individualized instruction.
3.4
1.0
4.0
.
35.
Use multiple types of assessment information for a variety of educational
decisions.
3.9
0.6
4.0
.
36.
Use the results of assessments to help identify exceptional learning needs
and to develop and implement individualized instructional programs, as
well as to adjust instruction in response to ongoing learning progress.
4.3
0.7
4.0
.
Understand the legal policies and ethical principles of measurement and
assessment related to referral, eligibility, program planning, instruction, and
placement for individuals with ELN, including those from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds.
3.7
0.7
4.0
.
38.
Understand measurement theory and practices for addressing issues of
validity, reliability, norms, bias, and interpretation of assessment results.
3.8
0.6
5.0
.
39.
Understand the appropriate use and limitations of various types of
assessments.
3.9
0.6
4.0
.
40.
Collaborate with families and other colleagues to assure non-biased,
meaningful assessments and decision-making.
3.9
0.6
4.0
.
41.
Conduct formal and informal assessments of behavior, learning,
achievement, and environments to design learning experiences that support
the growth and development of individuals with ELN.
3.9
0.9
3.0
.
Use assessment information to identify supports and adaptations required
for individuals with ELN to access the general curriculum and to participate
in school, system, and statewide assessment programs.
4.0
0.8
4.0
.
Regularly monitor the progress of individuals with ELN in general and
special curricula.
4.5
0.5
3.0
.
27.
28.
29.
32.
33.
37.
42.
43.
53
44.
Use appropriate technologies to support my assessments.
3.7
0.7
5.0
.
45.
Am guided by the profession’s ethical and professional practice standards.
4.5
0.5
4.0
.
46.
Practice in multiple roles and complex situations across wide age and
developmental ranges.
4.2
0.6
4.0
.
47.
Engage in professional activities and participate in learning communities
that benefit individuals with ELN, their families, colleagues, and my own
professional growth.
4.3
0.5
3.0
.
48.
View myself as lifelong learners and regularly reflect on and adjust my
practice.
4.9
0.3
5.0
.
49.
Am aware of how my own and others attitudes, behaviors, and ways of
communicating can influence my practice.
4.7
0.5
4.0
.
50.
Understand that culture and language can interact with exceptionalities, and
are sensitive to the many aspects of diversity of individuals with ELN and
their families.
4.3
0.7
5.0
.
51.
Actively plan and engage in activities that foster my professional growth
and keep them current with evidence-based best practices.
3.9
0.6
4.0
.
52.
Know my own limits of practice and practice within them.
4.2
0.8
4.0
.
53.
Routinely and effectively collaborate with families, other educators, related
service providers, and personnel from community agencies in culturally
responsive ways.
4.5
0.7
4.0
.
54.
Embrace my special role as advocate for individuals with ELN.
4.6
0.5
4.0
.
55.
Promote and advocate the learning and well being of individuals with ELN
across a wide range of settings and a range of different learning
experiences.
4.6
0.5
4.0
.
56.
Am viewed as specialists by a myriad of people who actively seek my
collaboration to effectively include and teach individuals with ELN.
4.2
0.6
3.0
.
57.
Is a resource to my colleagues in understanding the laws and policies
relevant to Individuals with ELN.
4.5
0.7
4.0
.
58.
Use collaboration to facilitate the successful transitions of individuals with
ELN across settings and services.
4.4
0.8
3.0
.
Only one response for TCPCG, so there is no SD value.
54
The English standards with the highest rankings were given for demonstrating knowledge of the
practices of, and skills in the use of, the English language (4.1), and demonstrating knowledge of, and
uses for, an extensive range of literature (4.0). IB/M alumni gave their highest rating, a 4.1, to
demonstrating knowledge of the practices of, and skills in the use of the English language. They gave
their next highest rating, a 4.0 to demonstrating knowledge of the practices of oral, visual, and written
literacy. TCPCG alumni gave their highest ranking, a 4.1, to the standard of demonstrating knowledge
of, and uses for, an extensive range of literature, and a 4.0 for demonstrating knowledge of the practices
of, and skills in the use of, the English language that statement. The lowest score, a 3.0 overall and a
2.8 as rated by TCPCG alumni, was for assisting students who are English language learners. IB/M
alumni gave their lowest score, a 3.2, to assisting students who are English language learners and
assisting students with special needs (see Table 43).
TABLE 43
English Standards
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Standard
Follow a specific curriculum & are expected to meet
appropriate performance …
Adopt and strengthen professional attitudes needed by
English language arts…
Demonstrate knowledge of the practices of, and skills in
the use of, the English language
Demonstrate knowledge of the practices of oral, visual,
and written literacy
Demonstrate my knowledge of reading processes.
Demonstrate knowledge of different composing processes
Demonstrate knowledge of, and uses for, an extensive
range of literature
Demonstrate knowledge of the range and influence of
print and non print media
Demonstrate knowledge of research theory and findings in
English language arts.
Acquire and demonstrate the dispositions and skills
needed to integrate knowledge of English
Assist students who are English language learners.
Assist students with special needs.
Overall
M
SD
M
IB/M
SD
TCPCG
M
SD
3.8
0.5
3.8
0.4
3.8
0.7
3.8
0.7
3.9
0.8
3.7
0.7
4.1
0.4
4.1
0.6
4.0
0.0
3.9
0.5
4.0
0.5
3.9
0.6
3.8
3.8
0.7
0.8
3.7
3.8
0.9
1.0
3.9
3.9
0.6
0.6
4.0
0.8
3.9
0.9
4.1
0.6
3.8
0.8
3.6
0.9
3.9
0.6
3.5
0.9
3.3
1.0
3.7
0.7
3.8
0.5
3.9
0.6
3.7
0.5
3.0
3.2
0.9
0.7
3.2
3.2
0.8
0.7
2.8
3.1
1.0
0.8
Table 44, which reports history and social studies standards, shows that, people, places and
environments received the highest rating with a 4.3, whereas the lowest rating, a 2.9, was given for both
psychology and for assisting students who are English language learners. Among IB/M alumni, the
highest rating, a 4.3, was given for interactions among individuals, groups, and institutions, and the
lowest rating, a 2.9, was given for assisting students who are English language learners. Only one
alumni from the TCPCG program responded.
55
TABLE 44
History/Social Studies Standards
Total
IB/M
TCPCG
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
1. Culture and Culture Diversity.
4.1
0.9
4.1
0.9
5.0
.
2. Time, Continuity, and Change.
4.0
0.8
4.0
0.8
4.0
.
3. People, Places, and Environments.
4.3
0.7
4.3
0.7
5.0
.
4. Individual Development and Identity.
3.9
1.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
.
5. Interactions among Individuals, Groups, and
Institutions.
4.2
0.8
4.2
0.8
4.0
.
6. Power, Authority, and Governance.
4.1
1.1
4.1
1.1
4.0
.
7. How people organize for the Production, Distribution,
and Consumption of Goods and Services.
3.7
1.1
3.7
1.2
4.0
.
8. Science, Technology, and Society.
3.7
1.2
3.6
1.2
4.0
.
9. Global Connections and Interdependence.
4.2
0.9
4.1
0.9
5.0
.
10. Civic Ideals and Practices.
4.1
0.9
4.1
0.9
4.0
.
11. History.
4.3
0.6
4.3
0.6
4.0
.
12. Geography.
4.1
1.2
4.1
1.3
4.0
.
13. Civics and Government.
4.1
1.2
4.1
1.2
4.0
.
14. Economics.
3.3
1.5
3.5
1.4
1.0
.
15. Psychology.
2.9
1.5
3.0
1.5
2.0
.
16. Complete a course or courses that focus on the
pedagogical content knowledge that deals specifically
with the nature of the social studies and with ideas,
strategies, and techniques for teaching social studies at
the appropriate licensure level.
4.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
.
17. Have faculty in the social studies and social studies
education components of the program who are
recognized as a) exemplary teachers, b) scholars in the
fields of social studies and social studies education, and
c) informed about middle and secondary school
classrooms and teaching.
4.0
1.1
4.1
1.1
3.0
.
18. Assist students who are English language learners.
2.9
1.1
2.9
1.1
3.0
.
19. Assist students with special needs.
3.1
1.2
3.2
1.3
2.0
.
Only one response for TCPCG, so that there is no SD value.
56
In Table 45, the science alumni gave their greatest score for the standard for having a desire and
disposition for growth and betterment (4.5). Their lowest score, a 3.4, was given to both
creating a community of diverse learners who construct meaning from their science experiences
and possessing a disposition for further exploration and learning and to constructing and using
effective assessment strategies to determine the backgrounds and achievements of learners and
facilitating their intellectual, social, and personal development. IB/M alumni gave a 4.3, their
highest score of the science standards, to requiring and promoting knowledge and respect for
safety, and overseeing the welfare of all living things used in the classroom or found in the
field, as well as to having a desire and disposition for growth and betterment. Their lowest
rating was a 2.5 given for creating a community of diverse learners who construct meaning from
their science experiences and possess a disposition for further exploration and learning. The
highest score given by TCPCG alumni was a 4.6 for having a desire and disposition for growth
and betterment, while their lowest score, a 3.4, was given for assisting students who are English
language learners.
TABLE 45
Science Standards
M
SD
M
IB/M
SD
TCPCG
M
SD
4.0
0.4
3.8
0.5
4.1
0.4
4.2
0.4
4.0
0.0
4.3
0.5
4.2
0.4
4.0
0.0
4.3
0.5
3.8
1.0
3.8
0.5
3.9
1.2
4.0
0.8
4.0
0.8
4.0
0.8
3.6
0.5
3.5
0.6
3.7
0.5
3.8
0.6
3.5
0.6
4.0
0.6
4.3
0.5
4.3
0.5
4.3
0.5
3.7
0.6
3.5
0.6
3.9
0.7
3.4
1.0
2.5
1.0
3.9
0.7
3.8
0.6
3.8
0.5
3.9
0.7
Total
Standards
1. Understand and can articulate the knowledge and
practices of contemporary science.
2. Can interrelate and interpret important concepts, ideas,
and applications in my fields of licensure.
3. Can conduct scientific investigations.
4. Engage students effectively in studies of the history,
philosophy, and practice of science.
5. Enable students to distinguish science from non-science,
understand the evolution and practice of science as a
human endeavor, and critically analyze assertions made
in the name of science.
6. Engage students both in studies of various methods of
scientific inquiry and in active learning through scientific
inquiry.
7. Encourage students, individually and collaboratively, to
observe, ask questions, design inquiries, and collect and
interpret data in order to develop concepts and
relationships from empirical experiences.
8. Recognize that informed citizens must be prepared to
make decisions and take action on contemporary scienceand technology-related issues of interest to the general
society.
9. Require students to conduct inquiries into the factual
basis of such issues and to assess possible actions and
outcomes based upon their goals and values.
10. Create a community of diverse learners who construct
meaning from their science experiences and possess a
disposition for further exploration and learning.
11. Use, and can justify, a variety of classroom
arrangements, groupings, actions, strategies, and
methodologies.
57
12. Plan and implement an active, coherent, and effective
curriculum that is consistent with the goals and
recommendations of the National Science Education
Standards.
13. Begin with the end in mind and effectively incorporate
contemporary practices and resources into my planning
and teaching.
14. Relate my discipline to my local and regional
communities, involving stakeholders and using the
individual, institutional, and natural resources of the
community in my teaching.
15. Actively engage students in science-related studies or
activities related to locally important issues.
16. Construct and use effective assessment strategies to
determine the backgrounds and achievements of learners
and facilitate their intellectual, social, and personal
development.
17. Assess students fairly and equitably, and require that
students engage in ongoing self-assessment.
18. Organize safe and effective learning environments that
promote the success of students and the welfare of all
living things.
19. Require and promote knowledge and respect for safety,
and oversee the welfare of all living things used in the
classroom or found in the field.
20. Strive continuously to grow and change, personally and
professionally, to meet the diverse needs of my students,
school, community, and profession.
21. Have a desire and disposition for growth and betterment.
22. Assist students who are English language learners.
23. Assist students with special needs.
58
3.8
0.9
3.5
0.6
4.0
1.0
3.7
0.5
3.5
0.6
3.9
0.4
3.8
1.0
3.5
1.0
4.0
1.0
3.6
0.9
3.3
0.5
3.9
1.1
3.4
0.7
3.0
0.8
3.6
0.5
3.7
0.6
3.5
0.6
3.9
0.7
4.0
0.8
3.8
1.3
4.1
0.4
4.3
0.5
4.3
0.5
4.3
0.5
4.1
0.8
3.8
1.0
4.3
0.8
4.5
0.7
4.3
1.0
4.6
0.5
3.5
3.8
0.7
0.4
3.8
4.0
0.5
0.0
3.4
3.7
0.8
0.5
The standard given the highest total rating was a 4.3 on a scale of 1-5 for knowing,
understanding, and applying the process of mathematical problem solving for mathematics
alumni. In contrast, the lowest score was a 3.2 for demonstrating a conceptual understanding
of limit, continuity, differentiation, and integration and a thorough background in the
techniques and application of the calculus. IB/M alumni assigned their highest score, which
was a 4.2, to the following standards: apply and use measurement concepts and tools; know,
understand, and apply the process of mathematical problem solving; communicate my
mathematical thinking orally and in writing to peers, faculty, and others; and support a positive
disposition toward mathematical processes and mathematical learning. The lowest score given
by IB/M alumni was a 2.9 for the standard of demonstrating a conceptual understanding of
limit, continuity, differentiation, and integration and having a thorough background in the
techniques and application of the calculus. TCPCG alumni awarded a perfect score of 5.0 to
the following standards: know, understand, and apply the process of mathematical problem
solving; demonstrate computational proficiency, including a conceptual understanding of
numbers, ways of representing number, relationships among number and number systems, and
meanings of operations; and emphasize relationships among quantities including functions,
ways of representing mathematical relationships, and the analysis of change. TCPCG alumni
gave their lowest score, 2.5, for assisting students with special needs (see Table 46).
TABLE 46
Mathematics Standards
IB/M
Total
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Know, understand, and apply the process of
mathematical problem solving.
4.3
0.8
4.2
0.8
5.0
0.0
Reason, construct, and evaluate mathematical
arguments and develop an appreciation for
mathematical rigor and inquiry.
3.9
0.8
3.9
0.9
4.0
0.0
Communicate my mathematical thinking orally and in
writing to peers, faculty, and others.
4.1
0.8
4.2
0.8
3.5
0.7
Recognize, use, and make connections between and
among mathematical ideas and in contexts outside
mathematics to build mathematical understanding.
3.8
0.8
3.8
0.8
4.0
1.4
Use varied representations of mathematical ideas to
support and deepen students’ mathematical
understanding.
4.0
0.8
4.0
0.8
4.0
1.4
Embrace technology as an essential tool for teaching
and learning mathematics.
3.8
0.9
3.7
0.9
4.5
0.7
Support a positive disposition toward mathematical
processes and mathematical learning.
4.2
0.6
4.2
0.6
4.0
0.0
Possess a deep understanding of how students learn
mathematics and of the pedagogical knowledge
3.8
0.9
3.8
0.8
3.5
2.1
Standards
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
TCPCG
59
specific to mathematics teaching and learning.
9.
Demonstrate computational proficiency, including a
conceptual understanding of numbers, ways of
representing number, relationships among number and
number systems, and meanings of operations.
4.2
0.8
4.1
0.9
5.0
0.0
10. Emphasize relationships among quantities including
functions, ways of representing mathematical
relationships, and the analysis of change.
4.2
0.7
4.1
0.7
5.0
0.0
11. Use spatial visualization and geometric modeling to
explore and analyze geometric shapes, structures, and
their properties.
3.9
0.9
3.9
0.9
4.0
1.4
12. Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of limit,
continuity, differentiation, and integration and a
thorough background in the techniques and application
of the calculus.
3.2
1.2
2.9
1.1
4.5
0.7
13. Apply the fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in
the formulation and solution of problems.
3.4
1.0
3.1
1.0
4.5
0.7
3.9
1.0
3.8
1.0
4.5
15. Apply and use measurement concepts and tools.
4.2
0.7
4.2
0.8
4.5
0.7
16. Complete field-based experiences in mathematics
classrooms.
3.9
0.9
3.8
1.0
4.5
0.7
17. Assist students who are English language learners.
3.4
1.3
3.4
1.2
3.0
2.8
18. Assist students with special needs.
3.3
1.2
3.4
1.1
2.5
2.1
14. Demonstrate an understanding of concepts and
practices related to data analysis, statistics, and
probability.
Note: only 2 responses for TCPCG, some SD values are 0.
60
0.7
Table 47 displays the highest rating for world language standards, which was a 4.6 for knowing
the value of foreign language learning to the overall success of all students and understanding
that the teacher will need to become advocates with students, colleagues, and members of the
community to promote the field. The lowest rating that was given, a 3.4, was for interpreting
and reporting the results of student performances to all stakeholders and providing opportunity
for discussion.
Those in IB/M determined the standards that they were most comfortable with were for
integrating knowledge of other disciplines into foreign language instruction and identifying
distinctive viewpoints through the target language, and to know the linguistic elements of the
target language system, recognize the changing nature of language, and accommodate for gaps in
my own knowledge of the target language system by learning on my own with scores of 4.8.
The standards given the lowest rating were for interpreting and reporting the results of student
performances to all stakeholders and providing opportunity for discussion and for using
standards and curricular goals to evaluate, select, design, and adapt instructional resources.
TCPCG alumni gave a 5.0, the highest rating, to the following standards: demonstrate a high
level of proficiency in the target language, and seek opportunity to strengthen my proficiency;
demonstrate an understanding of the goal areas and standards of the Standards for Foreign
Language Learning and my state standards, and integrate these frameworks into curriculum
planning; integrate the Standards for Foreign Language Learning and my state standards into
language instruction. Their lowest rating was a 2.5 given to assisting students with special
needs.
TABLE 47
World Language Standards
Total
Standards
Demonstrate a high level of proficiency in the target
language, and seek opportunity to strength my
proficiency.
IB/M
TCPCG
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
4.2
0.7
4.5
0.6
5.0
0.0
2.
Know the linguistic elements of the target language
system, recognize the changing nature of language, and
accommodate for gaps in my own knowledge of the
target language system by learning on my own.
4.3
0.7
4.8
0.5
4.0
0.0
3.
Know the similarities and differences between the target
language and other languages, identify the key
differences in varieties of the target language, and seek
opportunities to learn about varieties of the target
language on my own.
4.4
0.7
4.5
1.0
3.5
0.7
4.
Demonstrate that I understand the connections among the
perspectives of a culture and its practices and products,
and integrate the cultural framework for foreign language
4.3
0.7
4.5
1.0
4.0
1.4
1.
61
standards into my instructional practices.
5.
Recognize the value and role of literary and cultural texts
and use them to interpret and reflect upon the
perspectives of the target cultures over time.
4.3
0.7
4.5
1.0
4.0
1.4
6.
Integrate knowledge of other disciplines into foreign
language instruction and identify distinctive viewpoints
through the target language.
4.3
0.9
4.8
0.5
4.5
0.7
7.
Demonstrate an understanding of language acquisition at
various developmental levels and use this knowledge to
create a supportive classroom learning environment that
includes target language input and opportunities for
negotiation of meaning and meaningful interaction.
4.0
1.1
4.5
1.0
4.0
0.0
8.
Develop a variety of instructional practices that reflect
language outcomes and articulated program models and
address the needs of diverse language learners.
4.0
1.1
4.5
1.0
3.5
2.1
9.
Demonstrate an understanding of the goal areas and
standards of the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning and my state standards, and integrate these
frameworks into curriculum planning.
3.8
1.3
3.5
1.7
5.0
0.0
10.
Integrate the Standards for Foreign Language Learning
and my state standards into language instruction.
3.8
1.3
3.5
1.7
5.0
0.0
11.
Use standards and curricular goals to evaluate, select,
design, and adapt instructional resources.
3.7
1.4
3.0
1.8
4.0
1.4
Believe that assessment is ongoing, and demonstrate
knowledge of multiple ways of assessment that are age12.
and level-appropriate by implementing purposeful
measures.
3.9
1.3
3.5
1.7
4.5
0.7
Reflect on the results of student assessments, adjust
instruction accordingly, analyze the results of
13.
assessments, and use success and failure to determine the
direction of instruction.
4.2
0.8
4.3
1.0
4.5
0.7
Interpret and report the results of student performances to
all stakeholders and provide opportunity for discussion.
3.4
1.3
3.0
1.8
4.5
0.7
Engage in professional development opportunities that
15. strengthen my own linguistic and cultural competence
and promote reflection on practice.
4.4
0.7
4.5
1.0
4.5
0.7
Know the value of foreign language learning to the
overall success of all students and understand that I will
16.
need to become advocates with students, colleagues, and
members of the community to promote the field.
4.6
0.7
4.5
1.0
4.5
0.7
17. Assist students who are English language learners.
4.1
1.1
4.3
1.0
3.0
2.8
18. Assist students with special needs.
3.9
1.2
3.8
1.3
2.5
2.1
14.
Only 2 responses for TCPCG, so some SD values are 0.
62
Overall Quality
The final section posed questions regarding the overall quality of the Teacher Education
Program.
Q5a: What is the likelihood of the graduates choosing to attend UConn again?
Table 48 shows that 90.1% of the total alumni from the UConn teacher education program would
choose to attend UConn again. Of the IB/M graduates, 90.2% would make the same choice to
attend UConn, and 96.6% of those in the TCPCG program would make this same decision.
Table 49 shows that 100% of special education, English, and mathematics program alumni
would choose to attend UConn again. Of the elementary education graduates, 93.8% said they
would choose UConn again, as well as 93.4% in secondary education, 92.3% in social studies,
83.3% in foreign languages, music, and science, and 33.3% in agriculture. Because there are
only three in agriculture, results should be cautiously interpreted.
TABLE 48
Likelihood of Alumni Choosing to Attend UConn Again: Overall and by Program
Total
Yes
No
Missing
IB/M
TCPCG
N
%
N
%
N
%
118
90.1
83
90.2
28
96.6
10
7.6
8
8.7
1
3.4
3
2.3
1
1.1
0
0.0
TABLE 49
Likelihood of Alumni Choosing to Attend UConn Again, If Possible by Field
% of Yes
Yes
No
Missing
ElemEd
SpEd
SecEd
Agr
93.8
100
93.4
33.3
30
10
57
1
18
5
10
2
0
3
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eng
ForL
100
83.3
63
Ma
Mu
Sci
SS
100
83.3
83.3
92.3
5
10
12
1
2
1
0
0
0
Q5b: What is the grade for the overall quality of the Teacher Education Program?
The majority of alumni would give the Teacher Education Program a grade of “A” (51.9%) or
“B” (38.2%). This includes most alumni of the IB/M program (“A,” 52.2%, “B,” 39.1%) and
TCPCG (“A,”58.6%, “B” 34.5%), (see Table 50).
TABLE 50
Grade for Overall Quality of Teacher Education Program Overall and by Program
Previous Year
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
Missing
Total
IB/M
TCPCG
N
147
%
54.0
N
%
N
%
N
%
68
51.9
48
52.2
17
58.6
93
34.2
50
38.2
36
39.1
10
34.5
24
4
1
3
8.8
1.5
0.4
1.1
7
2
4
0
5.3
1.5
3.1
0
5
1
2
0
5.4
1.1
2.2
0
2
0
0
0
6.9
0
0
0
As Table 51 shows, the majority of alumni in the fields of elementary education, secondary
education, and English would give the teacher education program an overall score of “A.” In
elementary education, 59.4% gave an “A” score, while 52.5% in secondary education and 66.7%
in English gave this score. Those giving a “B" score made up 37.5% of elementary education
alumni, 39.3% of secondary education alumni, and 33.3% of English alumni.
TABLE 51
Grade for Overall Quality of Teacher Education Program by Field
ElemEd
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
Missing
N
Eng
SecEd
%
N
%
N
%
19
59.4
32
52.5
12
66.7
12
37.5
24
39.3
6
33.3
1
3.1
4
6.6
0
0
0
0
1
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Only programs with sample size > 15 are included.
C DF
B
A
B
C
D
F
A
64
Figure B. Pie chart for overall quality of the Teacher Education Program.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this study was to gather information from alumni of the Neag Teacher
Preparation Program, who graduated between 2003 and 2007, about their backgrounds, current
employment, beliefs about education, and their perceptions of the program. These results are
intended to be used to improve these programs and enhance pupil achievement. Background
information obtained from these alumni indicated a fairly homogenous population, with the
majority of alumni being Caucasian (83.2%), female (79.4%) native English speakers (87%).
Overall, the alumni had positive opinions about their training programs at UConn and towards
the field of education, with 93.1% continuing to be involved in the field of education. Most of
the alumni 90.1%, said they would choose UConn again for their training, and there were
generally strong satisfaction ratings for most of the program components. Additionally, 51.9%
gave their program a grade of “A,” and 38.2% graded their program with a “B.”
65