THE NEAG SCHOOL OF
EDUCATION’S TEACHER
PREPARATION PROGRAM:
1994–2006 ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS
Mary E. Yakimowski, Qing Li, and Heather Nicholson
In conjunction with the TNE Assessment Committee
March 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to gather information from
alumni of the Neag Teacher Preparation Programs in order
to improve the programs and enhance pupil achievement.
This survey is 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.
Participants in this survey were alumni from 1994 to 2006
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
1,460 alumni of which 71.5% were from the IB/M program
and 28.5% from TCPCG. The total response rate estimated
was 19%.
Research questions focused on alumni satisfaction with
multi-faceted aspects of their teacher education program
including diversity.
For the procedure, individuals were mailed a hard copy and
had the option to complete it on-line. A total of 47%
completed the paper-based survey form and 53%
completed the survey on-line.
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 ttests are reported at the .05 level and effect sizes were
calculated using the Cohen’s d formula.
The results produced the following highlights.

 What were there reflections about the teaching
training program?
In general, alumni feel satisfied with most aspects of
their teacher training program.
Alumni were most satisfied with training received in
areas such as their content area specialty, creating
meaningful learning experiences, educating students with
diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds, and using
different pedagogical approaches.
They were least satisfied with learning how to work
effectively with parents, classroom management skills,
teaching students in special education/English language
learners, handling paperwork, and time management.
Respondents rated the level of importance of the aspects
of teacher training higher than their level of satisfaction.
Also, using a “1 to 5” scale, alumni rate the Neag School
of Education highest for the quality of teaching
(mean=4), student teaching experiences (mean=4), and
overall preparation (mean=4.1). They rate the lowest for
cooperation among schools (mean=3.0) and quality of
advising (mean=3.6).
 What were their reflections about being a teacher?
A total of 90.1% respondents are currently involved
in the field of education; 41.2% teach at the secondary
level and 25.7% at elementary level. In addition, 84.2%
enjoy working with students and 81.3% feel rewarded
when students learn.
Reasons to leave education include feeling burnout
(4.4%) and changing career interests (3.7%).
What are some background statistics?
The majority of respondents were women (78.7%),
white (88.2%), and speak English as a primary language
(90.0%). A total of 21.3% respondents earned an additional
degree subsequent to teacher certification while 46%
respondents planed to enroll in an advanced degree
program. More IB/M respondents earned an additional
degree or plan to do advanced degree (19.7% and 47.9%,
respectively) than TCPCG (15.4%, 30.8%).
i
 How do they “grade” the Neag School of
Education?
Ninety-two percent of the alumni would attend the
University of Connecticut again if they could repeat their
previous experience. Overall the alumni grade the
teaching training program very high, with 54% “A” and
on an “A-F” scale.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………….
National Perspective ………………………………………………………......
State Perspective ………………………………………………………………
University Perspective ………………………………………………………...
Teachers for a New Era Perspective …………………………………………..
University of Connecticut’s Past Findings …………………………………….
METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………...
Participants …………………………………………………………………….
Instrumentation ………………………………………………………………..
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………
Procedures ……………………………………………………………………..
RESULTS ……………………………………………………………...
Page
1
2
2
4
4
5
6
6
8
9
11
Background Information ………………………………………………………
Reflection on Teacher Education Program ……………………………………
Reflections on You as a Teacher ………………………………………………
Qualitative Evaluation of the Program ………………………………………...
Grade for Overall Quality ……………………………………………………..
11
12
15
31
35
38
SUMMARY …………………………………………………………….
41
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………..
43
APPENDIX A: THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT…………………………….
45
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Page(s)
Table 1
Personal Background Information
12
Table 2
Professional Background Information
13
Table 3
Respondents’ Year of Graduation
13
Table 4
Respondents’ Year of Graduation by Program
14
Table 5
Respondents’ Level of Education Attained by the Parents
14
Table 6
Overall Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components
16
Table 7
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components
17
Table 8
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings
18
Table 9
Overall Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components by IB/M
Alumni
20
Table 10
Overall Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components by TCPCG
Alumni
21
Table 11
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components by IB/M
Alumni
22
Table 12
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components by TCPCG
Alumni
23
Table 13
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings by IB/M Alumni
24
Table 14
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings by TCPCG Alumni
25
Table 15
Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Selected Diversity
Statements
26
Table 16
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching
Profession
27
Table 17
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching
Profession for IB/M Alumni
28
Table 18
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching
Profession for TCPCG Alumni
28
Table 19
Overall Ratings of the Neag School
29
Table 20
Overall Ratings of the Neag School by IB/M Alumni
30
iii
Table 21
Overall Ratings of the Neag School by TCPCG Alumni
31
Table 22
Teacher Education Program Component Completed
32
Table 23
Current Involvement in the Field of Education
32
Table 24
Grade Level Currently Taught by Neag Alumni
33
Table 25
Type of Teaching Position Currently Held by Neag Alumni
33
Table 26
Overall Explanations for Involvement in Field of Education
34
Table 27
Explanations for Involvement in Field of Education by Program
35
Table 28
Likelihood of Alumni Choosing to Attend UConn again, If Possible
38
Table 29
Grade for Overall Quality of Teacher Education Program
39
Table 30
Ratings for Satisfaction with Aspects of Program by Subgroup
Dissatisfied
40
iv
NEAG SCHOOL OF EDUCATION’S
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
1994–2006 ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS
Mary E. Yakimowski, Qing Li, and Heather Nicholoson,
March, 2008
Teachers who graduated from the Neag School of Education’s Teacher Preparation
Program at the University of Connecticut (UConn) from 1994-2006 were asked to
complete a survey in December. The purpose of this report is to summarize the results.
INTRODUCTION
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.
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.
1
Herein referred to as the Neag School.
1
Pertinent information such as perspectives from the national and state levels, scholarly
writing, and UConn information obtained from past surveys was integrated in order to
facilitate the development of a stakeholder survey of alumni.
National Perspective
What do we know from the national perspective about teacher statistics?
The U.S. Department of Education estimates “the demand for public school teachers will
Increase dramatically over the next 10 years. This will occur at the same time as a large
portion of baby-boomers who entered the teacher profession in the late 1960s and early
1970s became eligible for retirement.” (CSDE, p. 1)
Current evidence suggests there is a decline in the number of individuals pursuing a
career in the field of education. As a result, federal agencies, such as the Institute for
Education Sciences (IES) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), are
engaged in collecting data regarding teacher retention and preparation. Results from such
studies may help improve teacher education programs and, consequently, may also
enhance student achievement.
Among their numerous studies, the IES administered a survey in 2004-05 to 7,429
current and former elementary and secondary school teachers throughout the U.S. as part
of the Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS). The goal of the TFS was to provide information
regarding teacher attrition and mobility and compare characteristics of teachers who stay
in the field of education with those who leave. Results for public school teachers
indicated that during the 2003-04 academic year, 84% of teachers stayed at the same
school, and 8% moved to a different school and left the profession entirely. Of those
teachers who moved, 38% attributed the decision to leave to the opportunity for a better
teaching assignment. Of those teachers who left the profession, 31% rated retirement and
25% rated pursing a position other than that of a teacher as very important in the decision
to leave the field of education. In addition, 25% of private school teachers who left the
profession cited pregnancy and child rearing as reasons for leaving. Finally, 55% of
public school teachers who left teaching but continued to work within the field of
education indicated more feelings of control over their work in the new position as
compared to teaching.
State Perspective
What are the teacher statistics in Connecticut? How is the State of Connecticut doing in
the supply and demand of teachers? Do we see the same pattern as the national trend?
What else do we know about the State’s new teachers?
The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) publishes staffing statistics
annually. The last available year, 2006-2007, indicates there were 48,562 and 2,883
administrators in Connecticut.
The CSDE also published a comprehensive study of public school educator supply and
demand in 2000. They found a similar trend in Connecticut to the national trend. For the
2
year used in this study, there were 51,726 teachers in Connecticut, of which 73.7% are
female, 7.4% were minority, 4.6% were first year, 20.7% were 55 or older, and the
average age was 44.3. Results revealed that Connecticut will have an adequate supply of
candidates to fill positions in elementary education, language arts, history and social
studies, other teachers (e.g., driver education), and pupil personnel. However, the study
cited a projected demand for mathematics, reading, applied education, world languages,
the arts, physical sciences, speech and language, library media specialist, health/physical
education, and special education teachers.
Additionally, the CSDE looks at evidence regarding the performance of beginning
teachers which may be used to inform current teacher retention findings.2 The Beginning
Educator Support and Training (BEST) Program, implemented in 1989, helps beginning
teachers by providing support through a mentor. The new teacher must able to
demonstrate professional standards and competencies in order to qualify for continued
certification. Thus, the goals of the BEST program are to provide support for new
teachers to increase the likelihood of remaining in the field of education and to promote
learning for Connecticut students by ensuring quality teaching practices are used by
public school educators.
The BEST Program reports the results from the performance for beginning teachers who
submitted portfolios in the spring of 2003 represented 1,747 teachers and includes both
portfolio scores and results from a survey of teacher attitudes toward the portfolio
assessment. Key findings show that only 1.5% of new teachers do not meet the portfolio
assessment standards within three years and beginning teachers report feeling satisfied
with the support from their mentors, as well as other individuals within the schools.
Approximately one quarter of beginning teachers were employed in priority school
districts (13 districts that they tend have low test performance) did not perform as well in
the portfolio assessment compared to their peers in more affluent school districts. Finally,
more than 90% of new teachers felt the portfolio allowed them to assess student learning
and demonstrate their skills in instruction design and implementation however only 75%
felt the portfolio allowed them to demonstrate skills in classroom management. Overall,
such findings suggest the BEST program is successfully meeting its support and
assessment goals and identifies areas where more research is needed, such as the
discrepancy in scores among priority and affluent school districts.
Also, most administrative positions are generally filled from the teacher ranks. Evidence
regarding retention and attrition within Connecticut also suggests a decline in the number
of individuals entering the field of education, specifically in educational administration.
(CSDE, n.d.) Research in the area suggests that the problem relates not to inadequate
numbers of certified candidates but rather to a disinterest in administrative positions
among qualified candidates. In response to such findings, a group of Connecticut
educators was gathered in 2000 to form the Committee on the Future of School
Leadership in Connecticut. The committee charge was to develop recommendations for
recruiting and retaining highly qualified leaders in Connecticut’s public elementary and
secondary schools. Committee recommendations fell into the two broad categories of: a)
job design and compensation and b) recruitment, training, and retention. The committee
2
See http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/BEST/begininngteachingguide/bt_guide.pdf.
3
suggested improving the clarity of leadership roles within schools, enhanced
compensation, revisions to the retirement system, and state-funded incentive grants for
school districts to redesign and implement new models of administration. They also
suggested developing succession plans for identifying potential leaders, implementing an
induction program to provide support to beginning administrators, creating professional
development opportunities specifically for administrators, and providing alternative
routes to certification which also reduce the teaching experience requirement to four
years. Such proposed changes would not eliminate the issue of retention in education but
could result in greater numbers of qualified leaders within the field.
University Perspective
What can we learn from the university perspective?
Institutions of higher education involved with teacher preparation programs frequently
perform self-assessments in an effort to ensure the highest quality educational experience
for students. Often these assessments are connected with program evaluation. Some
primary benefits of program evaluation include increasing student satisfaction and
improving decision-making (Hadley & Mitchell, 1995), ensuring teacher preparation
programs are responsive to the changing needs of K-12 schools (Ayers, 1988; Holste &
Matthews, 1993), and influencing public perception of the field of education (Andrew &
Schwab, 1993). Surveying students and the subsequent development of alumni databases
enables education programs to collect and archive information which may be used to
evaluate current practices and inform plans for the future (Davidson-Shivers, Inpornjivit,
& Sellers, 2004).
Alumni feedback from universities has also been used to identify three critical issues in
teacher education: (1) the relationship of theory to practice, (2) classroom management,
and (3) social-psychological issues in teacher education and preparation (Delaney, 1995).
Teachers for A New Era Perspective
Over the last five years, institutions such as UConn in the Teacher for A New Era (TNE)
consortium sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York over the last five years
(such as UConn) administer entrance, exit, and alumni surveys to collect information
critical to the future development of their programs. Information obtained from TNE
surveys includes graduate perspectives regarding their preparation for teaching, current
employment experiences, challenges faced in their first years teaching, support received
in their first years of teaching, and areas where more support is needed (Bank Street
College, 2007; Boston College, 2007; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2007).
Survey responses allow TNE institutions to make necessary programmatic and curricular
changes in the teacher preparation programs.
One example of a study is the UConn TNE project that surveyed a national sample of 727
educators regarding what characteristics excellent teachers possess (Brown, Johnson,
Ioannou, & Maneggia, 2006). Results indicated that affective characteristics, such as
flexibility, humor, and caring, where rated more highly than characteristics related to
content knowledge or classroom management. Different perspectives on what attributes
4
make a teacher effective, such as those offered by the TNE study, may be combined with
findings from surveys of alumni to improve teacher preparation programs. These
improvements have the potential to create widespread impact on crucial issues in the field
of education, such as teacher retention and student achievement.
University of Connecticut’s Past Findings
In the past, what did alumni data tell us about UConn?
We have found three sources of information at UConn tied to our alumni: the annual
survey of the UConn Office of Institutional Research (OIR), prior and current surveys
from the Neag School, and TNE evidence.
Since 1979, the OIR has administered an annual general survey of recent graduates with
undergraduate degrees which serves as an outcome measure for the university. The
survey provides information regarding the academic experience of recent graduates and
allows them to report on current activities. Results are provided in aggregate form, as
well as at the department level. For example, according to the most recent general survey
analyzed from the Neag School (OIR, 2006), 44% of respondents decided to major in
education before entering college. In addition, 75% of respondents from the Neag School
never once changed their major. Graduates from the Neag School reported feeling most
satisfied with the overall experience with courses in their major field and less satisfied
with the overall experience with general education requirements and required courses
outside their major. The majority of Neag School graduates (95.9%) would recommend
UConn to friends or relatives.
The Neag School also has a history of generating succinct alumni survey reports back to
the 1970s and 1980s (School of Education, 1980, 1982). The total number of graduates
has varied considerably according to these reports. The graduating class in teacher
education in 1973 was 488; in 1980 there were 235 in the graduating class. It is quite
interesting to read these typed reports with hand draw charts. For example, in 1982, it
was reported that “73% of the graduates responded to the survey.” Sixty-three percent of
these responses indicated employment in the field of education. Some comments from
these students reflected a desire for classroom management techniques, more content
areas courses outside the Neag School, and an increase in methods courses.
In the late 1990’s, the IB/M Evaluation Committee conducted two student and faculty
surveys of the IB/M and TCPCG programs (Gable & Campbell, 1997; Campbell, 1998).
This allowed for a look at the program quantitatively and qualitatively. These studies
presented categorical and thematic areas of excellence and opportunities for review and
improvement. For example, students identified clinical experiences as an area well done.
Areas for consideration for improvement were expectations, opportunities for greater
flexibility, increased advisement, and wider acceptance of diversity.
More recently, the Neag Dean’s Office administered and analyzed alumni survey data.
Three years ago an alumni survey was given to all 2004 graduates of the IB/M and
TCPCG programs. Retention data was collected via telephone inquiry and a
comprehensive survey regarding graduate preparation was sent out in two mailings. The
5
survey aimed to gather data regarding alumni satisfaction with their program, educational
preparation for specific skills, and the quality of faculty relationships. This survey yielded
a 42% response rate. Demographic information revealed that the majority of respondents
were white (82%), female (88%), and graduated from the IB/M program (85%). Of the
respondents, 98% were employed in the field of education, with 86% teaching in
Connecticut. The majority of respondents felt the teacher preparation program prepared
them very well for their current position (60%), felt very satisfied with their overall
UConn educational experience (55%), and would choose the same career if they had the
opportunity to choose again (94%). Based on the qualitative data, respondents indicated
classroom management and the integration of technology to enhance K-12 learning as
areas for improvement in the program; one of two areas cited in the 1982 results.
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, pertinent university scholarship, and
UConn data, a survey was developed with three goals in mind: (1) finding out 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. The resulting survey would also
aim to find out what alumni believe worked well within the program and what aspects
needed improvement.
Participants
The Teacher Preparation Program alumni from 1994 to 2006 were invited to complete the
survey. In order to contact the intended alumni, it was necessary to establish a database
with up-to-date contact information. The names of all students who received a degree
from the Neag School from 1994 to the 2006 were extracted from the UConn Graduate
School student database by the Neag School’s Director of Assessment. The database,
however, did not contain a record of current addresses.3 A total of 1,460 surveys were
mailed to the work address or, if unavailable, the home addresses. They were sent
December 12, 2006. Of these, 42 surveys were undeliverable due to an incorrect address.
A forwarding address was provided for 22 of the undeliverable surveys; a second survey
was sent to each forwarding address. On February 1, 2007 reminder post-cards were sent
to approximately 1,000 alumni. The survey due date was February 15, 2007 but we
continued to incorporate those that were received through April, 2007. The total response
rate estimated was 19%, with 71.5% of the responses from the IB/M program and 28.5%
from TCPCG.
3
Working in conjunction with those involved with ethics for the university, it was then determined that a computer file
with names and social security could be hand delivered by the Neag Director of Assessment to an individual at the
Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). Contact was made to UConn’s OIR for social security numbers of
these individuals and to the CSDE for school addresses. The resulting file of names, social security numbers, and
extracted school addresses was picked up by the Director of Assessment. Additionally, the social security information
was plunged. Because only those employed within a public school setting were in the file, the UConn Foundation was
contacted to obtain other alumni data. Finally, a by-hand process was used to identify address duplicates, marriagerelated name changes, and other reasons for address changes thus leading to the final database.
6
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
Graduate
survey
Figure Figure
A. GraphicA:
depiction
of the first
two majorgraphic
areas of questions, reflections on your teacher education program and on you as a
teacher, on the survey.
7
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.
The first sections of the survey, reflections on your teacher education program, consist of
ratings of the Neag School, including the curriculum and student experiences. On the first
question, alumni indicate their level of satisfaction with their preparation in specific areas
and how important each area should be in preparing teachers. Satisfaction and importance
were each rated using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=Very Dissatisfied to
5=Very Satisfied and 1=Not At All Important to 5=Very Important, respectively. For
example, the first question stated, “First, how satisfied were you with your Neag teacher
preparation regarding: the content and/or area specialty. Second, how important do you
think the following should be in preparing teachers?”
In the second tier of questions, satisfaction was again rated using a five-point Likert scale
ranging from 1=Very Dissatisfied to 5=Very Satisfied. For example, the first question
stated “In your opinion, how satisfied are you with how well the Neag School of
Education teacher preparation program prepared you to understand how students learn?”
The third tier of question rated characteristics of the Neag School, such as sense of
community with other students, faculty involvement with students, quality of advising,
and job readiness of students, again using a five-point Likert scale which ranged from
1=Poor to 5=Excellent. Four open-ended questions then addressed the most and least
valuable aspects of the Teacher Education Program, what was missing from the program,
and whether the alumni would attend UConn again. Finally, alumni were asked to
provide a grade, ranging from A to F, for the overall quality of the Neag Teacher
Preparation Program.
The second major section of the survey, reflections on you as a teacher, consists of
general information regarding the status of the alumni’s current employment and
involvement in the field of education. Specifically, alumni are asked to indicate from
which program they graduated, if they are currently working in the field of education and,
if so, what area and grade level they currently teach. Two separate questions then address
the reasons why alumni are or are not currently involved in the field of education.
Respondents are instructed to choose all of the applicable options and are offered a space
to provide further reasoning. For those alumni working in the field of education, space is
provided to list three professional development opportunities in which they would be
interested.
In the three major section of the survey, background information, alumni answered
forced choice questions regarding their gender, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken,
and the level of education attained by each parent. An open response format is then
available for alumni to indicate in what year they graduated from UConn, in what state
and community they currently work, and whether they have earned an advanced degree
8
or are considering obtaining an advanced degree. Finally, alumni are asked to share any
additional information tied to the Teacher Preparation Program or their current career that
was not included in the survey. Background information was included as the final section
to avoid both fatigue and activation of possible bias in the alumni.
While the basic model was based on a previous alumni survey from the Dean’s Office
and another used by the TNE project, for review and modification, this survey was
distributed to members of the 2006-2007 TNE Assessment Committee members which
represented a wide array of disciplines ranging from professors within the departments of
statistics, psychology, and education to employees of the Connecticut State Department
of Education and local districts, as well as current students and graduate assistants.4 The
final version of the alumni survey includes items relevant to the university-wide diversity
initiative and is the result of a collaborative effort between numerous individual members
of the UConn community.
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:
A.
What are the gender, ethnicity, and primary language of the
respondents?
B.
What is the professional background information of the
respondents?
C.
In which year did the respondents’ graduate?
D.
What are the levels of education attained by the parents of the
respondents?
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.
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?
4
TNE Assessment Committee members in 2006-2007 developing this survey were: Michael Alfano, Francis
Archambault, Scott Brown, Andre Chabot, Sandra Chafouleas, Dipak Dey, Jay Dixon, Bill Farr, Patricia Jepson, Al
Larson, Xing Lui, Joe Madaus, Betsy McCoach, Heather Nicholson, Mark Olson, Peter Prowda, Rosalyn Reese, Darcy
Robinson, Jane Rogers, Yuhang Rong, Jason Stephens, Mary Truxaw, Jaci VanHeest, Mary Yakimowski (Chair);
Department Heads: Richard Bohannon, Barry Sheckley, Mary Doyle, Carl Maresh, Hariharan Swaminathan, Tom
DeFranco.
9
Q3:
Q4:
Q5:
E.
How do respondents feel about diversity preparation?
F.
What are the overall ratings for satisfaction with learning
about teaching?
G.
Any interesting patterns by IB/M and/or TCPCG alumni on
the overall ratings for satisfaction with learning about
teaching?
I.
What are the overall ratings of the Neag School for
satisfaction with qualities of the Neag School of Education?
J.
What are the overall ratings by IB/M and/or TCPCG alumni
on the overall ratings for satisfaction of the Neag School?
Reflections on you as a teacher
A.
From which teacher program did the respondents graduate?
B.
How many respondents are currently involved in the field of
education?
C.
What grade levels are taught by the respondents?
D.
What types of teaching positions are currently held by the
respondents?
E.
Why are the respondents involved in field of education?
Qualitative program evaluation
A.
What did you find most valuable about your teacher
education program?
B.
What did you find least valuable about your teacher
education program?
C.
What, if anything, was missing from your teacher education
program?
D.
If you could start over again, would you go to the same
institution, why?
E.
What three professional development opportunities would
you is interested in?
F.
Please tell us anything else tied to your teacher preparation
program or your career that is relevant that you would like to
share.
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?
10
Procedures
After contact information was located and the survey developed, alumni were sent a
“brochure.” This eight-page brochure included a cover letter which outlined the purpose
and use of the survey, and instructed participants to answer the questions as honestly as
possible as only group results would be analyzed. The cover letter provided instructions
for mail-in return, as well as the option to complete the survey on-line. It also had the
date by which responses must be received, and the general time results would be made
available on the Neag website. Additionally, a reminder post-card was sent to all
graduates with instructions for completing the computer-based survey form.
The chance to receive an incentive was offered to those who completed the survey, with a
higher likelihood of selection given to those who completed the computer-based form.
Alumni who completed the paper-based form received three chances at winning one of
10 amazon.com gift cards whereas those who completed the electronic version received
five chances at winning one of 10 gift cards.
Overall, of those alumni completing and returning the survey, 47% percent completed the
paper-based form and 53% completed the survey on-line. When paper-based surveys
were returned, they were entered into a database separate from that used to compile
responses to the computer-based survey. The two files were later merged into one SPSS
file and all quantitative data was analyzed using this software.
Summary results were analyzed by the two TNE 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. 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 by their assessment of the program
and descriptions of the self as an educator 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: Qualitative program evaluation, 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?
Alumni provided general background information regarding gender, race/ethnicity and
primary language. Results for personal background information indicates that the
majority of respondents are women (78.7%), white (88.2%), and speak English as a
primary language (90.0%). The same pattern holds regardless of Teacher Education
Program component (see Table 1).
TABLE 1
Personal Background Information
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
Total
N
%
214
78.7
47
17.3
11
4.0
IB/M
N
%
153 81.4
28
14.9
7
3.7
TCPCG
N
%
26
66.7
13
33.3
0
0.0
240
2
9
8
0
1
12
88.2
0.7
3.3
2.9
0.0
0.4
4.4
167
2
3
8
0
1
7
88.8
1.1
1.6
4.3
0
0.5
3.7
37
0
2
0
0
0
0
94.9
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
245
7
13
7
90.0
2.6
4.8
2.6
171
3
12
2
91.0
1.6
6.4
1.0
38
1
0
0
97.4
2.6
0.0
0.0
Q1b: What is the professional background information of the respondents?
In terms of professional background information, a minority of respondents have earned
an additional degree subsequent to teacher certification (21.3%). Approximately half
(46.0%) indicate that they plan to enroll in an advanced degree program (see Table 2).
12
TABLE 2
Professional Background Information
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
IB/M
TCPCG
N
58
198
16
%
21.3
72.8
5.9
N
37
141
10
%
19.7
75.0
5.3
N
6
33
0
%
15.4
84.6
0
125
134
13
46.0
49.3
4.8
90
88
10
47.9
46.8
5.3
12
27
0
30.8
69.2
0
Q1c: In which year did the respondents’ graduate?
The respondents graduated from 1994-2006 (see Table 3). The greatest number of
respondents are from the class of 2001 (n=17). Most respondents from the IB/M program
graduated in 2001 whereas the majority of respondents from the TCPCG program
graduated in 2005. Respondents to the current survey represent a small percentage of the
graduating class (see Table 4). The TCPCG program, in its current format, originated in
2003 however a nearly equivalent amount of pre-2003 and post-2003 graduates
responded to the current survey (pre-2003=52%, n=12; post-2003=48%, n=11).
TABLE 3
Respondents’ Year of Graduation
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Missing
Sample
N
% of Resp
2
0.7
0
0.0
1
0.4
2
0.7
9
3.3
7
2.6
14
5.1
17
6.3
12
4.4
9
3.3
6
2.2
13
4.8
11
4.0
169
62.1
13
Teacher Education
N
% of Total
175
1.2
177
0.0
179
0.6
150
1.3
181
4.9
173
4.0
161
8.7
157
10.8
147
8.2
161
5.6
181
4.9
164
7.9
167
6.6
*
*
TABLE 4
Respondents’ Year of Graduation by Program
IB/M
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Missing
N
1
0
0
0
6
5
8
13
9
8
3
7
5
123
%
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
2.7
4.2
6.9
4.8
4.2
1.5
3.7
2.7
65.4
TCPCG
N
%
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
2.6
1
2.6
1
2.6
1
2.6
3
7.7
2
5.1
3
7.7
0
0.0
2
5.1
6
15.4
3
7.7
16
41.0
Q1d: What are the levels of education attained by the parents of the respondents?
Alumni also provided information regarding the level of education attained by each of
their parents (see Table 5). In terms of mother’s education, most respondents indicated
their mother completed an undergraduate degree (26.5%). Results for the father’s
education differed very slightly, as most respondents indicated their father completed
either an undergraduate degree or a graduate degree (27.6%).
TABLE 5
Respondents Level of Education Attained by the Parents
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
14
Mother
N
%
10
3.7
67
24.6
8
2.9
55
20.2
72
26.5
60
22.1
3
1.1
0
0.0
Father
N
%
9
3.3
58
21.3
7
2.6
45
16.5
75
27.6
75
27.6
3
1.1
0
0.0
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?
Overall results indicated alumni feel satisfied with most aspects of their Teacher
Education Program (see Table 6). Respondents seem most satisfied with their preparation
in regard to the content area specialty (4.15) and creating meaningful learning
experiences for students (4.11) but least satisfied with the preparation for working
effectively with parents, and teaching students who are both in special education and
English language learners (2.89). Classroom management (3.13) and working with
English language learners was moderately low (3.11).
Alumni also indicated that all of the aspects included on the survey are important to very
important for preparing teachers (see Table 7). Those rated the highest were: classroom
management (4.77), degree of preparation (4.74), course content (4.62), and special
education (4.54).
15
TABLE 6
Overall Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components
Missing
M
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
1
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
4
4.15
.95
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
7
4.11
.88
3.
Classroom management skills.
3
3.11
1.22
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
3
3.41
1.15
5.
Working effectively with parents.
4
2.89
1.10
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
2
3.90
.97
7.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
5
3.46
1.09
8.
Teaching English language learners.
5
3.13
1.16
9.
Teaching special education students.
4
3.63
1.14
10.
6
2.89
1.07
11.
Teaching students who are both in special education and English language
learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
4
3.40
1.12
12.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
3
3.76
1.02
13.
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds.
4
3.81
1.00
14.
Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
5
3.62
1.03
15.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
7
3.74
1.00
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
6
3.91
1.04
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
6
3.87
.95
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
5
3.96
1.08
Note. 1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
16
2
(.7)
3
(1.1)
31
(11.4)
18
(6.6)
27
(9.9)
4
(1.5)
13
(4.8)
25
(9.2)
12
(4.4)
31
(11.4)
15
(5.5)
8
(2.9)
6
(2.2)
10
(3.7)
6
(2.2)
5
(1.8)
4
(1.5)
7
(2.6)
Very
Satisfied
2
23
(8.5)
12
(4.4)
58
(21.3)
41
(15.1)
74
(27.2)
24
(8.8)
38
(14.0)
55
(20.2)
37
(13.6)
58
(21.3)
46
(16.9)
22
(8.1)
23
(8.5)
22
(8.1)
26
(9.6)
24
(8.8)
18
(6.6)
26
(9.6)
3
24
(8.8)
35
(12.9)
67
(24.6)
73
(26.8)
90
(33.1)
47
(17.3)
78
(28.7)
83
(30.5)
60
(22.1)
103
(37.9)
70
(25.7)
66
(24.3)
60
(22.1)
86
(31.6)
62
(22.8)
54
(19.9)
62
(22.8)
39
(14.3)
4
104
(38.2)
119
(43.8)
77
(28.3)
88
(32.4)
55
(20.4)
116
(42.5)
90
(33.1)
69
(25.4)
89
(32.7)
58
(21.3)
92
(33.8)
104
(38.2)
106
(39.0)
91
(33.5)
107
(39.3)
91
(33.5)
106
(39.0)
93
(34.2)
5
115
(42.3)
96
(35.3)
36
(13.2)
49
(18.0)
22
(8.1)
79
(29.0)
48
(17.6)
35
(12.9)
70
(25.7)
16
(5.9)
45
(16.5)
69
(25.4)
73
(26.8)
58
(21.3)
64
(23.5)
92
(33.8)
72
(27.9)
102
(37.5)
TABLE 7
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components
Missing
M
SD
Not at all
Important
1
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
2
4.62
.66
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
4
4.50
.73
3.
Classroom management skills.
2
4.77
.50
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
4
4.13
.82
5.
Working effectively with parents.
6
4.36
.76
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
7
4.40
.69
7.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
6
3..91
.98
8.
Teaching English language learners.
8
3.79
.99
9.
Teaching special education students.
7
4.54
.70
1
16
80
166
(5.9)
(29.4)
(61.0)
17
(6.3)
19
(7.0)
71
(26.1)
59
(21.7)
86
(31.6)
125
(46.0)
84
(30.9)
60
(22.1)
5
(1.8)
11.
6
3.83
.90
3
(1.1)
12.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
6
4.23
.85
3
(1.1)
5
4.23
.85
14.
Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
7
4.10
.88
15.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
8
4.17
.87
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
8
4.10
.84
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
8
4.50
.68
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
8
4.74
.54
Note. 1=Very Unimportant, 2=Slightly Unimportant, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Important, 5=Very Important.
17
61
(22.4)
78
(28.7)
48
(17.6)
114
(41.9)
100 (36.8)
5
(0.4)
1.00
17
(6.3)
22
(8.1)
4
(1.5)
45
(16.5)
26
(9.6)
22
(8.1)
53
(19.5)
73
(26.8)
4
2
(.7)
3.86
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds.
3
1
(.4)
3
(1.1)
2
(.7)
8
(2.9)
5
(1.8)
3
(1.1)
11
(4.0)
18
(6.6)
9
13.
2
1
(.4)
1
(.4)
0
(.0)
1
(.4)
1
(.4)
0
(.0)
9
(3.3)
6
(2.2)
Teaching students who are both in special education and English language
learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
10.
Very
Important
127 (39.9)
114
(41.9)
95
(34.9)
190
(69.9)
164
(60.3)
216
(79.4)
100
(36.8)
134
(49.3)
133
(48.9)
79
(29.0)
72
(26.5)
5
39
100
119
3
(1.1)
3
(1.1)
3
(1.1)
(1.8)
7
(2.6)
10
(3.7)
9
(3.3)
(14.3)
33
(12.1)
41
(15.1)
36
(13.2)
(36.8)
107
(39.3)
114
(41.9)
107
(39.3)
(43.8)
117
(43.0)
97
(35.7)
109
(40.1)
2
(.7)
1
(.4)
1
(.4)
8
(2.9)
1
(.4)
0
.0
45
(16.5)
18
(6.6)
8
(2.9)
115
(42.3)
89
(32.7)
48
(17.6)
94
(34.6)
155
(57.0)
209
(76.8)
Q2b: How do respondents’ importance and satisfaction ratings compare?
Results from paired-samples t-tests reveal significant differences between ratings of satisfaction and
importance for each aspect of the program. In all areas, importance ratings were significantly higher
than satisfaction ratings, indicating that respondents’ feel the level of importance of the aspects of
teacher training addressed in the survey are greater than their level of satisfaction with how well
their teacher training program has prepared them in these areas. The largest differences were
classroom management skills (-1.67) and working effectively with parents (-1.46).
TABLE 8
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings
Mean Diff
SD
95% CI of the Difference
Lower
Upper
-.60
-.36
Sig.
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
-.48
.99
2.
-.39
.89
-.50
-.28
.001
3.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in
English.
Classroom management skills.
-1.67
1.31
-1.82
-1.51
.001
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
-.73
1.23
-.88
-.58
.001
5.
Working effectively with parents.
-1.46
1.27
-1.61
-1.30
.001
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
-.49
1.08
-.62
-.36
.001
7.
-.45
1.44
-.62
-.27
.001
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT,
norm-referenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
-.68
1.32
-.84
-.52
.001
9.
Teaching special education students.
-.91
1.27
-1.07
-.76
.001
10.
Teaching students who are both in special education and
English language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
-.98
1.35
-1.15
-.82
.001
-.42
1.31
-.58
-.26
.001
-.46
1.18
-.60
-.31
.001
-.40
1.12
-.54
-.27
.001
-.47
1.19
-.62
-.33
.001
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.
-.42
1.12
-.55
-.28
.001
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
-.18
1.17
-.33
-.04
.011
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
-.60
.99
-.72
-.48
.001
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching
profession.
-.77
1.10
-.91
-.64
.001
11.
12.
13.
14.
18
.001
Q2c: Any interesting patterns by IB/M and/or TCPCG alumni on the overall ratings
for satisfaction with teacher education program components?
Keeping in mind the rank orderings of the mean differences, the satisfaction rating of the two
component components, IB/M and TCPCG, can be explored. In general, respondents who graduated
from the IB/M program seemed most satisfied with their preparation in regard to the content area
specialty (4.16) and creating meaningful learning experiences for students (4.13), but least satisfied
with the preparation for working effectively with parents (2.88) and for teaching students who are
both in special education and English language learners (2.83) (see Table 9). TCPGC students are
most satisfied with their preparation in regard to the content area specialty (4.15) and understanding
people from different ethnic backgrounds (4.08), but least satisfied with working effectively with
parents (2.87) (see Table 10). Respondents from both IB/M and TCPCG indicated that most of the
aspects included on the survey are important to very important for preparing teachers (see Table 11,
12).
19
TABLE 9
Overall Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components by IB/M Alumni
Missing
M
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
1
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
1
4.16
.91
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
1
4.13
.86
3.
Classroom management skills.
2
3.13
1.25
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
2
3.48
1.15
5.
Working effectively with parents.
2
2.88
1.08
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
1
3.93
.96
7.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
2
3.46
1.12
8.
Teaching English language learners.
2
3.07
1.141
9.
Teaching special education students.
1
3.59
1.145
10.
2
2.83
1.08
11.
Teaching students who are both in special education and English language
learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
2
3.47
1.14
12.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
1
3.78
.98
13.
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds.
2
3.81
.96
14.
Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
3
3.58
.99
15.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
4
3.70
.96
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
4
3.91
.99
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
3
3.90
.91
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
1
4.06
1.07
Note. 1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
20
0
(0)
1
(.5)
23
(12.2)
12
(6.4)
18
(9.6)
3
(1.6)
9
(4.8)
18
(9.6)
8
(4.3)
25
(13.3)
11
(5.9)
5
(2.7)
4
(2.1)
7
(3.7)
4
(2.1)
2
(1.1)
2
(1.1)
6
(3.2)
Very
Satisfied
2
16
(8.5)
9
(4.8)
37
(19.7)
26
(13.8)
54
(28.7)
15
(8.0)
31
(16.5)
42
(22.3)
28
(14.9)
41
(21.8)
28
(14.9)
14
(7.4)
13
(6.9)
14
(7.4)
17
(9.0)
15
(8.0)
9
(4.8)
13
(6.9)
3
17
(9.0)
26
(13.8)
46
(24.5)
46
(24.5)
59
(31.4)
30
(16.0)
47
(25.0)
53
(28.2)
42
(22.3)
71
(37.8)
44
(23.4)
43
(22.9)
43
(22.9)
60
(31.9)
46
(24.5)
41
(21.8)
47
(25.0)
26
(13.8)
4
75
(39.8)
80
(42.6)
52
(27.7)
65
(34.6)
42
(22.3)
83
(44.1)
64
(34.0)
55
(29.3)
63
(33.5)
39
(20.7)
68
(36.2)
81
(41.3)
81
(43.1)
72
(38.3)
81
(43.1)
65
(34.6)
75
(39.9)
61
(32.4)
5
79
(42.0)
71
(37.8)
28
(14.9)
37
(19.7)
13
(6.9)
56
(29.8)
35
(18.6)
18
(9.6)
46
(24.5)
10
(5.3)
35
(18.6)
44
(23.4)
45
(23.9)
32
(17)
36
(19.1)
61
(32.4)
52
(27.7)
81
(43.1)
TABLE 10
Overall Ratings for Satisfaction with Program Components by TCPCG Alumni
Missing
M
SD
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
1
2
3
4
5
0
(0)
2
(5.1)
5
(12.8)
3
(7.7)
4
(10.3)
4
(10.3)
4
(10.3)
5
(12.8)
8
(20.5)
17
(43.6)
7
(17.9)
14
(35.9)
13
(33.3)
21
(53.8)
15
(38.5)
15
(38.5)
9
(23.1)
18
(46.2)
13
(33.3)
18
(46.2)
8
(20.5)
4
(10.3)
8
(20.5)
1
(2.6)
10
(25.6)
6
(15.4)
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
0
4.15
.99
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
3
3.89
.98
3.
Classroom management skills.
0
3.08
1.26
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
0
3.51
1.19
5.
Working effectively with parents.
0
2.87
.98
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
0
3.87
.92
0
(0)
7.
1
3.50
.98
1
(2.6)
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, normreferenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
4
(10.3)
1
(2.6)
10
(25.6)
5
(12.8)
8
(20.5)
4
(10.3)
4
(10.3)
2
3.16
.958
9.
Teaching special education students.
1
3.89
1.09
10. Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
11. Teaching gifted and talented learners.
2
3.08
.954
2
(5.1)
2
(5.1)
2
(5.1)
5
(12.8)
1
(2.6)
6
(15.4)
18
(46.2)
9
(23.1)
19
(48.7)
9
(23.1)
13
(33.3)
7
(17.9)
3
(7.7)
13
(33.3)
3
(7.7)
0
3.31
1.10
12. Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
0
3.97
.93
13. Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic
backgrounds.
14. Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
0
4.08
.98
2
(5.1)
0
(0)
0
(0)
7
(17.9)
2
(5.1)
3
(7.7)
13
(33.3)
11
(28.2)
8
(20.8)
11
(28.2)
12
(30.8)
11
(28.2)
6
(15.4)
14
(35.9)
17
(43.6)
0
3.87
1.00
15. Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1
4.00
1.01
16. The difficulty level of the program.
0
3.82
1.17
17. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
0
3.79
1.06
0
(0)
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
0
(0)
18. The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
0
3.85
.99
3
(7.7)
4
(10.3)
6
(15.4)
7
(17.9)
5
(12.8)
13
(33.3)
7
(17.9)
6
(15.4)
5
(12.8)
7
(17.9)
9
(23.1)
12
(30.8)
12
(30.8)
16
(41.0)
16
(41.0)
14
(35.9)
15
(38.5)
14
(35.9)
11
(28.2)
11
(28.2)
Note. 1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
21
0
(0)
TABLE 11
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components for IB/M Alumni
Missing
M
SD
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
1
4.58
0.65
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
2
4.52
0.69
3.
Classroom management skills.
1
4.82
0.41
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
2
4.14
0.76
5.
Working effectively with parents.
3
4.44
0.68
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
3
4.39
0.65
7.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
2
3.99
0.87
8.
Teaching English language learners.
3
3.85
0.90
9.
Teaching special education students.
2
4.58
0.60
10.
4
3.95
0.96
11.
Teaching students who are both in special education and English language
learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
2
3.85
0.90
12.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
3
4.27
0.77
13.
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds.
2
4.29
0.74
14.
Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
4
4.13
0.82
15.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
4
4.20
0.82
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
5
4.07
0.85
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
3
4.55
0.66
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
3
4.79
0.47
Note. 1=Not At All Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important
22
Not at all
Important
Very
Important
1
2
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
2
(1.1)
1
(.5)
0
(0)
1
(.5)
2
(1.1)
1
(.5)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
5
(2.7)
1
(.5)
0
(0)
8
(4.3)
12
(6.4)
1
(.5)
14
(7.4)
14
(7.4)
3
(1.6)
4
(2.1)
8
(4.3)
8
(4.3)
6
(3.2)
1
(.5)
0
(0)
1
(.5)
0
(0)
0
(0)
3
15
(7.9)
18
(9.6)
2
(1.1)
27
(14.4)
17
(9.0)
17
(9.0)
35
(18.6)
49
(26.1)
8
(4.3)
41
(21.8)
36
(19.1)
21
(11.2)
20
(10.6)
28
(14.9)
22
(11.7)
35
(18.6)
14
(7.4)
5
(2.7)
4
46
(24.5)
51
(27.1)
30
(15.9)
91
(48.4)
67
(35.6)
78
(41.5)
86
(45.7)
75
(39.9)
60
(31.9)
66
(35.1)
91
(48.4)
80
(42.6)
80
(42.6)
81
(43.1)
79
(42.0)
78
(41.5)
52
(27.7)
29
(15.4)
5
125
(66.5)
116
(61.7)
155
(82.4)
63
(33.5)
100
(53.2)
90
(47.9)
55
(29.3)
48
(25.6)
117
(62.2)
62
(33.3)
43
(22.)
80
(42.6)
82
(43.6)
67
(35.6)
75
(39.9)
63
(33.5)
118
(62.8)
151
(82.4)
TABLE 12
Overall Ratings for Importance with Program Components for TCPCG Alumni
Missing
M
SD
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
0
4.79
0.47
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
1
4.47
0.69
3.
Classroom management skills.
0
4.69
0.52
4.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
0
4.26
0.85
5.
Working effectively with parents.
0
4.00
0.92
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
1
4.37
0.85
7.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
1
3.55
1.20
8.
Teaching English language learners.
1
3.24
1.02
9.
Teaching special education students.
1
4.34
0.94
10.
1
3.29
1.06
11.
Teaching students who are both in special education and English language
learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
0
3.62
0.94
12.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
0
4.00
1.00
13.
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds.
0
4.05
1.02
14.
Encouraging interaction with students from different backgrounds.
0
3.95
0.97
15.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1
4.05
0.96
16.
The difficulty level of the program.
0
4.21
0.61
17.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
1
4.29
0.57
18.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
0
4.69
0.52
Note. 1=Not At All Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important
23
Not at all
Important
Very
Important
1
2
3
4
5
0
(0)
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
3
(7.7)
2
(5.1)
4
(10.3)
3
(7.7)
1
(2.6)
3
(7.7)
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
10
(25.6)
7
(18.0)
7
(17.9)
3
(7.7)
1
(2.6)
3
(7.7)
0
(0)
2
(5.1)
5
(12.8)
1
(2.6)
2
(5.1)
2
(5.1)
1
(2.6)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
28
(71.8)
12
(30.8)
16
(41.0)
12
(30.8)
12
(30.8)
18
(46.2)
6
(15.4)
20
(51.3)
12
(30.8)
10
(25.6)
7
(17.9)
7
(1.9)
7
(17.9)
4
(10.3)
2
(5.1)
1
(2.6)
6
(15.4)
15
(38.5)
1
(2.6)
19
(48.7)
13
(33.3)
21
(53.8)
12
(30.8)
10
(25.6)
9
(23.1)
7
(17.9)
15
(38.5)
12
(30.8)
13
(33.3)
17
(43.6)
15
(38.5)
23
(59.0)
23
(59.0)
10
(25.6)
32
(82.1)
21
(53.8)
10
(25.6)
1
(2.6)
3
(7.7)
2
(5.1)
9
(23.1)
4
(10.3)
22
(56.4)
6
(15.4)
7
(17.9)
15
(38.5)
16
(41.0)
12
(30.8)
14
(35.9)
12
(30.8)
13
(33.3)
28
(71.8)
Q2d: How do IB/M alumni’s importance and satisfaction ratings compare?
How about TCPCG?
Results from an independent samples t-test and effect size calculations reveal significant
differences in the ratings of satisfaction and importance for both the IB/M and the TCPCG
alumni (see Tables 13 and 14). Alumni from both programs feel the emphasis should be
placed on classroom management skills (t = -17.40 for IB/M; -7.47 for TCPCG) and working
effectively with parents (-17.51 for IB/M; -4.91 for TCPCG). The TCPCG alumni tend to
have lower mean differences between importance and satisfaction.
TABLE 13
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings for IB/M Alumni
M Diff
-0.42
SD
1.00
t
-5.78
Sig.
.001
ES
-0.42
Creating meaningful learning experiences
for students in English.
Classroom management skills.
-0.38
0.82
-6.36
.001
-0.47
-1.69
1.32
-17.40
.001
-1.28
-0.66
1.28
-7.09
.001
-0.52
5.
Integrating technology into classroom
instruction.
Working effectively with parents.
-1.55
1.20
-17.51
.001
-1.29
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
-0.47
1.07
-5.99
.001
-0.44
7.
-0.52
1.41
-5.07
.001
-0.37
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g.,
CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
-0.78
1.26
-8.43
.001
-0.62
9.
Teaching special education students.
-0.98
1.20
-11.09
.001
-0.81
10.
Teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
-1.12
1.24
-12.20
.001
-0.90
-0.37
1.28
-3.98
.001
-0.29
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.
-0.49
1.14
-5.86
.001
-0.43
-0.48
1.06
-6.15
.001
-0.45
-0.54
1.17
-6.25
.001
-0.46
-0.51
1.10
-6.25
.001
-0.46
-0.15
1.09
-1.90
.060
-0.14
Challenging students to meet their fullest
potential.
The degree of preparation for working in
the teaching profession.
-0.65
0.92
-9.50
.001
-0.70
-0.73
1.05
-9.42
.001
-0.69
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
2.
3.
4.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
24
TABLE 14
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance Ratings for TCPCG Alumni
M Diff
SD
t
Sig.
ES
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
-0.64
1.11
-3.60
0.00
-0.58
2.
Creating meaningful learning experiences
for students in English.
Classroom management skills.
-0.56
1.03
-3.25
0.00
-0.54
-1.62
1.35
-7.47
0.00
-1.20
-0.74
1.23
-3.78
0.00
-0.60
5.
Integrating technology into classroom
instruction.
Working effectively with parents.
-1.13
1.44
-4.91
0.00
-0.79
6.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
-0.47
1.11
-2.63
0.01
-0.43
7.
-0.05
1.41
-0.23
0.82
-0.04
8.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT,
CMT, norm-referenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
-0.08
1.23
-0.40
0.69
-0.07
9.
Teaching special education students.
-0.45
1.31
-2.11
0.04
-0.34
10.
Teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
-0.22
1.32
-1.00
0.32
-0.16
-0.31
1.22
-1.58
0.12
-0.25
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.
-0.03
0.90
-0.18
0.86
-0.03
0.03
0.93
0.17
0.86
0.03
-0.08
0.87
-0.55
0.58
-0.09
-0.05
0.87
-0.37
0.71
-0.06
-0.38
1.21
-1.99
0.05
-0.32
Challenging students to meet their fullest
potential.
The degree of preparation for working in
the teaching profession.
-0.45
1.01
-2.74
0.01
-0.45
-0.85
1.06
-4.96
0.00
-0.79
3.
4.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Q2e: How do respondents feel about diversity preparation?
Eight embedded statements dealt with diversity and are noted in Table 15. These statements ran
the gamut for working with the gifted to the culturally diverse. Results indicated the
“importance” for each statement was higher than “satisfaction,” similar to all statements on the
survey.
25
TABLE 15
Satisfaction, Importance, and Difference Ratings on Selected Diversity Statements
Satis.
M
Impor.
M
M Diff
SD
Sig.
ES
A.
Teaching English language learners
3.13
3.79
-0.68
1.32
.001
-0.51
B.
Teaching special education students
3.63
4.54
-0.91
1.27
.001
-0.72
C.
Teaching students who are both in
special education and English language
learners
2.89
3.86
-0.98
1.35
.001
-0.73
D.
Teaching gifted and talented learners
3.40
3.83
-0.42
1.31
.001
-0.32
E.
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds
3.76
4.23
-0.46
1.18
.001
-0.39
F.
Understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic background
3.81
4.23
-0.40
1.12
.001
-0.36
G.
Encouraging interaction with students
from different backgrounds
3.62
4.10
-0.47
1.19
.001
-0.40
H.
Educating students from diverse cultural
backgrounds
3.74
4.17
-0.42
1.12
.001
-0.37
Q2f: What are the overall ratings for satisfaction with learning about the teaching?
Alumni provided detailed information regarding satisfaction with how well their teacher
education program prepared them for teaching. The major themes addressed in this question
included: dealing with the socio-political aspects of teaching, adapting to changes, and
pedagogical knowledge. Results indicated they feel “satisfied” to “very satisfied” about the
learning experience (see Table 16).
26
TABLE 16
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching Profession
Missing M
SD
1. Understand how students learn.
3
4.28 0.80
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.
3
4.22 0.90
4
3.74 0.97
3
3.12 1.18
9
3.24 1.14
6
4.10 0.99
7. Adapt to changes in content and/or
resources.
8. Deal with changes in the classroom
or school.
8
3.72 1.05
6
3.63 1.09
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
1
2
3
4
5
3
(1.1)
4
(1.5)
5
(1.8)
23
(8.5)
20
(7.4)
5
(1.8)
4
(1.5)
8
(2.9)
8
(2.9)
12
(4.4)
23
(8.5)
65
(23.9)
52
(19.1)
16
(5.9)
35
(12.9)
40
(14.7)
17
(6.3)
25
(9.2)
71
(26.1)
79
(29.0)
72
(26.5)
39
(14.3)
62
(22.8)
57
(21.0)
124
(45.6)
109
(40.1)
107
(39.3)
62
(22.8)
84
(30.9)
94
(34.6)
93
(34.2)
98
(36.0)
117
(43.0)
119
(43.8)
62
(22.8)
40
(14.7)
35
(12.9)
112
(41.2)
70
(25.7)
63
(23.2)
Note. 1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
Q2g: Any interesting patterns by IB/M and/or TCPCG alumni on the overall ratings for
satisfaction with learning about teaching?
Results by teacher preparation program indicated similar results (see Tables 17 and18).
Respondents indicated feeling most satisfied with how well their teacher preparation program
prepared them to understand how students learn (IB/M = 4.32; TCPCG = 4.41), use different
pedagogical approaches (IB/M = 4.21; TCPCG = 4.41), and collaborate with other adults (IB/M
= 4.23; TCPCG = 3.90) but least satisfied with how well the program prepared them to handle
the paperwork associated the with job (IB/M = 3.17; TCPCG = 3.08) and to manage time
throughout the school day (IB/M = 3.34; TCPCG = 3.15).
27
TABLE 17
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching Profession for IB/M Alumni
Missing M
SD
1. Understand how students learn.
1
4.31
0.75
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.
1
4.21
0.90
2
3.75
0.95
1
3.17
1.21
6
3.34
1.14
3
4.23
0.92
7. Adapt to changes in content
and/or resources.
8. Deal with changes in the
classroom or school.
5
3.77
1.03
3
3.70
1.06
Very
Satisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
0
(0)
3
(1.6)
3
(1.6)
17
(9.0)
15
(8.0)
3
(1.6)
2
(1.1)
5
(2.7)
7
(3.7)
7
(3.7)
15
(8.0)
41
(21.8)
28
(14.9)
8
(4.3)
24
(12.8)
24
(12.8)
11
(5.9)
21
(11.2)
50
(26.6)
52
(27.7)
45
(23.9)
20
(10.6)
39
(20.7)
38
(20.2)
86
(45.7)
73
(38.8)
76
(40.4)
47
(25.0)
69
(36.7)
66
(35.1)
67
(35.6)
73
(38.8)
83
(44.1)
83
(44.1)
42
(22.3)
30
(16.0)
25
(13.3)
88
(46.8)
51
(27.1)
45
(23.9)
Note. 1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
TABLE 18
Overall Ratings on Satisfaction with Learning about the Teaching Profession by TCPCG Alumni
Missing M
SD
1
1. Understand how students learn.
0
4.41
0.64
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.
0
4.41
0.72
0
3.77
0.93
0
3.08
1.09
0
3.15
1.14
0
3.90
1.02
7. Adapt to changes in content
and/or resources.
8. Deal with changes in the
classroom or school.
0
3.67
1.08
0
3.62
1.16
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
2
(5.1)
2
(5.1)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
2
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
3
(7.7)
11
(28.2)
11
(28.2)
2
(5.1)
5
(12.8)
8
(20.5)
Note. 1=Very Dissatisfied, 2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
28
Very
Satisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
3
3
(7.7)
2
(5.1)
13
(33.3)
12
(30.8)
10
(25.6)
10
(25.6)
10
(25.6)
6
(15.4)
4
17
(43.6)
16
(41.0)
13
(33.3)
10
(25.6)
11
(28.2)
13
(33.3)
13
(33.3)
14
(35.9)
5
19
(48.7)
20
(51.3)
10
(25.6)
4
(10.3)
5
(12.8)
13
(33.3)
10
(25.6)
10
(25.6)
Q2i: What are the overall ratings of the Neag School?
Finally, alumni rated characteristics of the Neag School, including practical experiences,
quality of teaching and advising, faculty, and overall preparation. Overall, alumni rated
Neag the highest for the quality of student teaching (4.30), clinical experiences (4.20),
overall preparation and job readiness of graduates (4.16) (see Table 19). In contrast, the
respondents rated the Neag lowest for cooperation between the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Neag (3.26) and quality of advising (3.71).
TABLE 19
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
3.78
1.00
4
4.01
0.94
7
3.90
1.04
19
3.26
0.99
5.
Quality of teaching
7
4.09
0.83
6.
Quality of advising
5
3.71
1.16
7.
Clinic experiences
14
4.20
0.97
8.
Master’s internship
21
4.10
1.06
9.
Student teaching
15
4.30
0.94
10.
Job readiness of graduates
6
4.16
0.91
11.
Overall preparation
4
4.16
0.85
Note. 1=Poor, 2=Needs Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
29
1
2
3
4
5
8
(2.9)
3
(1.1)
7
(2.6)
14
(5.1)
24
(8.8)
19
(7.0)
24
(8.8)
35
(12.9)
50
(18.4)
42
(15.4)
45
(16.5)
97
(35.7)
124
62
(45.6) (22.8)
113
91
(41.5) (33.5)
102
87
(37.5) (32.0)
85
22
(31.3) (8.1)
5
(1.8)
17
(6.3)
6
(2.2)
8
(2.9)
5
(1.8)
7
(2.6)
2
(.7)
7
(2.6)
25
(9.2)
13
(4.8)
17
(6.3)
12
(4.4)
7
(2.6)
13
(4.8)
28
(10.3)
53
(19.5)
26
(9.6)
31
(11.4)
21
(7.7)
30
(11.0)
28
(10.3)
144
(52.9)
95
(34.9)
91
(33.5)
80
(29.4)
81
(29.8)
115
(42.3)
122
(44.9)
81
(29.8)
77
(28.3)
122
(44.9)
115
(42.3)
138
(50.7)
107
(39.3)
103
(37.9)
Q2j: What are the overall ratings of the Neag School by
IB/M and TCPCG graduates?
Results by teacher preparation program indicate that the Neag characteristics rated highest by
the respondents overall continue to receive the best scores when responses are analyzed by
teacher preparation program (see Table 20 and Table 21). In addition to the overall Neag areas
for improvement of cooperation between the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and quality of
advising, respondents who graduated from the TCPCG program gave lower scores to the
faculty’s experience as practitioners (3.7).
TABLE 20
Overall Ratings of the Neag School by IB/M Alumni
Excellent
Poor
Missing M
1.
SD
2
3.87
0.92
2
4.04
0.93
3
3.97
0.99
4
3.33
0.97
5.
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
2
4.13
0.79
6.
Quality of advising
2
3.75
1.12
7.
Clinic experiences
4
4.28
0.91
8.
Master’s internship
2
4.20
1.05
9.
Student teaching
2
4.37
0.89
10.
Job readiness of graduates
2
4.22
0.89
11.
Overall preparation
2
4.23
0.83
2.
3.
4.
Note. 1=Poor, 2=Needs Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
30
1
2
3
4
5
3
14
(1.6) (7.4)
2
13
(1.1) (6.9)
4
13
(2.1) (6.9)
8
23
(4.3) (12.2)
32
(17.0)
26
(13.8)
29
(15.4)
72
(38.3)
93
44
(49.5) (23.4)
79
66
(42.0) (35.1)
77
62
(40.9) (32.9)
63
18
(33.5) (9.6)
3
(1.6)
10
(5.3)
3
(1.6)
6
(3.2)
2
(1.1)
5
(2.7)
1
(.5)
21
(11.2)
40
(21.3)
18
(9.6)
20
(10.6)
16
(8.5)
18
(9.6)
20
(10.6)
99
(52.7)
68
(36.2)
63
(33.5)
54
(28.7)
54
(28.7)
80
(42.6)
79
(42.0)
3
(1.6)
15
(7.9)
7
(3.7)
10
(5.3)
8
(4.2)
3
(1.6)
7
(3.7)
60
(31.9)
53
(28.2)
93
(49.5)
96
(51.1)
106
(56.4)
80
(42.6)
79
(42.0)
TABLE 21
Overall Ratings of the Neag School by TCPCG Alumni
Excellent
Poor
Missing M
1.
SD
0
3.82
1.05
0
4.13
0.80
1
3.79
1.02
6
3.15
0.97
5.
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
1
4.00
0.74
6.
Quality of advising
0
3.95
1.05
7.
Clinic experiences
1
4.24
0.94
8.
Master’s internship
0
4.00
0.92
9.
Student teaching
0
4.33
0.90
10.
Job readiness of graduates
0
4.15
0.71
11.
Overall preparation
0
4.15
0.74
2.
3.
4.
1
2
3
4
5
1
(2.6)
0
(0)
0
(0)
3
(7.7)
4
(10.3)
1
(2.6)
5
(12.8)
3
(7.7)
7
(17.9)
7
(17.9)
9
(23.1)
14
(35.9)
16
11
(41.0) (28.2)
17
14
(43.6) (35.9)
13
11
(33.3) (28.2)
12
1
(30.8) (2.6)
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
1
(2.6)
0
(0)
1
(2.6)
0
(0)
0
(0)
2
(5.1)
4
(10.3)
1
(2.6)
4
(10.3)
1
(2.6)
0
(0)
2
(5.1)
4
(10.3)
4
(10.3)
4
(10.3)
4
(10.3)
2
(5.1)
7
(17.9)
2
(5.1)
24
(61.5)
17
(43.6)
14
(35.9)
19
(48.7)
15
(38.5)
19
(48.7)
23
(59.0)
8
(20.5)
13
(33.3)
18
(46.2)
12
(30.8)
20
(51.3)
13
(33.3)
12
(30.8)
Note. 0=No Response, 1=Poor, 2=Needs Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
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.
31
Q3a: From which teacher program did the respondents graduate?
The majority of respondents graduated from the IB/M program (69.1%); however, we did
receive responds from TCPTG and the Bilingual Program. Many listed under “other” were from
the field of Music (see Table 22).
TABLE 22
Teacher Education Program Component Completed
IB/M
N
%
188
69.1
TCPCG
N
%
39
14.3
Bilingual
N
%
11
4.0
Other
N
%
26
9.6
Missing
N
%
8
2.9
Q3b: How many respondents are currently involved in the filed of education?
In terms of current employment, results indicated that the majority of respondents are currently
involved in the field of education (90.1%) (see Table 23).
TABLE 23
Current Involvement in the Field of Education
Total
Yes
No
Missing
N
245
25
2
IB/M
%
90.1
9.2
.7
N
172
16
0
TCPCG
%
91.5
8.5
.0
N
37
2
0
%
94.9
5.1
.0
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
Q3c: What grade levels are taught by the respondents?
For those alumni currently involved in the field of education, most indicate teaching at the
secondary level, particularly in grade 10 (29.4%), grade 11 (27.6%), and grade 12 (26.1%) (see
Table 24). Of the alumni who responded to the survey, the fewest are teaching at the younger
levels, particularly pre-K (4.4%) and kindergarten (8.8%).
32
TABLE 24
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
12
24
33
28
30
42
25
32
28
29
68
80
75
71
38
%
4.4
8.8
12.1
10.3
11.0
15.4
9.2
11.8
10.3
10.7
25.0
29.4
27.6
26.1
14.0
Q3d: What types of teaching positions are currently held by the respondents?
Similarly, when asked to describe the type of teaching position currently held, most alumni
indicated teaching at the secondary level and fewer would describe themselves as an
elementary school teacher (25.7%) (see Table 25).
TABLE 25
Type of teaching position currently held by Neag alumni
Elementary school teacher
Secondary level teacher – Math
Secondary level teacher – Science
Secondary level teacher – Social Studies
Secondary level teacher – Reading
Secondary level teacher – Foreign Language
Secondary level teacher – English
Special education teacher
Music teacher
Substitute teacher
Administrator
Other teacher
Other – not in education
Missing
N
%
70
20
11
30
0
24
7
25
7
3
6
44
18
7
25.7
7.4
4.0
11.0
.0
8.8
2.6
9.2
2.6
1.1
2.2
16.2
6.6
2.6
Q3e: Why are the respondents involved in filed of education?
Alumni also provided insight into their reasons for staying in or leaving the field of education
(see Table 26). Results indicated that the most common reasons for staying in the field of
education relate to enjoying working with the students (84.2%) and feeling rewarded when the
students learn (81.3%). Conversely, the most common reasons for leaving the field of education
relate to feelings of burnout (4.4%) and changing career interests (3.7%).
33
TABLE 26
Overall Explanations for Involvement in Field of Education
Currently involved in field of education
N
%
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
229
100
107
221
169
85
46
13
N
84.2
36.8
39.3
81.3
62.1
31.3
16.7
4.8
%
4
1.5
6
9
12
5
2.2
3.3
4.4
1.8
10
8
3
10
66
3.7
2.9
1.1
3.7
24.3
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
When responses are examined by teacher preparation program, similar results are found (see
Table 27). Again, the most common reasons for staying in the field relate to enjoying working
with the students (IB/M=86.2%; TCPCG=84.6%) and feeling rewarded when the students learn
(IB/M=84.0%; TCPCG=84.6%). Reasons for leaving the field of education have the IB/M and
TCPCG indicating “flat” profiles; no one cause over another.
34
TABLE 27
Explanations for Involvement in Field of Education by Program
IB/M
TCPCG
Currently involved in field of education
N
%
N
%
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
162
74
68
158
124
61
27
9
86.2
39.1
36.2
84.0
66.0
32.4
14.4
4.8
33
8
20
33
22
14
11
1
84.6
20.5
51.3
84.6
56.4
35.9
28.2
2.6
Not currently involved in field of education
N
%
N
%
2
1.1
1
2.6
3
5
6
3
1.6
2.7
3.2
1.6
1
0
1
1
2.6
0
2.6
2.6
6
5
2
6
48
3.2
2.7
1.1
3.2
25.5
1
1
1
1
10
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
55.5
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
Qualitative Evaluation of Teacher Education Program
Alumni were given the opportunity to provide written reflections on both the strengths and
areas for improvement to the Teacher Education Program. They were also posed with openended questions.
Q4a: What did you find most valuable about your teacher education program?
The most common response given was the clinical and student teaching experiences.
Approximately half of the responses referred to these experiences as being the most valuable in
preparing them as teachers. This is consistent with quantitative survey data. In relation to this
response, the second most common was that of the variety of experiences (i.e., teaching in
different grade levels, urban areas). Respondents referred to their variety of diverse experiences
as preparing them best for real world teaching. The next most common theme among the
respondents was their relationships with teachers and peers. Many respondents named specific
professors who inspired them and modeled effective teaching strategies within an optimal
learning atmosphere. Student collaboration was also found to be very valuable. Respondents
35
found that being in a small setting with other students in a related field allowed them to grow as
teachers.
Q4b: What did you find least valuable about your teacher education program?
The most common response was that the program required certain classes that seemed
irrelevant and redundant. Respondents found themselves spending their time learning about
things in which they had already studied as undergrads and that were not relevant to their given
specialization. Specifically, the one-credit morning classes were commonly mentioned among
responses as being broad, repetitive and effectively useless with no sense of application. A
related theme among the respondents was that some classes were too large. Within these large
classes, there was no group work. The respondents seemed to value group work, and having that
eliminated in large lecture classes was a flaw in the program for them. A third common theme
relates directly to the professors, but more commonly mentioned, the advisors in the program.
Students stated that some professors/advisors in the program did not seem involved and were
unapproachable. The respondents claimed that they provided minimal feedback and were poor
role models.
Aside from these three large themes, there were multiple responses that fit into smaller groups,
but weren’t necessarily large themes. Such responses were: how the program didn’t cover
enough topics with a narrow focus in some classes (i.e., special education classes); and being
forced into internships that were not in one’s projected area (i.e., teaching in elementary
school).
Q4c: What, if anything, was missing from your teacher education program?
The most common theme among respondents was that of class management. Approximately
half of the responses stated in one way or another that class management skills were not taught
by the program. As beginning teachers, they found that dealing with behavior management and
paperwork were among the things in which UConn did not prepare them for. They suggested
the program make an attempt to teach some type of classroom management skills to better
prepare students for real-world teaching. The second most common theme was that of dealing
with parents. Respondents claimed that they were not prepared to deal with parent complaints
and basic interaction. They felt that UConn could have better prepared them as teachers if a
simple lesson had been taught on how to deal with a student’s parents.
There were three other themes that were not as common as the previous two, but were equal
among them. Respondents wished the program had offered classes in more diverse fields such
as math/chemistry teaching. They felt that graduating with the ability to cross over from one
content area to another would have better prepared them and would have given them more
opportunity as teachers. Respondents felt that more instruction could have been given for
meeting the needs of special education students and students with learning disabilities. And,
respondents felt that the program lacked courses on tech training. They would have preferred to
36
have been taught how to properly create Power Points and effectively use technology to
supplement their teaching efforts.
Q4d: If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution, why?
The most common theme among the responses was that they would return because the program
left them very well prepared to do their jobs. Most responses contained the words “well
prepared” or in some cases “more prepared” than their colleagues. The second most common
theme was that they would return because of the program’s reputation. The respondents felt that
it was “an honor” to go through Neag School and that it was such a respected program that
allowed for many job opportunities. The third and fourth most common themes, but not nearly
as common as the previous two are that they would return because the program: had
inspirational professors within it. Respondents felt that they’ve made friends/contacts/resources
for life after attending the program and working along side their helpful professors; was a good
education for the price. Respondents to this theme were all in-state students who felt that the
program was both a convenient and cost effective way of receiving a good education; and,
within most of the responses containing the themes above, many respondents simply stated that
they thoroughly “enjoyed their experience” at UConn and felt that it’s program was exemplary.
Q4e: What three professional development opportunities would you is interested in?
There were many common themes tied to professional development among the responses given.
The most common of those themes was the development of classroom management skills.
Respondents felt that the development of skills in such areas as motivating students and
teaching those who are low/high level learners would be most beneficial to a teacher. The
second most common theme, almost as common as the one above, was the teaching of reading
and writing skills. Respondents believe that the development of the skills required to help
struggling readers/writers is an extremely important factor. Some claimed that reading/writing
workshops should have been implemented into the program in order to successfully prepare
teachers for struggling readers/writers. The third most common theme, again almost as common
as the first, is that of technology integration. Respondents stated a desire to become acquainted
with assistive technology in teaching. A development of these technological skills is something
that was a clear consensus among the respondents. Another common theme, not as common as
those stated above, is that of differentiated instruction. Respondents simply stated
differentiation of instruction as an area of development in which they were interested in. Other
common themes, that were not as common as the previous ones, are: development with parental
interaction skills; outreach and involvement; development of skills in working with those in
special education, and development of effective assessment strategies.
Q4f: Please tell us anything else tied to your teacher preparation program or your
career that is relevant that you would like to share.
The most common response given concerned the education and preparation received through
Neag School. Respondents were very well prepared as teachers upon entering the real world
and believe that preparation was due to their great experiences at UConn. Overall, they are
happy as teachers and feel that they are where they want to be. A second most common
37
response was that of the teaching and guidance in the program. Respondents were more than
pleased with their professors and advisors. They viewed these teachers and advisors as caring,
professional, and assets to their career. On many occasions, respondents specifically named two
to three names of individuals who inspired and guided them. Aside from these two common
themes, it was difficult to find any other common theme as most answers were extremely
specific to the given individual. However, we would like to alert you to some responses that
came up at least twice by a few respondents: they wished the program was less idealized and
more realistic in its instruction and disappointment in the BEST program as it involved too
much busy work. A few respondents felt that more could be integrated into the program, i.e.,
foreign language/technology. And, a couple respondents felt that students should be placed
within suburban and urban settings in order to see first hand diverse teaching.
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?
The survey asked whether the alumni would choose to attend UConn again, if they could
repeat the experience. The majority of alumni (92.3%) would attend UConn again (see Table
28).
TABLE 28
Likelihood of Alumni Choosing to Attend UConn Again, If Possible
Yes
No
Missing
Total
N
%
251
92.3
10
3.7
11
4.0
IB/M
N
180
5
3
%
95.7
2.7
1.6
TCPCG
N
%
38
97.4
1
2.6
1
2.6
Q5b: What is the grade for the overall quality of the Teacher Education Program?
Alumni were asked to grade the overall quality of the Neag Teacher Preparation Program using
an A to F scale. Overall results indicated alumni generally grade their teacher preparation
program very well (see Table 29). More than half of the respondents (54.0%) would give the
program an “A;” whereas, only about 10% would grade the program as a “C” or less (see
Figure B).
38
TABLE 29
Grade for Overall Quality of Teacher Education Program
Total
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
Missing
N
147
93
24
4
1
3
%
54.0
34.2
8.8
1.5
.4
1.1
C
N
111
61
12
2
1
1
IB/M
%
59.0
32.0
6.4
1.1
.5
.5
TCPCG
N
%
20
51.0
14
35.9
4
10.3
1
2.6
0
0
0
0
D
F
B
A
B
C
D
F
A
Figure B. Pie chart for overall quality of the Teacher Education Program.
Q5c: What do dissatisfied alumni say about the program?
Further subgroup analysis was made on those respondents who graded the overall quality of the
Neag Teacher Education Program as a “C” or less. Demographic and background information
on these 29 respondents shows that the majority are white (89.7%), female (62.1%), and speak
English as a primary language (93.1%). Ratings by this subgroup indicate the least amount of
satisfaction with preparation for working effectively with parents (2.2) and classroom
management skills (1.9) (see Table 30). Further, respondents indicate less satisfaction with
preparation for handling the paperwork associated the job, managing time throughout the school
day, and dealing with changes in the classroom or school (mean=2.3, respectively). Finally,
ratings for overall quality of the Neag School suggest members of the subgroup find the quality
of advising (mean=2.6) and cooperation between the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and
the Neag School of Education (mean=2.5) to be the areas most in need of improvement.
39
TABLE 30
Ratings for Satisfaction with Aspects of Program by Subgroup Dissatisfied
Overall
Subgroup
M
M
1.
The content and/or area specialty.
4.15
3.25
2.
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students.
Classroom management skills.
4.11
3.32
3.11
1.86
Integrating technology into classroom
instruction.
Working effectively with parents.
3.41
2.66
2.89
2.21
Formative classroom assessment
skills.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g.,
CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced tests).
Teaching English language learners.
3.90
3.07
3.46
2.41
3.13
2.69
3.63
3.00
Teaching students who are both in
special education and English
language learners.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
2.89
2.54
3.40
2.55
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.
3.76
2.76
3.81
3.03
3.62
2.97
3.74
2.96
3.91
2.71
Challenging students to meet their
fullest potential.
The degree of preparation for working
in the teaching profession.
3.87
2.86
3.96
2.34
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Teaching special education students.
40
Poor
Excellent
1
1
(3.4)
1
(3.4)
13
(44.8)
6
(20.7)
7
(24.1)
3
(10.3)
8
(27.6)
5
(17.2)
5
(17.2)
4
(13.8)
2
9
(31.0)
6
(20.7)
8
(27.6)
10
(34.5)
11
(37.9)
6
(20.7)
5
(17.2)
8
(27.6)
7
(24.1)
9
(31.0)
3
4
(13.8)
8
(27.6)
7
(24.1)
5
(17.2)
9
(31.0)
8
(27.6)
13
(44.8)
9
(31.0)
6
(20.7)
12
(41.4)
4
10
(34.5)
9
(31.0)
1
(3.4)
4
(13.8)
2
(6.9)
10
(34.5)
2
(6.9)
5
(17.2)
5
(17.2)
2
(6.9)
5
4
(13.8)
4
(13.8)
0
(.0)
4
(13.8)
0
(.0)
2
(6.9)
1
(3.4)
2
(6.9)
6
(20.7)
1
(3.4)
6
(20.7)
4
(13.8)
3
(10.3)
3
(10.3)
3
(10.3)
3
(10.3)
2
(6.9)
5
(17.2)
9
(31.0)
7
(24.1)
7
(24.1)
4
(13.8)
5
(17.2)
9
(31.0)
6
(20.7)
15
(51.7)
7
(24.1)
11
(37.9)
8
(27.6)
15
(51.7)
12
(41.4)
11
(37.9)
15
(51.7)
4
(13.8)
6
1
(20.7) (3.4)
6
1
(20.7) (3.4)
8
3
(27.6) (10.3)
5
2
(17.2) (6.9)
6
2
(20.7) (6.9)
3
2
(10.3) (6.9)
4
1
(13.8) (3.4)
4
1
(13.8) (3.4)
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Those who graduated from 1994-2006 from the Neag School of Education’s Teacher Preparation
Program at the UConn were asked to complete a survey in November/December of 2006. The
purpose of the survey was to gather information from alumni in order to improve and enhance
student achievement. Participants were alumni from the Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s Teacher
Education (IB/M) and Teacher Certification Program for College Graduates (TCPCG) components.
Research questions focused on alumni satisfaction with multi-faceted aspects of their program
including diversity. The results produced the following highlights.
The majority of alumni responding were women, white, and speak English as a primary language.
About 20% earned an additional degree subsequent to teacher certification while 46% respondents
planed to enroll in an advanced degree program. Slightly more IB/M respondents earned an
additional degree or plan to do advanced degree than TCPCG. These demographic statistics are
similar to past surveys including those conducted by TNE at UConn.
In general, alumni feel satisfied with most aspects of their teacher training program. Alumni were
most satisfied with training received in areas such as their content area specialty, creating
meaningful learning experiences, educating students with diverse socioeconomic and racial
backgrounds, and using different pedagogical approaches. They were least satisfied with learning
how to work effectively with parents, classroom management skills, teaching students in special
education/English language learners, handling paperwork, and time management. Also, alumni rate
the Neag School highest for the quality of teaching, student teaching experiences, and overall
preparation. They rate the lowest for cooperation among schools and quality of advising. Most
interesting is that classroom management and increase diversity were target areas as determined in
the past survey conducted. Also, the alumni said classroom management was an area for
professional development. In 2007, a classroom management course was approved as an option for
students in teacher education.
Regarding their reflections of being a teacher, over 90% are currently involved in the field of
education; most at the secondary level. These statistics are similar to national and state trends. In
addition, more than two-thirds enjoy working with students and feel rewarded when students learn.
Reasons to leave education include feeling burnout and changing career interests.
Ninety-two percent of the alumni would attend the UConn again if they could repeat their previous
experience. Overall the alumni grade teaching training program very high, with 54% “A” and 10%
“C or less” on an “A-F” scale. This was the first time the survey asked this question. While the
general areas of strength and for improvement are generally what would be expected, it was
interesting to look into more detailed into why a few students (n=29) were dissatisfied.
These survey results will be shared with the TNE Assessment Committee, the Director of TNE, the
Director of Teacher Education, and the Neag School’s Dean and Associate Dean. Additionally,
information will be shared and discussed at the monthly meetings of faculty and staff involved in
teacher education and two departments (Curriculum and Instruction; Educational Psychology). This
will allow for faculty members to reflect upon what these results mean to the Neag School, the
diversity initiatives, TNE, and to each component of the Teacher Education Program.
In 2007-2008 a similar survey will be administered to alumni from the classes of 2003 through
2007. Only two new sections to the survey were added: dispositions and standards. Dispositions
deal with possessing certain teacher characteristics and knowledge about things such as content,
theory, and pedagogy that the Neag’s Teacher Preparation Program fosters. Students will be asked
to select the most appropriate response range using a “1-5” (1=strongly disagree) scale. Students
will be also asked their level of comfort tied to content standards as the survey had “customized”
items tied to the chosen field. Because this survey will be administered without much substantial
change in the future, the Neag School results over time will be comparable over the next few years.
42
REFERENCES
Andrew, M., & Schwab, R. (1993, April). An outcome assessment of graduates of eleven teacher
education programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.
Ayers, J. (1988). Teacher education follow-up evaluation: How to do it. In W.J. Gephart & J.B.
Ayers (Eds.), Teacher Education Evaluation (pp. 85-111). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bank Street Teachers for a New Era. (2007). Inquiry & Assessment: Surveys. Retrieved March 20,
2007 from http://www.bankstreet.edu/newtne/surveys.html
Boston College Teachers for a New Era. (2007). Instruments. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from
http://tne.bc.edu/?tpl=Instruments&nodeID=26
Brown, S., Johnson, P., Ioannou, A., & Maneggia, D. (2006, May). The attributes of excellent
teachers: Views from practicing teachers. Paper presented at the annual Association of
Psychological Science convention, New York City, NY.
Campbell, P. (1998). Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M) Teacher Preparation Program. Storrs,
CT.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (n.d.) Public school educator supply and demand in
Connecticut: A look toward the 21st century. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/ResearchReports/supplyanddemand/demand.pdf
Connecticut State Department of Education. (n.d.)
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/BEST/begininngteachingguide/bt_guide.pdf
Davidson-Shivers, G., Inpornjivit, K., & Sellers, K. (2004). Using alumni and student databases for
program evaluation and planning. College Student Journal, 38, 510-520.
Delaney, A. (1995, April). Promoting responsive teacher education through effective follow-up
studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Gable, R. & Campbell, P. (1997). Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M) Teacher Preparation
Program. Storrs, CT.
Hadley, R., & Mitchell, L. (1995). Counseling research and program evaluation. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Holste, D., & Matthews, D. (1993). Survey of 1991 teacher education graduates conducted in May
1992. Champaign, IL: Council on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 364 535).
43
University of Connecticut’s Office of Institutional Research. (2006). Graduate survey data. Storrs,
CT.
University of Connecticut’s School of Education. (May, 1982). Graduation and placement report. Storrs,
CT.
University of Connecticut’s School of Education. (May, 1980). Graduation and placement report. Storrs,
CT.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Teachers for a New Era. (2007). Assessment. Retrieved March
20, 2007 from http://www.uwm.edu/Org/TNE/first_year_reports/assessment_update. pdf
44
University of Connecticut
Neag School of Education
Graduate Survey
Dear Graduates:
As a graduate since 1994, we want to gather your perspectives about your teacher
preparation program here at UCONN. Please provide very candid results as all results will
be handled confidentially. Only group results will be provided. The survey should take 10-20
minutes to complete. You can use this or go on-line to enter your survey.
(http://survey.tne.uconn.edu/survey/graduatesurvey/) Those who submit it electronically will
receive five chances at winning one of 10 Amazon gift cards! Those who submit it on hard
copy will have three chances at winning the gift cards! All responses MUST be received by
February 15. We will have results available at our Neag School of Education website in
June. Thank you for completing this survey. Please use the self addressed stamped envelope
enclosed for returning this survey.
Sincerely,
Richard Schwab, Ph.D.
Dean of Neag School of Education
1
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey
Section A. Reflections on Your Teacher Education Program
1.
Please answer two questions for each of the following statements.
First, how satisfied were you with your Neag teacher
preparation program regarding…
Second, how important should the following be in
preparing teachers?
Very
Dissatisfied
Slightly
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Slightly
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Not at all
Important
Slightly
Important
Somewhat
Important
Important
Very
Important
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Satisfaction
Importance
a.
The content and/or area specialty.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
b.
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
c.
Classroom management skills.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
d.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
e.
Working effectively with parents.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
f.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
g.
Standardized assessment skills (e.g., CAPT, CMT, norm-referenced
tests).
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
h.
Teaching English language learners.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
i.
Teaching special education students.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
j.
Teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
k.
Teaching gifted and talented learners.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
l.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
m.
Understanding people from other racial and/or ethnic backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
n.
Encouraging interaction with students from different
backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
o.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
p.
The difficulty level of the program.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
q.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
r.
The degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
2
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey
2.
In your opinion, how satisfied are you with how well your Neag School of Education teacher preparation
program prepared you to:
Very
Dissatisfied
Slightly
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Slightly
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
a.
Understand how students learn.
1
2
3
4
5
b.
Use different pedagogical approaches.
1
2
3
4
5
c.
Implement Connecticut’s Common Core of Teaching.
1
2
3
4
5
d.
Handle the paperwork associated with your job.
1
2
3
4
5
e.
Manage time throughout the school day.
1
2
3
4
5
f.
Collaborate with other adults.
1
2
3
4
5
g.
Adapt to changes in content and/or resources.
1
2
3
4
5
h.
Deal with changes in the classroom or school.
1
2
3
4
5
3. How would you rate the Neag School of Education on the following characteristics?
Poor
Needs Some
Improvement
Fair
Good
Excellent
a.
Sense of community with other students
1
2
3
4
5
b.
Faculty involvement with students
1
2
3
4
5
c.
Faculty with experience as practitioners
1
2
3
4
5
d.
Cooperation between the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Neag School of Education
1
2
3
4
5
e.
Quality of teaching
1
2
3
4
5
f.
Quality of advising
1
2
3
4
5
g.
Clinic experiences
1
2
3
4
5
h.
Master’s internship
1
2
3
4
5
i.
Student teaching
1
2
3
4
5
j.
Job readiness of graduates
1
2
3
4
5
k.
Overall preparation
1
2
3
4
5
3
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey
4. Please complete the following open-ended questions.
a. What did you find most valuable about your teacher education program?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. What did you find least valuable about your teacher education program?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. What, if anything, was missing from your teacher education program?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution to become a teacher?
o
o
Yes
No
Why or why not?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Overall, how would you “grade” your satisfaction with the overall quality of the Neag School of Education
teacher preparation program?
A
B
C
4
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey
D
F
Section B. Reflections on You as a Teacher
1. From which Neag School of Education program did you graduate?
o
IB/M
o
Bilingual Education
o
TCPCG
o
Other (Please specify): ______________________________
2. Are you currently working in the field of education?
o
o
Yes (Please indicate which district and state.): _________________________________
No
3. Which of the following best describes you?
o
Elementary school teacher
o
Special education teacher
o
Secondary grade level teacher—Math
o
Music teacher
o
Secondary grade level teacher—Science
o
Substitute teacher
o
Secondary grade level teacher—Social Studies
o
Administrator
o
Secondary grade level teacher—Reading
o
Other teacher (Please specify):______________
o
Secondary grade level teacher—Foreign
Language
Secondary grade level teacher—English
o
Other – not in education (Please specify.):
__________________________________
4. What grade(s) do you currently teach? (Circle all that apply.)
Pre-K
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
N/A
5. For what reasons are you still involved in the field of education? (Fill in all that apply.)
o
I enjoy working with the students.
o
I work in a supportive and challenging atmosphere.
o
I enjoy being in a diverse student
population.
I like the schedule.
o
I like the building leaders.
o
Other (please specify): _________________________________
It is rewarding for me when my students
learn.
o
Not Applicable
o
o
6. If currently working in the field of education, in what three professional development opportunities would you
be interested?
1. ____________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________
5
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey
7. If you are not currently working in the field of education, did any of these reasons play a part in your decision to
leave the education field? (Fill in that apply.)
o
I had unrealistic expectations about what an
education career would be like
o
My career interests changed
o
There was a lack of opportunity for
advancement
o
Family obligations
o
I wanted a better salary
o
Lack of status
o
Demands of the job led to burnout
o
Other (please specify):
_________________________________
_________________________________
o
My employer did not provide the mentoring or
additional training I needed
o
Not Applicable
Section C. Background Information
1. What is your gender?
o
Female
o
Male
2. What race/ethnicity best describes you?
o
White/Caucasian
o
Asian / Pacific Islander
o
Black or African American
o
Native American
o
Hispanic American
o
Other (please specify): ________________________
3. What was the primary language(s) spoken in your childhood home?
o
English
o
Spanish
o
Other (please specify):__________________________
6
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey
4. What is the highest level of education attained by each of your parents?
Mother
o
Father
o
Received a high school diploma
o
o
Earned a GED
o
o
Attended some college
o
o
Completed an undergraduate degree
o
o
Completed a graduate degree
o
o
o
o
Did not receive a high school diploma
Don’t know
5. What year did you graduate from the Neag School of Education at UConn? __________
6. In what state do you currently work? ______________
7. In what community do you currently work? ______________________
8. Have you earned an additional degree since the completion of your degree in education?
o
o
Yes (Please specify the type of degree):_________________________________________
No
9. Are you considering or currently enrolled in an advanced degree program?
o
Yes (Please specify the school and what are you going for): _________________________________
o
No
10. What is your Peoplesoft ID? (Optional): __________________________
If you do not know your Peoplesoft ID, what are the last 4 numbers of your social security number?
(Optional): _____________________________________
11. Please tell us anything else tied to your teacher preparation program or your career that is relevant that you
would like to share.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for submitting this survey!
7
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey
----
For entry into the drawing only for the Amazon cards, please complete the following information.
This will not be shared or tied to survey results.
Name: ______________________________________
Phone: ______________________________________
Email: ______________________________________
Address: (Either school or personal address)
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
8
Neag School of Education Graduate Survey