Teacher Preparation Program
Spring 2007 Common Exit Survey Results
Mary E. Yakimowski and Heather Nicholson
University of Connecticut
October 2007
This report summarizes findings from the Teachers for New
Era (TNE)’s Common Exit Survey administered to the students
in the Teacher Education Program at the Neag School of
Education (Neag School), at the University of Connecticut
(UConn) in 2007. All graduating students in the Neag School
Teacher Education Program’s two components, the Integrated
Bachelor’s/Master’s Teacher Education (IB/M) and the Teacher
Certification Program for College Graduates (TCPCG), were
asked to participate. Graduating students in the Music
Program were also asked to participate.
Introduction
The Teachers for a New Era (TNE) goal is to prepare excellent teachers who
are committed to enhancing the learning and opportunities of their pupils.
Decisions-driven by evidence, engagement with the Arts and Sciences
faculty, and teaching as an academically taught clinical practice profession
are the three design principles driving the TNE initiative. The Common Exit
Survey, as well as the Common Entry Survey, is directly tied to the first of
the three guiding principles.
The purpose of the exit survey is to obtain students’ views, expectations,
goals, and perceptions of their teacher preparation program, as well as
attitudes and opinions on a number of related topics. The Common Exit
Survey, as well as the Common Entry Survey, evolved from a request by
Dan Fallon, chair of the Carnegie Corporation Education Committee. Fallon
requested that the TNE universities to work together to gather similar data
across institutions. Eleven schools 1 participate in this Carnegie initiative. In
March 2005 all universities tied to TNE suggested “common” items and
scales that could appeal to all schools in order to create the “common” entry
1
California State University, Northridge, Michigan State University, University of Texas at El Paso, Bank
Street College of Education, University of Washington, Boston College, Stanford University, University
of Virginia, Florida A & M University, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
and exit surveys. Besides common items and scales, TNE schools could
measure their own variables of interest. Input from the Common Entry
Survey and the Common Exit Survey will be used to improve the teacher
education programs at Neag School and other TNE schools. The Common
Exit Survey was coordinated by Dr. Scott Brown of the UConn TNE project.
The Common Exit Survey contained some of the same items and scales as
the Common Entry Survey. Items on satisfaction with the program and a
technology scale were added in the Exit Survey. In the fall of 2005, the
Common Entry Survey completed its initial phase in which we ascertained
information about students upon their beginning of Teacher Preparation
Programs.
Based on the 2005-2006 data analysis, minor revisions were made to the
exit survey. Some items were deleted and a few items were added on
students’ background information; the self-efficacy scale was refined; the
demographic items remained the same. This revised version of the TNE
Common Entry Survey was administered at Neag School in 2006. The
Common Exit Survey was administered at Neag School in Spring 2007. The
exit survey instrument can be found in Appendix A.
Method
Participants
In the spring of 2007, individuals in the Teacher Preparation Program were
invited to complete the Common Exit Survey. The survey was actually
completed by 89 students from IB/M, 41 students from TCPCG, and 10
students from Music Education.
Instrument
In the first section of the Common Exit Survey students were asked about
their focus in the Teacher Preparation Program, whether they had one or
more subject area specialties. The next three sections dealt with students’
satisfaction with their teacher preparation program and their perceptions of
teaching during their studies at the Neag School. Students were asked to
report how prepared they felt to begin teaching, and what were their future
plans about teaching in terms of school location, SES, students’ race, and
students’ achievement level. The following section focused on students’
confidence in their use of technology. Finally, the students were asked basic
demographic questions and information regarding their parents’ education as
well as their background including type of school they attended, school
location, school socioeconomic status (SES), students’ race, and students’
achievement level.
2
Procedures
In April 2007, IB/M students were contacted during their methods class to
take the survey online. TCPCG students were also contacted to take the
Common Exit Survey in hard copy. Music Education students were asked to
take the survey in hard copy during a class. Each of the sessions lasted
under 12 minutes. Overall data were analyzed separately for IB/M, TCPCG
and Music using three different data files using SPSS. Missing data were not
included.
Results
In this section the results from the Common Exit Survey are presented.
These are presented in terms of student demographics, goals and intentions,
teacher preparation program, self-efficacy, technology, and future teaching
plans.
Student Demographics
In 2007 the majority of graduating students in the IB/M program did not
have a career before entering the program (95.7%). As presented in Table
1, most students in the TCPCG program did not have a career before
entering the program (68.3%). All the 10 students in the Music program
stated that they did not have a career before entering the program
(100.0%).
Most students in the three samples came from public suburban schools. The
majority of the sample attended schools of primarily White population of
middle SES. About 57.0% of the IB/M sample reported that they attended
an average achieving school, and 37.6% reported that they attended a high
achieving school. The majority of the TCPCG students reported that they
attended a high achieving school (53.7%), while another 41.5% reported
that they attended an average achieving school. Seven Music students
(70.0%) reported that they attended a high achieving school (see Table 2).
Table 1
Status of Having a Career before Entering the Program
IB/M
Yes
No
N
0
89
%
0.0
95.7
TCPCG
N
%
13 31.7
28 68.3
Music
N
%
0
0.0
10 100.0
Total
N
%
16 11.0
127 87.6
3
Table 2
High School Type, Location, Socioeconomic Status, Racial Composition, and
Achievement Levels
IB/M
High School Type
N
%
International School
0
0.0
Private(non-religious)
0
0.0
Private(religious or parochial) 0
0.0
Public
88 94.6
High School Location
Rural
16 17.2
Suburban
66
71
Urban
10 10.8
High School SES
Low SES
5
5.4
Middle SES
72 77.4
High SES
15 16.1
High School Racial Composition
Primarily students of color
0
0.0
A mix of both students
0
0.0
Primarily White students
66 71.0
High School Achievement Level
A low achieving school
0
0.0
An average achieving school 53 57.0
A high achieving school
35 37.6
TCPCG
N
%
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
38 92.7
N
0
0
0
9
Music
%
0.0
0.0
0.0
90.0
Total
N
%
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
135 93.8
11
27
0
26.8
65.9
0.0
0
7
0
0.0
70.0
0.0
30
100
13
20.8
69.4
9.0
0
26
14
0.0
63.4
34.1
0
8
0
0.0
80.0
0.0
7
106
30
4.9
73.6
20.8
0
5
36
0.0
12.2
87.8
0
0
6
0.0
0.0
60.0
0
34
108
0.0
23.6
75.0
0
17
22
0.0
41.5
53.7
0
7
0
0.0
70.0
0.0
5
77
60
3.5
53.5
41.7
Table 3
Places of Focus in the Program *
IB/M
Early childhood
Elementary school
Middle school
High school
N
0
42
7
44
%
0.0
45.2
7.5
47.3
TCPCG
N
%
0
0.0
0
0.0
4
9.8
37
90.2
Music
N
%
0
0.0
2
20.0
1
10.0
2
20.0
Total
N
%
0
0.0
44
30.6
12
8.3
83
57.6
* More than one choice was allowed.
Goals/Intentions
Of the 93 students in the IB/M sample, most focus on elementary and high
school education (92.5%), while the majority of TCPCG students (90.2%) focus
4
on high school education (see Table 3). This was not a surprise as TCPCG
selection criteria is for secondary education and special education only.
The vast majority of the IB/M sample (92.5%) reported that they have a
subject area specialty. Table 4 presents the frequencies of subject specialties
being selected by IB/M students with English being the preferred area (24.7%).
Table 4
Subject Specialties by IB/M
*
Bilingual; English Language Learners
English
Foreign Language
Mathematics
Science
Special Education
Social studies
Agricultural Education
Other
N
0
23
0
20
13
13
18
0
0
%
0.0
24.7
0.0
21.5
14.0
14.0
19.4
0.0
0.0
* More than one choice was allowed.
All the TCPCG students (100.0%) reported that they have a subject area
specialty. Table 5 presents the frequencies of subject specialties being selected
by TCPCG students, and English was also the most frequent area of specialty
(31.7%).
Table 5
Subject Specialties by TCPCG
*
Bilingual; English Language Learners
English
Foreign Language
Mathematics
Science
Special Education
Social Studies
Agricultural Education
Other
N
0
13
6
5
7
0
8
0
0
%
0.0
31.7
14.6
12.2
17.1
0.0
19.5
0.0
0.0
* More than one choice was allowed.
Teacher Preparation Program
In this section, students were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction
with their teacher preparation program on a seven-point Likert scale from 15
Very dissatisfied to 7-Very satisfied (see Table 6). In general, most students
were satisfied with the six aspects of their teacher preparation program,
including the learning environment, amount of learning, caliber of the
faculty, clinical placements, relationships with the instructors, and levels of
supervisory support. The average responses of the degree of satisfaction
with the learning environment, caliber of the faculty, and relationships with
the instructors were above 6.0. The mean of the responses to clinical
placements was 5.85, and the mean of the responses to levels of
supervisory support was 5.94, indicating a moderate satisfaction on these
two aspects. TCPCG students had a higher level of satisfaction than their
IB/M and Music peers on all the six aspects. The lowest level of satisfaction
was found with Music students with the learning environment (M=5.2) and
amount of learning (M=5.2).
Table 6
Satisfaction with the Teacher Preparation Program
The learning environment
With amount of learning
Caliber of the faculty
Clinical placements
Relationships with your
instructors
Levels of supervisory
support
*
IB/M
M
SD
5.82 1.29
5.78 1.28
6.00 1.53
5.63 1.52
6.07 1.46
*
TCPCG
M
SD
6.85 .36
6.61 .59
6.63 .62
6.26 1.23
6.78 .47
5.71 1.52 6.48 .75
Music
M
SD
5.20 1.81
5.20 1.31
5.3 1.16
6.2 .79
5.90 .88
Total
M
SD
6.07 1.26
5.98 1.20
6.13 1.35
5.85 1.42
6.26 1.26
5.80 1.40
5.94 1.38
Music
Total
Likert scale used was 1-Very dissatisfied to 7-Very satisfied.
Table 7
Similarity of the Messages Received
IB/M
Curriculum to cover
Classroom management issues
Planning lessons
Issues of diversity in the
classroom
Individualizing instruction for
students
Motivating students
*
TCPCG
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
4.55
4.32
4.45
4.51
1.27
1.45
1.43
1.36
4.71
5.12
4.83
4.76
1.17
1.12
1.14
1.34
4.40 .84 4.59
3.80 1.32 4.51
3.30 1.34 4.48
4.40 1.51 4.58
1.21
1.40
1.38
1.36
4.55 1.24 5.05
.97
4.30 1.06 4.68
1.17
4.58 1.25 5.12
.81
4.70 1.34 4.74
1.17
Likert scale used was 1-Very different to 6-Very similar.
6
Students were further asked to indicate the similarity of the messages they
got from their teacher preparation program and clinical placement regarding
the best ways to teach students. Six items were included with a six-point
Likert scale from 1-Very different to 6-Very similar. Again, TCPCG students
had a higher rating of similarity than IB/M and Music students on all the six
items. The highest rating was given by TCPCG students on items Classroom
management issues (M=5.12) and Motivating students (M=5.12), while the
lowest ratings were given by Music students on the items of Planning lessons
(M=3.3) and Classroom management issues (M=3.8). As seen in Table 7,
most ratings were between the Slightly Similar to Moderately Similar range.
Efficacy of Classroom Teaching
Self-efficacy for classroom teaching was measured on a five-point Likert scale
from 1-Not at all confident to 5-Extremely confident. A principal components
exploratory factor analysis confirmed three subscales with moderately good
reliability estimates: general teaching self-efficacy (3 items; alpha=.76),
teaching to all students efficacy (4 items; alpha=.88), and teaching students
with special needs efficacy (4 items; alpha=.77).
In general, IB/M and TCPCG students were confident or moderately confident
with the teaching abilities, with a mean of 4.31 on the General teaching efficacy
scale, a mean of 3.91 on the Teaching to all students efficacy scale, and a mean
of 3.71 on the Teaching students with special needs efficacy scale (see Table 8).
Table 8
Results of Reliability Analysis (n=134 IB/M and TCPCG students)
Factor #
Factor Name
1
2
3
General Teaching
Teaching to All Students
Teaching Students with
Special Needs
#
Items
3
4
4
Cronbach’s
Alpha
.755
.884
.767
Scale
Mean
4.31
3.91
3.71
Scale
SD
.67
.83
.80
Table 9 presents the means of the individual items of the teaching efficacy
scales for all the students. In regard to general teaching efficacy, most students
indicated that they were moderately to very confident about teaching as they
were completing teacher preparation program. On a 5-point scale, the average
response of the degree of confidence in providing stimulating lessons for
students was 4.41. The mean of the responses to the confidence of motivating
students to participate in academic tasks was 4.19, and the mean of the
responses to the confidence of creating learning experiences that are
meaningful to students was 4.39. Table 9 presents the results of the individual
items of the teaching efficacy scales for all students. In regard to teaching to all
7
students efficacy, most students indicated that they were confident to
moderately confident of teaching challenging students and facilitating learning
for all students. On a 5-point scale, the mean of the responses to the confidence
of teaching even the most challenging students was 3.71, and the mean of the
responses to the confidence of facilitating learning for all of students was 4.28.
In regard to teaching students with special needs, most students were not as
confident. On a 5-point scale, the average of responses to the degree of
confidence of knowing what procedures to follow if you believe a student has a
disability was 3.63. The mean of the responses to the confidence of
implementing a variety of teaching strategies to reach students who are not
native English speakers was 3.41. Students were quite confident in changing
the way to present material to accommodate the learning needs of all students,
with a mean of 4.14.
As seen in Table 9, some items were trimmed out of the scales after exploratory
factor analysis. Among them, developing a strong rapport with students had the
highest mean (M=4.69), followed by respecting cultural backgrounds different
from your own (M=4.47).
Moreover, students were asked to rank their skills as educators (1- your
strongest skills/qualities as an educator; 6 - your least strong skills/qualities
as an educator). Ability to establish rapport with students was ranked by
most students as their strongest skill as educators, while assessment was
considered the least strong skill by most students (see Table 10).
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for All Self-Efficacy Items
IB/M
General teaching efficacy
*
TCPCG
Music
Total
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Providing stimulating lessons for
students
4.41
.77
4.39
.67
4.50
.53
4.41 0.72
Motivating students to
participate in academic tasks
4.15
.98
4.22
.69
4.50
.71
4.19 0.89
Creating learning experiences
that are meaningful to students
4.29
.89
4.49
.64
5.00
.10
4.39 0.81
Teaching even the most
challenging students
3.74
.99
3.68
.99
3.60
.84
3.71 0.98
Addressing effectively classroom
management issues
3.78 1.18
4.10
.97
4.00
.67
3.89 1.10
Addressing the learning needs
of students who struggle with
behavioral issues in school
3.74
3.83
.86
3.70
.82
3.76 0.93
Teaching to all students efficacy
.98
8
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for All Self-Efficacy Items
Facilitating learning for all of
your students
4.15
.79
*
(Continued)
4.49
.68
4.60
.52
4.28 0.76
4.22
.76
4.30
1.06
4.14 0.83
Teaching students with special needs efficacy
Changing the way to present
material to accommodate the
learning needs of all students
4.09
.84
Knowing what procedures to
follow if you believe a student
has a disability
3.56 1.14
3.78
1.17
3.70
.95
3.63 1.13
Implementing a variety of
teaching strategies to reach
students who are not native
English speakers
3.41 1.18
3.49
1.08
3.10
1.10
3.41 1.14
Meeting the needs of special
education students
3.63 1.09
3.76
.94
3.80
.92
3.68 1.04
Adapting curriculum to
accommodate individual
differences
4.08
.91
4.37
.73
4.60
.52
4.19 0.86
Developing a strong rapport
with your students
4.65
.73
4.73
.63
4.90
.32
4.69 0.68
Respecting cultural backgrounds
different from your own
4.40
.89
4.61
.59
4.50
.71
4.47 0.80
Using effective classroom
assessment strategies
4.25
.86
4.54
.67
4.40
.70
4.34 0.80
Using formalized assessment
(i.e. CMT, CAPT, normreferenced) results
3.86 1.06
3.66
1.15
2.80
1.48
3.73 1.14
Developing a strong rapport
with parents of your students
4.13
4.02
1.13
4.50
.71
4.13 1.01
Other efficacy items
*
.98
Likert scaled used was 1-Not at all confident to 5-Extremely confident.
Future Teaching Plans
Students were asked to describe their future teaching plans, in terms of the
type of school they would like to teach for the majority of their career, the
SES of the students in that school, the racial composition, and achievement
level. The majority of the students reported that they plan to teach in a
suburban school, with middle SES students, with a mix of both students of
color and white students for the majority of their career. Almost all the
students indicated that they plan to teach in the next two years (97.2%).
9
However, at the time of the survey, 93.8% of the students did not know
which school they would be teaching at next year.
Furthermore, students were asked to describe the type, SES, racial
composition, and achievement level of the school they believe they will
actually end up teaching for the majority of their career. Student responses
seem to follow the same structure between what schools they would like to
teach and what schools they will actually end up teaching (see Table 10).
Table 10
School Type, Location, Socioeconomic Status, Racial Composition,
Achievement Levels
IB/M
TCPCG
Music
Total
School they would like to teach for the majority of their career
Location
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
6
6.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
11
7.6
Suburban
45
48.4
28
68.3
8
80.0
81
56.3
Urban
39
41.9
8
19.5
0
0.0
47
36.2
6
6.5
8
19.5
0
0.0
15
10.4
Middle SES
44
47.3
26
63.4
8
80.0
78
54.2
High SES
36
38.7
5
12.2
0
0.0
42
29.2
7
7.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
10
6.9
A mix of both students
42
45.2
34
82.9
9
90.0
85
59.0
Primarily white students
38
40.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
41
28.5
A low achieving school
7
7.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
10
6.9
An average achieving
school
43
46.2
23
56.1
0
0.0
69
47.9
A high achieving school
35
37.6
11
26.8
7
70.0
53
36.8
Rural
SES
Low SES
Racial Composition
Primarily students of color
Achievement Level
School they think they will actually end up teaching for majority of their career
Location
Rural
8
8.6
0
0.0
5
50.0
15
10.4
Suburban
53
57.0
28
68.3
5
50.0
86
59.7
Urban
28
30.1
9
22.0
0
0.0
37
25.7
6
6.5
7
17.1
0
0.0
13
9.0
52
55.9
27
65.9
10
100.
89
61.8
SES
Low SES
Middle SES
10
IB/M
High SES
TCPCG
Music
Total
28
30.1
5
12.2
0
0.0
33
22.9
7
7.5
5
12.2
0
0.0
12
8.3
A mix of both students
52
55.9
25
61.0
5
50.0
82
56.9
Primarily white students
27
29.0
9
22.0
5
50.0
41
28.5
A low achieving school
8
8.6
7
46.7
0
0.0
15
10.4
An average achieving
school
51
54.8
25
32.9
10
100.
86
59.7
A high achieving school
26
28.0
6
18.8
0
0.0
32
22.2
Racial Composition
Primarily students of color
Achievement Level
Table 11
Type of School and Students They Plan to Teach
School Location
Rural
Suburban
Urban
School SES
Low SES
Middle SES
High SES
Students’ Race
Primarily students of color
A mix of both students
Primarily White students
Students’ Achievement Level
Low achieving
Average achieving
High achieving
IB/M
N
%
6
6.5
50
53.8
31
33.3
TCPCG
N
%
0
0.0
23
56.1
9
22.0
Total
N
%
8
5.6
75 52.1
40 27.8
24
60
0
25.8
64.5
0.0
7
22
0
17.1
53.7
0.0
32
84
6
22.2
58.3
4.2
12
52
24
12.9
55.9
25.8
0
25
6
0.0
61.0
14.6
14
80
30
9.7
55.6
20.8
18
55
15
19.4
59.1
16.1
0
24
6
0.0
58.5
14.6
20
82
21
13.9
56.9
14.6
Table 12
Pupil Level They Plan to Teach
*
IB/M
Early childhood
Elementary school
Middle school
High school
N
0
44
25
47
%
0.0
20.3
11.5
21.7
TCPCG
N
%
0
0.0
0
0.0
23
35.9
39
60.9
Music
N
0
6
5
5
%
0.0
33.3
27.8
27.8
Total
N
0
52
53
91
%
0.0
36.1
36.8
63.2
* More than one choice was allowed.
11
When asked about years they expect to teach, the IB/M students reported
26 years; the TCPCG students reported 25 years; and the Music students
reported 28 years. This is consistent with the entry data where students, on
average, were intending to teach for between 20 and 30 years. Students
were asked to describe the type of school and students they will be teaching.
More than half of the IB/M and TCPCG students plan to teach in a suburban
school with middle SES. The majority of the students will be teaching
students of both white and color and with an average achievement level (see
Table 11). This table presents the pupil level the students plan to teach in
their career. Most of the IB/M students reported that they would be teaching
in elementary and high schools, while all the students in the TCPCG sample
plan to teach in middle and high schools. Students in the Music program plan
to teach across elementary, middle and high school levels. This is do to the
selection design used by TCPCG. Table 13 presents the subject area
specialty the students plan to teach in their career. Students in the Music
program would be teaching music; most IB/M students plan to teach
English, Mathematics, and Social Studies; and English was the subject area
picked by 13 TCPCG students (27.7%).
Table 13
Pupil Level They Plan to Teach
*
Bilingual; English Language Learners
English
Foreign Language
Math
Music
Science
Special Education
Social Studies
Agricultural Education
Other
N
7
24
0
24
0
22
16
26
0
14
IB/M
%
5.1
17.4
0.0
17.4
0.0
15.9
11.6
18.8
0.0
10.1
TCPCG
N
%
0
0.0
13 27.7
6
12.8
6
12.8
0
0.0
8
17.0
0
0.0
8
17.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Total
N
10
37
9
30
10
31
17
34
0
15
%
6.9
25.7
6.3
20.8
6.9
21.5
11.8
23.6
0.0
10.4
* More than one choice was allowed.
Technology
In this section, students were asked to indicate their confidence regarding
the use of educational technology. Five items were included with a five-point
Likert scale from 1-Not at all confident to 5-Very confident. Table 14
presents the means of the items. In general, students were moderately
confident in using technology in teaching. The IB/M and Music students had
a greater sense of confidence than TCPCG students in their ability to use
12
computers effectively in the classroom, and integrate educational technology
into their lessons.
Table 14
Skills in the Use of Technology
IB/M
M
SD
1.
13
TCPCG
M
SD
Music
M
SD
Total
M
SD
Provided instruction to you
on how to use educational
technology
3.
65
3.22 1.26 3.5 1.18 3.51 1.18
Using computers effectively
in your classroom
4.01 1.17 3.83 1.18 4.1
.88
3.97 1.15
Using different types of
educational technology
3.72 1.17 3.41 1.45 4.1
.74
3.66 1.24
Integrating educational
technology into your
lessons
3.87 1.14 3.54 1.36 3.8 1.03 3.78 1.20
Having students better
learn to using technology
3.78 1.18 3.51 1.43 3.6
.97
3.69 1.24
Discussion
Most students (95.7% IB/M students, 68.3% TCPCG students, and all
Music Education students) had no career before entering the program.
More then 90% of IB/M and of TCPCG students attended average/high
achieving schools and 70% Music Education students attend high
achieving schools. Most students are from public suburban schools of
primarily White population with middle socioeconomic status.
IB/M students (92.5%) now plan to teach elementary/high schools and
90.2% TCPCG students plan to teach high school. A total of 92.5% IB/M and
100% TCPCG students plan had a subject area specialty; with 24.7% IB/M
and 31.7% TCPCG selected English as the most preferred area. As expected,
all Music Education students specialized in music.
Most students feel moderately satisfied with teacher preparation
program (mean > 5.85 on a 7-point scale) on aspects such as learning
environment, amount of learning, clinical placements, caliber of the
faculty, levels of supervisory support and relationships with instructors.
The lowest level of satisfaction was found with Music Education students
on learning environment and amount of learning, with mean of 5.2 for
13
both. They feel moderately to very confident with their teaching abilities.
Most students are not as confident in teaching students with a disability or
not native English speakers. They also believe establishing rapport with
students and assessments were their strongest skills. IB/M and Music
Education students are more confident than TCPCG students in their
ability to use computer technology for teaching.
Most students plan to teach in a suburban school, with middle
socioeconomic students including a mix of both students of color and
white. One month prior to graduation, 93.8% students did not know
which school they would be teaching next year. A total of 97.2%
students plan to teach in the next two years. The majority believe they
will join the school and plan to teach for at least 25 years. Most students
find their experience from the teacher beneficial especially their clinical
placement.
14
Appendix A
Teacher Education Exit Survey
April, 2007
Dear Teacher Preparation Student:
The goal of the Teachers for a New Era Project (TNE) at UConn is
to work with the Neag School of Education and the College of
Arts and Sciences to prepare excellent teachers who are
committed to enhancing the learning and opportunities of their
pupils. In order to improve our preparation of teachers, it is
essential to get feedback from all the students in our programs.
The purpose of this survey is to obtain your views regarding a
variety of aspects of your expectations, goals, and perceptions of
your teacher preparation program and some related topics. We
will use your input to improve our teacher education programs at
TNE schools. The survey should take approximately 10-15
minutes. Thus, your responses are extremely important to us
and to the larger education community.
We request your name and PeopleSoft ID only because we need
to match your responses to the earlier survey you took. Your
responses will not impact your grades and will not be shared
with your advisor of faculty. Once we have your data connected,
your identifying information will be deleted.
You can enter your response on the survey enclosed or by going
to #####. Only group data will be reported. So please answer
these questions as honestly as possible. Your candid responses
will make a big difference in helping the Neag School of
Education to improve.
The survey is due by ####. If you have questions, please
contact #### at ###. Thank you in advance for your time.
Sincerely,
15
TEACHER EDUCATION EXIT SURVEY
A.
YOUR FOCUS
This section asks about your teacher preparation here at the Neag School of
Education.
1. Which Teacher Education Program are you graduating from?
___ IB/M
___ TCPCG
2. Please indicate the main focus for you in the Teacher Education
Program.
 Early childhood
 Elementary school
 Middle school
 High school
3a.
Do you have a subject area specialty?
3b.
Please indicate your subject area specialties.





B.
Bilingual; English language learner
English
Foreign language
Mathematics
Music





___ Yes
___
No
Science
Special education
Social studies
Agricultural education
Other
(specify): ______________
TEACHER PREPARATION
Please indicate your level of satisfaction with your teacher preparation
program by responding to the items.
Very
Moderately
Slightly
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Neither
Satisfied or
Dissatisfied
Slightly
Satisfied
Moderately
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
4
5
6
7
1.
The learning
environment
1
2
3
2.
With amount of
learning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3.
Caliber of the faculty
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.
Clinical placements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5.
Relationships with
your instructors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6.
Levels of supervisory
support
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16
Sometimes students get similar messages from their university faculty and
their clinical placement regarding the best ways to teach students. Other
times these messages are different. Please indicate the response that best
describes how similar the messages were that you received in your teacher
preparation program and clinical placement by responding to the following
items.
Very
Different
Moderately
Different
Slightly
Different
Slightly
Similar
1. Curriculum to cover
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Classroom management issues
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. Planning lessons
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. Issues of diversity in the classroom
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
5.
Individualizing instruction for
students
6. Motivating students
C.
Moderately
Similar
Very
Similar
ASPECTS OF TEACHING
Please respond to the following items to indicate your confidence in different
aspects of your teaching as you are completing your teacher preparation program.
Not at all
confident
Slightly
confident
Confident
Moderately Very
confident confident
1.
Providing stimulating lessons for students
1
2
3
4
5
2.
Motivating students to participate in
academic tasks
1
2
3
4
5
3.
Changing the way to present material to
accommodate the learning needs of all
students
1
2
3
4
5
4.
Knowing what procedures to follow if you
believe a student has a disability
1
2
3
4
5
5.
Creating learning experiences that are
meaningful to students
1
2
3
4
5
6.
Implementing a variety of teaching
strategies to reach students who are not
native English speakers
1
2
3
4
5
7.
Teaching even the most challenging
students
1
2
3
4
5
8.
Addressing effectively classroom
management issues
1
2
3
4
5
9.
Addressing the learning needs of students
who struggle with behavioral issues in
school
1
2
3
4
5
10.
Facilitating learning for all of your
students
1
2
3
4
5
17
11.
Adapting curriculum to accommodate
individual differences
1
2
3
4
5
12.
Developing a strong rapport with your
students
1
2
3
4
5
13.
Meeting the needs of special education
students
1
2
3
4
5
14.
Respecting cultural backgrounds different
from your own
1
2
3
4
5
15.
Using effective classroom assessment
strategies
1
2
3
4
5
16.
Using formalized assessment (i.e., CTM,
CAPT, norm-referenced) results
1
2
3
4
5
17.
Developing a strong rapport with parents
of your students
1
2
3
4
5
18.
Please rank the following items from 1 to 6 (1=your strongest skills or qualities as
an educator and 6=your least strong skills or qualities as an educator)
___
___
___
___
___
___
D.
Ability to establish rapport with students
Assessment
Classroom management skills
Command of content knowledge
Lesson planning skills
Lesson implementation skills
FUTURE TEACHING PLANS
Please respond to the following items to give us a sense of your future teaching plans.
1.
Please indicate your teaching plans.
 I plan to teach in the next two years
 I plan to teach, but not in the next two years (skip to #5)
 I do not plan to become a teacher (skip to #9)
2.
Do you know which school you will be teaching at next year? ___Yes ___ No
3.
In what state (or if not US, what country) will you be teaching? ___________
18
4.
5.
Please describe the type of school and students that you will be teaching.
(Please check only one.)
a.
School location
 Rural
 Suburban
 Urban
c.
Students’ race
 Primarily students of color
 Primarily white students
 Mixed
b.
School socio-economic status
 Low SES
 Middle SES
 High SES

d.
Students’ achievement level
 Primarily low achieving
 Primarily middle achieving
 Primarily high achieving
Answer two questions. In Column A, please describe the type of school
and students whom you would most like to teach for the majority of
your career. In Column B, describe the type of school and students
whom you think you will actually end up teaching for the majority of
your career. (Please check only one.)
Column A
a.
School location
 Rural
 Suburban
 Urban
Column B
 Rural
 Suburban
 Urban
b.
School socio-economic status (SES)
 Low SES
 Low SES
 Middle SES
 Middle SES
 High SES
 High SE
6.
7.
c.
Students’ race
 Primarily students of color
 Mixed
 Primarily white students
 Primarily students of color
 Mixed
 Primarily white students
d.
Students’ achievement level
 Primarily low achieving
 Primarily middle achieving
 Primarily high achieving
 Primarily low achieving
 Primarily middle achieving
 Primarily high achieving
For how many years do you think you will teach during your career?
_____ Years
Indicate the pupil level that you plan to teach in your career. (Check all that apply.)
 Early childhood
 Elementary school
 Middle school
 High school
19
8.
Please indicate the subject area specialty that you plan to teach. (Check all that apply.)






9.
Bilingual; English language learners
English
Foreign language
Mathematics
Music
Science




Special education
Social studies
Agricultural Education
Other
(specify):________________
What aspect of your teacher preparation program at UConn do you think has
been most valuable to you? Why?
10. If UConn were to make improvements to the teacher preparation program what
would be the most important thing for them to improve? Why?
E.
TECHNOLOGY
We are interested in knowing more about how you feel towards the use of technology in
teaching. Please respond to the following items to indicate your confidence regarding the
use of educational technology.
Not at all
confident
Slightly
Moderately Very
Confident
confident
confident confident
Provided instruction to you on how to use
educational technology
Using computers effectively in your
classroom
Using different types of educational
technology
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4.
Integrating educational technology into your
lessons
1
2
3
4
5
5.
Having students better learn to using
technology
1
2
3
4
5
1.
2.
3.
2
F.
BACKGROUND QUESTIONS
In this section, we are interested in knowing more about your school background. Think
about the high school from which you graduated to answer these questions. (Please
check only one.)
1. From which high school you graduated?
a.
School location
 Rural
 Suburban
 Urban
b.
School socio-economic status (SES)
 Low SES
 Middle SES
 High SES
c.
Students’ race
 Primarily students of color
 Mixed
 Primarily white students
d.
Students’ achievement level
 Primarily low achieving
 Primarily middle achieving
 Primarily high achieving
e.
School type
 Charter/magnet
 Home-schooled
 International school
 Private (non-religious)
 Private (religious or parochial)
 Public
2. When did you decide that you wanted to become a teacher?
3. Why did you decide to become a teacher?
4. Please indicate the highest level of education attained by your mother and for
your father. (Please check only one.)













Mother
Did not attend school
Some elementary school
Completed elementary school
Some middle school
Completed middle school
Some high school
Completed high school
Completed voc/ professional training
Some college
Completed college
Some graduate school
Completed graduate school
Do not know













Father
Did not attend school
Some elementary school
Completed elementary school
Some middle school
Completed middle school
Some high school
Completed high school
Completed voc/ professional training
Some college
Completed college
Some graduate school
Completed graduate school
Do Not Know
5. If you have a major(s) outside of education, please indicate it below.












6.
Arts (e.g. Fine Arts, Drama, Music, Design)
Biology, Chemistry, Physics
Business or Professional studies (e.g. Agriculture, Architecture, Law)
Engineering or Computer Science
English (e.g. English Literature or Composition, Communications or Journalism)
Ethnic or Global Studies (e.g. African-American or Latin-American Studies)
Foreign Languages
Geology or Earth Science
General Studies or Other Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g. Liberal/ Family Studies)
Mathematics (e.g. Mathematics or Statistics)
Other Humanities (e.g. History, Philosophy, Religious Studies)
Social Sciences (e.g. Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science)
If you have a minor(s) outside of education, please indicate it below.












Arts (e.g. Fine Arts, Drama, Music, Design)
Biology, Chemistry, Physics
Business or Professional studies (e.g. Agriculture, Architecture, Law)
Engineering or Computer Science
English (e.g. English Literature or Composition, Communications or Journalism)
Ethnic or Global Studies (e.g. African-American or Latin-American Studies)
Foreign Languages
Geology or Earth Science
General Studies or Other Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g. Liberal/ Family Studies)
Mathematics (e.g. Mathematics or Statistics)
Other Humanities (e.g. History, Philosophy, Religious Studies)
Social Sciences (e.g. Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science)
7a. Did you have a career before entering this program?
7b. If yes, what was it?
___ Yes
___ No
7c.
Why did you change?
8. Please add anything pertinent that you do not feel was covered in this
survey.
First Name: _____________________________
Last Name: __________________________________
PeopleSoft ID:
_________________________
Thank you very much for providing us with this important information.