Neag School of Education
Teacher Preparation Program
1994–2006 Alumnae Survey Results
October 15, 2007 Draft
Alumnae of the Neag School of Education (Neag) Teacher Preparation
Program at the University of Connecticut (UConn) from 1994-2006
were asked to complete a survey in November/December of 2006. The
purpose of this report is to summarize those survey results.
Introduction
The UConn Neag’s 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 clinic experiences. In addition, the
UConn Music Department offers a four-year dual-degree program in
music education with courses taken with IB/M students. These
students are prepared to teach preK-12 in the areas of general, choral,
and instrumental music. 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 a 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 2006-2007 year represents
UConn’s fourth year participating in TNE.
1
Both components of the Teacher Preparation Program at the Neag
School and the TNE project work collaboratively to improve pre-service
teacher quality. Together, they were interested in gathering
information from alumnae of the Neag Teacher Preparation Programs.
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 alumnae.
National Perspective
What do we know from the national perspective?
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 United States 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,
8% moved to a different school, and 8% 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
How is the State? Do we see the same pattern?
2
The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) looks at
teacher data. For example, the CSDE looks at evidence regarding the
performance of beginning teachers which may be used to inform
current teacher retention findings. For example, the CSDE’s Beginning
Educator Support and Training (BEST) Program, implemented in 1989,
helps beginning teachers by providing 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 Connecticut State Board of Education also produces a report of
results from portfolio performance for beginning teachers who
submitted portfolios in the spring of 2003. The data represents 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.
Interestingly, most administrative positions are generally filled from
the teacher ranks. Evidence regarding teacher retention and attrition
within the State of Connecticut also suggests a decline in the number
of individuals entering the field of education, specifically in educational
administration. Prior 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
3
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 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 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).
University of Connecticut
Do we have any past data about our alumnae from UConn?
We have found three sources of information at UConn tied to our
alumnae. This includes the annual survey of the UConn Office of
4
Institutional Research (OIR), prior and current surveys from the Neag
Dean’s Office, and prior TNE evidence.
Since 1979, the OIR has administered an annual 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 survey analyzed from the Neag School, 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. Finally, the
majority of Neag graduates (95.9%) would recommend UConn to
friends or relatives.
The Neag Dean’s Office also acquires and analyzes alumnae data. For
example, three years ago an alumnae 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 survey aimed
to gather data regarding alumnae 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 technology skills, classroom management, and
the integration of technology to enhance K-12 learning as areas for
improvement in the program.
In addition to OIR and the Neag Dean’s Office, institutions in the TNE
consortium, such as UConn, administer entrance, exit, and alumni
surveys to collect information critical to the future development of
these programs. Information obtained from such TNE surveys includes
graduate perspectives regarding their preparation for teaching, current
employment experiences, challenges faced in their first years teaching,
5
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. The UConn TNE project also
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 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.
Method
Keeping in mind the national and state perspectives, pertinent
university scholarship, and UConn data, a questionnaire was developed
with three goals in mind: (1) finding out alumnae feelings about
diversity, (2) determining alumnae 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
alumnae believe worked well within the program and what aspects
needed improvement.
Participants
The Teacher Preparation Program alumnae from 1994 to 2006 were
invited to complete the survey. In order to contact the intended
alumnae, 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 from
1994 to the 2006 were extracted from the UConn Graduate School
student database by the Neag Director of Assessment. The database,
6
however, did not contain a record of current addresses.
1
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 alumnae.
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.
Instrument
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 section of the survey, Reflections on your teacher education
program, consists of ratings of the Neag, including the curriculum and
student experiences. On the first question, alumnae 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 question, 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 your Neag School of Education teacher preparation
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
alumnae 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.
1
7
program prepared you to: understand how students learn?” The third
question rated characteristics of Neag, 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 alumnae would attend UConn again. Finally, alumnae
were asked to provide a grade, ranging from A to F, for the overall
quality of the Neag Teacher Preparation Program.
The second section of the survey, reflections on you as a teacher,
consists of general information regarding the status of the alumnae’s
current employment and involvement in the field of education.
Specifically, alumnae 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 alumnae 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 alumnae working in the field of
education, space is provided to list three professional development
opportunities in which they would be interested.
In the final section of the survey, background information, alumnae
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 alumnae 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 or are considering obtaining an
advanced degree. Finally, alumnae 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 alumnae.
8
Reflections
on Self
Reflections on Teacher
Education Program
Classroom
Management
SocioEconomic
Status
Special
Education
Background
Information
Neag
Qualities
As a Teacher
Preparation for
Teaching
English
Language
Learners
Diversity
Faculty
Overall
Grade
Program
Race/
Ethnicity
Advanced
Degrees
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Parents’
Education
Language
Professional
Development
Job
Readiness
Difficulty
Current
Position
Racial/
Ethnic
Gifted &
Talented
Standardized
Assessment
Strengths &
Weaknesses
Socio-political
Practical
Experiences
Different
Pedagogical
Approaches
Dealing
With
Changes
Parents
Collaboration
Paperwork
Time
Management
Figure A: Graduate survey graphic
9
Formative
Assessment
CT Common
Core of
Teaching
The final version of the alumnae 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. While the basic model was based on a previous alumni
survey from the Dean’s Office and another used by the TNE project,
this survey was distributed to members of the TNE Assessment
Committee for review and modification. Committee members2
represent 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.
Procedures
After contact information was located, alumnae were sent a
“brochure.” This eight-page “brochure” included a cover letter which
outlined the purpose and use of the survey, and instructed 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. Alumnae 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, 47% percent of alumnae completed the paper-based form
whereas 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.
TNE Assessment Committee members: Michael Alfano, Fran Archambault, Scott
Brown, Andre Chabot, Sandy 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; Associate Dean: Tom DeFranco.
2
10
The two files were later merged into one SPSS file and all quantitative
data was analyzed using this software.
Summary results, analyzed by the TNE graduate assistant assigned to
assessment, was overseen by the Director of Assessment. Scores
reflect those obtained from the available survey responses. Any
missing data was not included and group level analyses responded to
by fewer than five alumnae were excluded. Results were compiled to
reflect all Neag graduates, as well as distributed by program
component. The number of students, the mean score, and the average
score range for each question category is 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
For the purposes of the current report, results from the alumnae
survey will be presented in the following order: background
information, reflections on teacher education program, reflections on
you as a teacher, qualitative evaluation of the program, and grade for
overall quality of the Teacher Preparation Program. Results are
discussed in this order to provide a general overview of who completed
the survey, followed by their assessment of the Neag Teacher
Education Program and descriptions of the self as an educator.
Qualitative data is provided separately to inform and expand upon the
results obtained from the quantitative analyses.
Background Information
Alumnae provided general background information regarding gender,
race/ethnicity, primary language, and employment status. 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 (90.1%). The same pattern holds regardless of
Teacher Education Program (see Table 1).
11
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
26 13.8
9
4.8
TCPCG
N
%
26 71.8
13 33.3
*
*
240
88.2
167 88.8
37
95
*
*
*
*
*
*
9
8
*
*
12
3.3
2.9
*
*
4.4
*
8
*
*
13
*
4.3
*
*
6.9
*
0
*
*
*
*
0
*
*
*
245
7
13
7
90.1
2.6
4.8
2.6
171
*
12
5
91
*
6.4
2.7
38
*
*
*
97
*
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
In terms of professional background information, the minority of
respondents have earned an additional degree subsequent to teacher
certification (21.3%). Overall, slightly fewer respondents indicate that
they plan to enroll in an advanced degree program (46%); few
alumnae from the TCPCG program are considering an advanced degree
(30.8%) whereas an approximately equal amount of respondents from
the IB/M program would consider earning an additional degree
(Yes=47.9%, No=46.8%) (see Table 2).
12
Table 2
Professional background information
Have you earned an additional
degree since the completion of
your degree in education?
Yes
No
Missing
Are considering or currently
enrolled in an advanced
degree program?
Yes
No
Missing
Total
N
58
198
16
%
21.3
72.8
5.9
125
134
13
46
49.3
4.8
IB/M
N
%
37 19.7
141 75
10
5.3
90
88
10
47.9
46.8
5.3
TCPCG
N
6
33
*
%
15.4
84.6
*
12
27
*
30.8
69.2
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
The number of alumnae responding to the current survey varies by
year (see Table 3). The greatest number of respondents are from the
class of 2001 (N=17) whereas the fewest number of alumnae replied
from the classes of 1995 (N=0) and 1996 (N=1). Respondents to the
current survey represent a small percentage of the graduating class
for the Teacher Preparation Programs in each year (see Table 4). Most
respondents from the IB/M program graduated in 2001 whereas the
majority of respondents from the TCPCG program graduated in 2005.
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=51%; post-2003=48%).
Alumnae 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, as most respondents indicated their father completed either
an undergraduate degree (27.6%) or a graduate degree (27.6%).
13
Table 3
Overall year of graduation
Sample
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Missing
Teacher Education
% of
Responses
0.7
0
0.4
0.7
3.3
2.6
5.1
6.3
4.4
3.3
2.2
4.8
4.0
1.6
N
2
0
1
2
9
7
14
17
12
9
6
13
11
4
N
% of Total
Graduates
177
179
150
181
173
161
157
147
161
181
164
167
*
0
0.6
1.3
4.9
4.0
8.7
10.8
8.2
5.6
4.9
7.9
6.6
*
Table 4
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
3.0
2.0
4.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
65.4
TCPCG
N
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
0
2
6
3
16
14
%
0.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
13
9.0
13
0.0
9.0
26
13
41
Table 5
Level of education attained by the parents of the respondents
Mother
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
N
10
67
8
55
72
60
*
*
%
3.7
24.6
2.9
20.2
26.5
22.1
*
*
Father
N
9
58
7
45
75
75
*
*
%
3.3
21.3
2.6
16.5
27.6
27.6
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
Reflections on Teacher Education Program
The first question on the survey asks alumnae to reflect on several
aspects of the Neag. Aspects of the program that were addressed
included: preparation for diversity, assessment skills, effective
classroom management, and program difficulty.
Overall results indicated alumnae feel neutral to slightly 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 (mean=4.1) and creating meaningful
learning experiences for students (mean=4.0) but least satisfied with
the preparation for working effectively with parents (mean=2.8) and
for teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners (mean=2.8). Alumnae also indicated that all of the
aspects included on the survey are important to very important for
preparing teachers (see Table 7).
15
Table 6
Overall ratings for satisfaction with program
N (%)
M
0
1
2
3
4
The content and/or area
specialty
4.1
*
*
23
(8.5)
24
(8.8)
Creating meaningful
learning experiences for
students in English
4.0
7
(2.6)
*
12
(4.4)
35
119
96
(12.9) (43.8) (35.3)
The degree of preparation
for working in the teaching
profession
3.9
5
(1.8)
7
(2.6)
26
(9.6)
39
93
102
(14.3) (34.2) (37.5)
Formative classroom
assessment skills
3.8
*
*
24
(8.8)
46
116
78
(16.9) (42.6) (28.7)
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
3.8
*
6
(2.2)
23
(8.5)
60
106
73
(22.1) (39.0) (26.8)
The difficulty level of the
program
3.8
6
(2.2)
5
(1.8)
24
(8.8)
54
91
92
(19.9) (33.5) (33.8)
Challenging students to
meet their fullest potential
3.8
6
(2.2)
*
18
(6.6)
62
106
76
(22.8) (39.0) (27.9)
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
3.7
*
8
(2.9)
22
(8.1)
66
104
69
(24.3) (38.2) (25.4)
Teaching special education
students
3.6
*
12
(4.4)
Encouraging interaction
with students from
different backgrounds
3.6
5
(1.8)
10
(3.7)
22
(8.1)
86
91
58
(31.6) (33.5) (21.3)
Educating students from
diverse cultural
backgrounds
3.6
7
(2.6)
6
(2.2)
26
(9.6)
62
107
64
(22.8) (39.3) (23.5)
Standardized assessment
skills
3.4
5
(1.8)
13
(4.8)
38
78
90
48
(14.0) (28.7) (33.1) (17.7)
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
3.4
*
18
(6.6)
41
73
88
49
(15.1) (26.8) (32.4) (18.0)
Teaching gifted and
talented learners
3.3
*
15
(5.5)
46
70
92
45
(16.9) (25.7) (33.8) (16.5)
104
115
(38.2) (42.3)
37
60
89
70
(13.6) (22.1) (32.7) (25.7)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
16
5
Table 6
Overall ratings for satisfaction with program (Continued)
Teaching English language
learners
3.1
5
(1.8)
Classroom management
skills
3.1
*
Working effectively with
parents
2.8
*
Teaching students who are
both in special education
and English language
learners
2.8
6
(2.2)
25
(9.2)
55
83
69
35
(20.2) (30.5) (25.4) (12.9)
31
58
67
77
36
(11.4) (21.3) (24.6) (28.3) (13.2)
27
(9.9)
74
90
55
(27.2) (33.1) (20.2)
22
(8.1)
31
58
103
58
(11.4) (21.3) (37.9) (21.3)
16
(5.9)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
Table 7
Overall ratings for importance of program
N (%)
Classroom management skills
M
4.7
0
5
(1.8)
5
(1.8)
6
(2.2)
1
*
2
*
3
*
4
5
47
216
(17.3) (79.4)
*
*
16
(5.9)
60
190
(22.1) (69.9)
*
*
8
(2.9)
48
209
(17.6) (76.8)
4.4
8
(2.9)
*
*
21
(7.7)
77
163
(28.3) (59.9)
4.4
7
(2.6)
8
(2.9)
6
(2.2)
*
*
16
(5.9)
80
166
(29.4) (61.0)
*
*
18
(6.6)
89
155
(32.7) (57.0)
*
5
(1.8)
26
(9.6)
100
134
(36.8) (49.3)
The content and/or area
specialty
4.6
The degree of preparation for
working in the teaching
profession
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in
English
Teaching special education
students
4.6
Challenging students to meet
their fullest potential
4.4
Working effectively with
parents
4.3
17
Table 7
Overall ratings for importance of program (Continued)
Formative classroom
assessment skills
4.3
7
(2.6)
5
(1.8)
*
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
4.2
Encouraging interaction with
students from different
backgrounds
Educating students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
4.0
*
7
33
107
117
(12.1)
(39.3)
(43.0)
(2.6)
4.1
6
(2.2)
*
5
39
100
119
(1.8) (14.3) (36.8) (43.8)
4.0
6
(2.2)
7
(2.6)
*
8
45
114
99
(16.5)
(41.9)
(36.4)
(2.9)
10
41
114
97
(3.7) (15.1) (41.9) (35.7)
The difficulty level of the
program
4.0
Standardized assessment skills
3.8
Teaching English language
learners
3.7
Teaching students who are both
in special education and English
language learners
Teaching gifted and talented
learners
3.7
4.0
3.7
*
*
22
(8.1)
8
*
9
36
(2.9)
(3.3) (13.2)
8
*
8
45
(16.5)
(2.9)
(2.9)
6
9
11
53
(2.2) (3.3) (4.0) (19.5)
8
6
18
73
(2.9) (2.2) (6.6) (26.8)
9
5
17
71
(6.3)
(26.1)
(3.3) (1.8)
6
(2.2)
*
107
133
(39.3) (48.9)
107
109
(39.3) (40.1)
115
94
(42.3) (34.6)
114
79
(41.9) (29.0)
95
72
(34.9) (26.5)
86
84
(31.6) (30.9)
19
59
125
60
(7.0) (21.7) (46.0) (22.1)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Not At All
Important, 2=Slightly
Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important
Results from a paired-samples t-test reveal significant differences
between the alumnae ratings of satisfaction and importance for each
aspect of the program (see Table 8). In all areas addressed by the
survey, 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.
18
Table 8
Comparison of satisfaction and importance ratings from alumnae of
the Neag Teacher Training Programs
M Diff
SD
Sig.
ES
Working effectively with parents
-1.41
1.39
.000
-1.32
Classroom management skills
-1.63
1.39
.000
-1.27
Teaching students who are both in
special education and English
language learners
-0.91
1.48
.000
-0.79
Teaching special education students
-0.84
1.41
.000
-0.66
The degree of preparation for working
in the teaching profession
-0.85
1.15
.000
-0.59
Challenging students to meet their
fullest potential
-0.58
1.11
.000
-0.55
Integrating technology into classroom
instruction
-0.68
1.29
.000
-0.5
Teaching English language learners
-0.61
1.41
.000
-0.49
The content and/or area specialty
-0.47
1.09
.000
-0.47
Formative classroom assessment
skills
-0.44
1.29
.000
-0.47
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in English
-0.38
1.02
.000
-0.37
Educating students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds
-0.42
1.27
.000
-0.37
Understanding people from other
racial and/or ethnic background
-0.39
1.21
.000
-0.36
Encouraging interaction with students
from different backgrounds
-0.44
1.26
.000
-0.35
Educating students from diverse
cultural backgrounds
-0.40
1.17
.000
-0.35
Standardized assessment skills
-0.43
1.52
.000
-0.34
Teaching gifted and talented learners
-0.39
1.40
.000
-0.34
The difficulty level of the program
-0.16
1.28
.038
-0.17
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
19
Calculation of effect sizes yielded mainly small to medium effects (see
Table 8). Large negative effect sizes resulted for working effectively
with parents (ES=-1.32), classroom management skills (ES= -1.27),
and teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners (ES=-0.79) suggesting that respondents feel the
importance of these aspects of teacher preparation is greater than
their level of satisfaction in these areas.
Results for satisfaction and importance ratings by teacher preparation
program revealed trends similar to those from the overall analysis. In
general, respondents who graduated from the IB/M program seemed
most satisfied with their preparation in regard to the content area
specialty (mean=4.1), creating meaningful learning experiences for
students (mean=4.1), and the degree of preparation for working in the
teaching profession (mean=4.0) but least satisfied with the
preparation for working effectively with parents (mean=2.9) and for
teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners (mean=2.8) (see Table 9).
Respondents who graduated from the TCPCG program indicated feeling
most satisfied with their preparation in regard to the content area
specialty (mean=4.1), educating students from diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds (mean=4.0), and understanding people from other racial
and/or ethnic backgrounds (mean=4.1) but least satisfied with the
preparation for working effectively with parents (mean=2.9) and for
teaching students who are both in special education and English
language learners (mean=2.9) (see Table 10).
Respondents from both programs also indicated that most of the
aspects included on the survey are important to very important for
preparing teachers (see Table 11 and Table 12) however teaching
English language learners (mean=3.2) and teaching students who are
both in special education and English language learners (mean=3.2)
received the lowest scores from alumnae of the TCPCG program (see
Table 12). Results from an independent samples t-test and effect size
calculations reveal significant differences in the ratings of satisfaction
and importance for IB/M and TCPCG alumnae (see Table 13). Alumnae
from the IB/M program appear to be more satisfied than alumnae from
the TCPCG program with preparation for creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in English. Conversely, alumnae from the
TCPCG program seem to find preparation regarding standardized
assessment skills, teaching English language learners, teaching special
education students, and teaching students who are both in special
education and English language learners more important than alumnae
from the IB/M program.
20
Table 9
Ratings for satisfaction with aspects of the Neag by IB/M graduates
N (%)
2
3
4
5
16
17
75
79
(8.5) (9.0) (39.8) (42.0)
9
26
80
71
(13.8)
(42.6)
(37.8)
(4.8)
M
4.1
0
*
1
*
4.1
*
*
4.0
*
6
(3.2)
13
(6.9)
26
61
81
(13.8) (32.4) (43.1)
3.9
*
*
3.8
*
5
(2.7)
15
(7.9)
14
(7.4)
30
83
55
(15.9) (44.1) (29.3)
43
81
44
(22.9) (43.1) (23.4)
3.8
*
*
13
(6.9)
43
81
45
(22.8) (43.1) (23.9)
3.8
*
*
3.8
*
*
3.6
*
3.6
*
8
(4.3)
*
3.5
*
7
(3.7)
15
(7.9)
9
(4.8)
28
(14.9)
17
(9.0)
14
(7.4)
41
(21.8)
47
(25.0)
42
(22.3)
46
(24.5)
60
(31.9)
65
(34.6)
75
(39.9)
63
(33.5)
81
(43.1)
72
(38.3)
61
(32.4)
52
(27.7)
46
(24.5)
36
(19.1)
32
(17.0)
3.4
*
3.4
*
3.4
*
3.1
*
Teaching English language
3.0
learners
Working effectively with
2.9
parents
Teaching students who are both 2.8
in special education and English
language learners
*
12
(3.2)
9
(4.8)
11
(5.9)
23
(12.2)
18
(9.6)
18
(9.6)
25
(13.3)
26
(6.4)
31
(16.5)
28
(14.9)
37
(19.7)
42
(22.3)
54
(28.7)
41
(21.8)
46
(24.5)
47
(25)
44
(23.4)
46
(24.5)
53
(28.2)
59
(31.4)
71
(37.8)
65
(34.6)
64
(34)
68
(36.2)
52
(27.7)
55
(29.3)
42
(22.3)
39
(20.7)
37
(19.7)
35
(18.6)
35
(18.6)
28
(14.9)
18
(9.6)
13
(6.9)
10
(5.3)
The content and/or area
specialty
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in
English
The degree of preparation for
working in the teaching
profession
Formative classroom
assessment skills
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
The difficulty level of the
program
Challenging students to meet
their fullest potential
Teaching special education
students
Educating students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
Encouraging interaction with
students from different
backgrounds
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
Standardized assessment
skills
Teaching gifted and talented
learners
Classroom management skills
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
21
Table 10
Ratings for satisfaction with aspects of the Neag by TCPCG program
The content and/or area
specialty
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
Encouraging interaction with
students from different
backgrounds
Educating students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
Formative classroom
assessment skills
Teaching special education
students
The difficulty level of the
program
Challenging students to meet
their fullest potential
The degree of preparation for
working in the teaching
profession
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in
English
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
Standardized assessment
skills
Teaching gifted and talented
learners
Classroom management
skills
Teaching English language
learners
Working effectively with
parents
Teaching students who are both
in special education and English
language learners
M
4.1
0
*
1
*
N (%)
2
3
*
*
4.1
*
*
*
8
20.5)
4.0
*
*
*
11
12
14
(28.2) (30.8) (35.9)
3.9
*
*
*
13
9
14
(33.3) (23.1) (35.9)
3.9
*
*
*
3.8
*
*
3.8
*
*
3.8
*
*
3.8
*
*
3.8
*
*
12
(30.8)
18
(46.2)
13
(33.3)
12
(30.8)
16
(41.0)
16
(41.0)
3.6
*
*
3.5
*
*
3.4
*
3.3
*
3.1
*
3.0
*
2.9
*
2.9
*
7
(17.9)
*
6
(15.4)
*
9
(23.1)
6
6
(15.4) (15.4)
7
5
(17.9) (12.8)
5
7
(12.8) (17.9)
*
*
5
8
(12.8) (20.5)
*
*
14
(35.9)
*
7
13
(17.9) (33.3)
5
10
5
(2.8) (25.6) (12.8)
*
5
18
(12.8) (46.2)
*
8
17
(20.5) (43.6)
*
6
19
(15.4) (48.7)
4
5
13
18
(33.3) (46.2)
11
17
(28.2) (43.6)
8
21
(53.8) (20.5)
8
15
(38.5) (20.5)
6
13
(33.3) (15.4)
11
6
(28.2) (15.4)
*
15
(38.5)
9
*
(23.1)
9
*
(23.1)
7
*
(17.9)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Dissatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
22
15
(38.5)
10
(25.6)
13
(33.3)
14
(35.9)
11
(28.2)
11
(28.2)
Table 11
Ratings for importance of aspects of teacher preparation by IB/M
graduates
Classroom management
skills
The degree of preparation for
working in the teaching
profession
The content and/or area
specialty
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in
English
Teaching special education
students
Challenging students to meet
their fullest potential
Working effectively with
parents
Formative classroom
assessment skills
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
Educating students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
Encouraging interaction with
students from different
backgrounds
The difficulty level of the
program
Standardized assessment
skills
Teaching students who are both
in special education and ELL
Teaching gifted and talented
learners
Teaching English language
learners
M
4.8
0
*
1
*
N (%)
2
3
*
*
4.7
*
*
*
5
(2.7)
4
5
30
155
(15.9) (82.4)
29
151
(15.4) (80.3)
4.5
*
*
*
4.5
*
*
*
15
(7.9)
18
(9.6)
46
125
(24.5) (66.5)
51
116
(27.1) (61.7)
4.5
*
*
*
4.5
*
*
*
4.4
*
*
*
4.3
*
*
*
4.2
*
*
*
4.2
*
*
*
4.1
*
*
4.1
*
*
4.0
*
*
4.0
*
*
3.9
*
*
3.9
*
*
3.8
*
*
3.8
*
*
8
(4.3)
14
(7.4)
17
(9.0)
17
(9.0)
21
(11.2)
60
(31.9)
52
(27.7)
67
(35.6)
78
(41.5)
80
(42.6)
20
80
82
(10.6) (42.6) (43.6)
5
27
91
62
(2.7) (14.4) (48.4) (32.9)
8
22
79
75
(4.3) (11.7) (42.0) (39.9)
8
28
81
67
(4.3) (14.9) (43.1) (35.6)
6
(3.2)
8
(4.3)
14
(7.4)
14
(7.4)
12
(6.4)
35
(18.6)
35
(18.6)
41
(21.8)
36
(19.1)
49
(26.1)
78
(41.5)
86
(45.7)
66
(35.1)
91
(48.4)
75
(39.9)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Not At All
Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important
23
117
(62.2)
118
(62.8)
100
(53.2)
90
(47.9)
80
(42.6)
63
(33.5)
55
(29.3)
62
(32.9)
43
(22.9)
48
(25.6)
Table 12
Ratings for Importance of aspects of teacher preparation by TCPCG
program graduates
The content and/or area
specialty
Classroom management
skills
The degree of preparation for
working in the teaching
profession
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
Formative classroom
assessment skills
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in
English
The difficulty level of the
program
Challenging students to meet
their fullest potential
Teaching special education
students
Working effectively with
parents
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
Encouraging interaction with
students from different
backgrounds
Educating students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
Teaching gifted and talented
learners
Standardized assessment
skills
Teaching English language
learners
Teaching students who are both
in special education and ELL
M
4.8
0
*
1
*
N (%)
2
3
*
*
4.7
*
*
*
*
4.7
*
*
*
*
4.3
*
*
*
4.3
*
*
*
4.2
*
*
*
4.2
*
*
*
4.2
*
*
*
4.2
*
*
*
4.0
*
*
*
4.0
*
*
*
4.0
*
*
*
7
13
16
(17.9) (33.3) (41.0)
3.9
*
*
*
7
17
12
(17.9) (43.6) (30.8)
3.9
*
*
*
3.6
*
*
3.5
*
*
3.2
*
*
3.2
*
*
15
(38.5)
15
(38.5)
12
(30.8)
10
(25.6)
7
(17.9)
4
5
6
32
(15.4) (82.1)
10
28
(25.6) (71.8)
10
28
(25.6) (71.8)
7
12
19
(17.9) (30.8) (48.7)
*
12
21
(30.8) (11.2)
*
15
20
(38.5) (51.3)
*
23
(58.9)
*
23
(58.9)
9
6
(15.4) (23.1)
7
16
(17.9) (41.0)
10
12
(25.6) (30.8)
7
(17.9)
5
12
(12.8) (30.8)
*
12
(30.8)
*
18
(46.2)
*
20
(51.3)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Not At All
Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3=Somewhat Important, 4=Important, 5=Very Important
24
12
(30.8)
13
(33.3)
22
(56.4)
13
(33.3)
15
(38.5)
14
(35.9)
7
(17.9)
9
(23.1)
*
6
(15.4)
Table 13
Comparison of Satisfaction and Importance ratings from alumnae of
the IB/M and TCPCG programs
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in
English
Encouraging interaction with
students from different
backgrounds
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
Educating students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
The degree of preparation for
working in the teaching
profession
Teaching special education
students
Teaching students who are
both in special education and
English language learners
Formative classroom
assessment skills
Teaching gifted and talented
learners
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
Challenging students to meet
their fullest potential
Teaching English language
learners
Working effectively with
parents
Classroom management skills
The content and/or area
specialty
Standardized assessment
skills
The difficulty level of the
program
Satisfaction
ES
Sig.
M Diff
0.55 0.004 0.52
Importance
ES
Sig.
M Diff
0.36 0.14
0.24
-0.37
0.07
-0.35
0.10
0.62
0.09
-0.29
0.09
-0.31
0.23
0.22
0.19
-0.28
0.15
-0.28
0.20
0.37
0.16
-0.19
0.22
-0.22
0.22
0.23
0.20
0.18
0.32
0.19
0.00
0.87
0.02
-0.17
0.29
-0.22
0.39
0.05
0.29
-0.09
0.53
-0.13
0.63
0.001
0.66
0.09
0.63
0.09
0.00
0.67
0.07
0.08
0.53
0.123
0.20
0.25
0.20
-0.08
0.74
-0.07
-0.22
0.24
-0.19
0.00
0.82
0.04
0.34
0.05
0.30
0.00
0.86
0.04
0.59
0.001
0.63
0.00
0.91
-0.02
0.45
0.02
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.93
0.02
-0.02
0.16
-0.38
0.44
0.06
0.08
-0.25
0.00
0.96
0.01
0.42
0.01
0.49
0.00
0.96
0.01
-0.19
0.17
-0.24
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
25
In the second question, alumnae provided more 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.
Table 14
Overall satisfaction with how well Neag Teacher Preparation Program
prepared alumnae
N (%)
Understand how students
learn
M
4.2
Use different pedagogical
approaches
4.2
Collaborate with other
adults
4.0
Implement Connecticut’s
Common Core of Teaching
3.6
Adapt to changes in
content and/or resources
3.6
Deal with changes in the
classroom or school
3.5
Manage time throughout
the school day
3.1
Handle the paperwork
associated with your job
3.0
0
5
(1.8)
5
(1.8)
6
(2.2)
8
(2.9)
8
(2.9)
6
(2.2)
9
(3.3)
6
(2.2)
1
*
*
5
(1.8)
5
(1.8)
*
2
7
(2.6)
10
(3.7)
3
16
(5.9)
4
5
124
117
(45.6) (43.0)
25
(9.2)
109
119
(40.1) (43.8)
16
(5.9)
39
94
112
(14.3) (34.6) (41.2)
23
(8.5)
70
106
60
(25.7) (39.0) (22.1)
35
62
93
70
(12.9) (22.8) (34.2) (25.7)
8
40
57
98
63
(2.9) (14.7) (21.0) (36.0) (23.2)
20
52
72
84
35
(7.4) (19.1) (26.5) (30.9) (12.9)
23
65
79
61
38
(8.5) (23.9) (29.0) (22.4) (14.0)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly
Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
In general, alumnae appear to feel neutral to slightly satisfied with the
preparation for teaching (see Table 14). Overall results indicated
respondents are most satisfied with how well their teacher preparation
program prepared them to understand how students learn (mean=4.2)
and use different pedagogical approaches (mean=4.1) but least
satisfied with how well the program prepared them to handle the
paperwork associated with the job (mean=3.0) and to manage time
throughout the school day (mean=3.1).
Results by teacher preparation program indicated similar results (see
Table 15 and Table 16). Respondents indicated feeling most satisfied
26
with how well their teacher preparation program prepared them to
understand how students learn (IB/M mean=4.3; TCPCG mean=4.4),
use different pedagogical approaches (IB/M mean=4.2; TCPCG
mean=4.4), and collaborate with other adults (IB/M mean=4.2;
TCPCG mean=3.9) but least satisfied with how well the program
prepared them to handle the paperwork associated the with job (IB/M
and TCPCG means=3.1) and to manage time throughout the school
day (IB/M mean=3.2; TCPCG mean=3.1).
Table 15
Satisfaction with how well Neag prepared alumnae by IB/M program
graduates
N (%)
Understand how
students learn
Use different
pedagogical approaches
Collaborate with other
adults
Implement Connecticut’s
Common Core of
Teaching
Adapt to changes in
content and/or
resources
Deal with changes in the
classroom or school
Manage time throughout
the school day
Handle the paperwork
associated with your job
M
4.3
0
*
1
*
4.2
*
*
4.2
*
*
3.7
*
*
3.7
5
(2.7)
*
3.6
*
3.2
*
3.1
*
2
3
4
5
6
10
86
83
(3.2) (5.3) (45.7) (44.1)
5
21
73
83
(2.7) (11.2) (38.8) (44.1)
8
20
66
88
(4.2) (10.6) (35.1) (46.8)
15
49
75
42
(7.9) (26.1) (39.9) (22.3)
24
39
67
51
(12.8) (20.7) (35.6) (27.1)
5
24
38
73
45
(2.7) (12.8) (20.2) (38.8) (23.9)
15
28
45
69
25
(7.9) (14.9) (23.9) (36.7) (13.3)
17
41
52
46
29
(9.0) (21.8) (27.7) (24.5) (15.4)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
27
Table 16
Satisfaction with how well Neag prepared alumnae by TCPCG program
graduates
N (%)
Understand how students
learn
Use different pedagogical
approaches
Collaborate with other
adults
Adapt to changes in
content and/or resources
Deal with changes in the
classroom or school
Implement Connecticut’s
Common Core of Teaching
Handle the paperwork
associated with your job
Manage time throughout
the school day
M
0
4.4 *
1
*
2
*
3
*
4.4
*
*
*
*
3.9
*
*
*
3.7
*
*
3.6
*
*
3.6
*
*
5
(12.8)
8
(20.5)
*
3.1
*
*
3.1
*
*
10
(25.6)
10
(25.6)
6
(15.4)
13
(33.3)
12
(30.8)
10
(25.6)
11
(28.2)
11
(28.2)
4
17
(43.6)
16
(41.0)
13
(33.3)
13
(33.3)
14
(35.9)
13
(33.3)
10
(25.6)
11
(28.2)
5
19
(48.7)
20
(51.3)
13
(33.3)
10
(25.6)
10
(25.6)
9
(23.1)
*
5
(12.8)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
Finally, alumnae rated characteristics of the Neag, including practical
experiences, quality of teaching and advising, faculty, and overall
preparation. Overall, alumnae rated Neag the highest for the quality of
teaching (mean=4), clinic and student teaching experiences
(means=4), and overall preparation (mean=4.1) (see Table 17). In
contrast, the respondents rated the Neag lowest for cooperation
between the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Neag
(mean=3.0) and quality of advising (mean=3.6).
28
Table 17
Overall ratings of the Neag School
N (%)
Overall preparation
M
4.1
0
*
1
*
Quality of teaching
4.0
Clinic experiences
4.0
Student teaching
4.0
Job readiness of
graduates
Faculty involvement
with students
Faculty experience as
practitioners
Master’s internship
4.0
7
(2.6)
14
(5.1)
15
(5.5)
6
(2.2)
*
5
(1.8)
6
(2.2)
5
(1.8)
7
(2.6)
*
Sense of community
with other students
Quality of advising
Cooperation between
the College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences and
Neag School of
Education
3.9
3.8
7
7
(2.6) (2.6)
3.8
21
8
(7.7) (2.9)
3.7
*
8
(2.9)
3.6
5
17
(1.8) (6.3)
3.0
19
14
(7.0) (5.1)
2
13
(4.8)
7
(2.6)
13
(4.8)
12
(4.4)
7
(2.6)
19
(7.0)
24
(8.8)
17
(6.3)
24
(8.8)
25
(9.2)
35
(12.9)
3
28
(10.3)
28
(10.3)
26
(9.6)
21
(7.7)
30
(11.0)
42
(15.4)
45
(16.5)
31
(11.4)
50
(18.4)
53
(19.5)
97
(35.7)
4
122
(44.9)
144
(52.9)
91
(33.5)
81
(29.8)
115
(42.3)
113
(41.5)
102
(37.5)
80
(29.4)
124
(45.6)
95
(34.9)
85
(31.3)
5
103
(37.9)
81
(29.8)
122
(44.9)
138
(50.7)
107
(39.3)
91
(33.5)
87
(32.0)
115
(42.3)
62
(22.8)
77
(28.3)
22
(8.1)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Poor, 2=Needs
Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
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 18 and Table 19). 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 (mean=3.7).
29
Table 18
Ratings of the Neag School by IB/M program graduates
N (%)
Student teaching
M
4.3
0
*
1
*
Clinic experiences
4.2
*
*
Job readiness of
graduates
Overall preparation
4.2
*
4.2
*
5
(2.7)
*
Quality of teaching
4.1
*
*
Master’s internship
4.1
*
Faculty involvement with
students
Faculty experience as
practitioners
Sense of community with
other students
Quality of advising
4.0
*
3.9
*
3.8
*
3.7
*
Cooperation between the
College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Neag School
of Education
3.3
*
2
8
(4.2)
7
(3.7)
*
7
(3.7)
*
6
10
(3.2) (5.3)
*
13
(6.9)
*
13
(6.9)
*
14
(7.4)
10
15
(5.3) (7.9)
8
23
(4.3) (12.2)
3
16
(8.5)
18
(9.6)
18
(9.6)
20
(10.6)
21
(11.2)
20
(10.6)
26
(13.8)
29
(15.4)
32
(17.0)
40
(21.3)
72
(38.3)
4
54
(28.7)
63
(33.5)
80
(42.6)
79
(42.0)
99
(52.7)
54
(28.7)
79
(42.0)
77
(40.9)
93
(49.5)
68
(36.2)
63
(33.5)
5
106
(56.4)
93
(49.5)
80
(42.6)
79
(42.0)
60
(31.9)
96
(51.1)
66
(35.1)
62
(32.9)
44
(23.4)
53
(28.2)
18
(9.6)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Poor, 2=Needs
Some Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
30
Table 19
Ratings of the Neag School by TCPCG program graduates
N (%)
M
4.3
0
*
1
*
2
*
3
*
Faculty involvement with
students
Clinic experiences
4.1
*
*
*
4.1
*
*
*
7
(17.9)
*
Job readiness of graduates
4.1
*
*
*
Overall preparation
4.1
*
*
*
7
(17.9)
*
Master’s internship
4.0
*
*
*
*
Quality of teaching
3.9
*
*
*
*
Quality of advising
3.9
*
*
*
*
Sense of community with
other students
Faculty experience as
practitioners
Cooperation between the
College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Neag School
of Education
3.8
*
*
*
Student teaching
7
(17.9)
3.7
*
* 13
29
(6.9) (15.4)
2.7
6
*
*
14
(15.4)
(35.9)
4
15
(38.5)
17
(43.6)
14
(35.9)
19
(48.7)
23
(58.9)
19
(48.7)
24
(61.5)
17
(43.6)
16
(41.0)
77
(40.9)
12
(30.8)
5
20
(51.3)
14
(35.9)
18
(46.2)
13
(33.3)
12
(30.8)
12
(30.8)
8
(20.5)
13
(33.3)
11
(28.2)
62
(32.9)
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 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, alumnae 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 alumnae 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
alumnae were able to select multiple responses.
31
The majority of respondents graduated from the IB/M program
(69.1%) (see Table 20). In terms of current employment, results
indicated that the majority of respondents are currently involved in the
field of education (90.1%) (see Table 21).
Table 20
Teacher Education Program completed
IB/M
N
%
188
69.1
TCPCG
N
%
39
14.3
Bilingual
N
%
11
4.0
Other
N
%
26
9.6
Table 21
Current involvement in the field of education
Total
Yes
No
Missing
N
245
25
2
IB/M
%
90.1
9.2
0.7
N
172
16
*
TCPCG
N
%
37
94.9
*
*
*
*
%
91.5
8.5
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
Table 22
Grade level currently taught by Neag alumnae
Pre-K
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
N
12
24
33
28
30
42
25
32
%
4.4
8.8
12.1
10.3
11.0
15.4
9.2
11.8
7
8
9
10
11
12
N/A
28
29
68
80
75
71
38
25.0
29.4
27.6
26.1
14.0
N
%
10.3 10.7
32
Missing
N
%
8
2.9
Table 23
Type of teaching position currently held by Neag alumnae
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
*
24
7
25
7
*
6
44
18
7
%
25.7
7.4
4.0
11.0
*
8.8
2.6
9.2
2.6
*
2.2
16.2
6.6
2.6
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
For those alumnae 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 22). Of
the alumnae who responded to the survey, the fewest are teaching at
the younger levels, particularly pre-K (4.4%) and kindergarten
(8.8%). Similarly, when asked to describe the type of teaching
position currently held, most alumnae indicated teaching at the
secondary level (41.2%) and fewer would describe themselves as an
elementary school teacher (25.7%) (see Table 23).
Alumnae also provided insight into their reasons for staying in or
leaving the field of education (see Table 24). 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 24
Overall explanations for involvement in field of education
Currently involved in field of education
I enjoy working with the students
I enjoy being in a diverse student population
I like the schedule
It is rewarding for me when my students learn
I work in a supportive and challenging
atmosphere
I like the building leaders
Other
N/A
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
N
229
100
107
221
%
84.2
36.8
39.3
81.3
169
62.1
85
46
13
31.3
16.7
4.8
N
%
*
*
6
9
12
2.2
3.3
4.4
5
1.8
10
8
*
10
66
3.7
2.9
*
3.7
24.3
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
When responses are examined by teacher preparation program, similar
results are found (see Table 25). Again, the most common reasons for
staying in the field relate to enjoying working with the students
(IB/M=23.7%; TCPCG=23.2%) and feeling rewarded when the
students learn (IB/M=21.3%; TCPCG=23.2%). Results related to
reasons for leaving the field of education are difficult to interpret when
the data is separated according to the IB/M and TCPCG programs due
to very few numbers. The most common reasons provided by IB/M
alumnae include burnout (7.1%) and changing career interests (7.1%)
however no information is available for alumnae from the TCPCG
program.
34
Table 25
Explanations for involvement in field of education by program
Currently involved in field of education
I enjoy working with the students
I enjoy being in a diverse student
population
I like the schedule
It is rewarding for me when my students
learn
I work in a supportive and challenging
atmosphere
I like the building leaders
Other
N/A
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
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
35
IB/M
N
%
162 23.7
TCPCG
N
%
33 23.2
74
10.8
8
5.6
68
158
9.9
23.1
20
33
14.1
23.2
124
18.6
22
15.5
61
27
9
8.9
3.9
1.3
14
11
1
9.9
7.7
0.7
N
%
N
%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5
6
5.9
7.1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6
5
*
6
48
7.1
5.9
*
7.1
56.5
*
*
*
*
10
*
*
*
*
55.5
Qualitative Evaluation of Teacher Education Program
Alumnae 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 the following openended questions.
 What did you find most valuable about your teacher education
program?
The most common response given was that of 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. 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 found that being in a small setting with
other students in a related field allowed them to grow as teachers.
 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 wasting 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.
36
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).
 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’ve 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 themselves. 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
have been taught how to properly create PowerPoints and effectively
use technology to supplement their teaching efforts
 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
37
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.
 What three professional development opportunities would you be
interested?
There were many common themes 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
38
 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 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 (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 Grade
The survey asked whether the alumnae would choose to attend UConn
again, if they could repeat the experience. The majority of alumnae
(92.3%) would attend UConn again (see Table 26).
Table 26
Likelihood of alumnae choosing to attend UConn again, if possible
Total
Yes
No
Missing
N
251
10
11
%
92.3
3.7
4.0
IB/M
N
180
5
*
%
95.7
2.7
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
39
TCPCG
N
%
38
97.4
*
*
*
*
Alumnae were asked to grade the overall quality of the Neag Teacher
Preparation Program using an A to F scale. Overall results indicated
alumnae generally grade their teacher preparation program very well
(see Table 27). More than half of the respondents (54%) would give
the program an “A” whereas only about 10% would grade the program
as a “C” or less (see Figure B).
Table 27
Grade for overall quality of Teacher Education Program
Total
A
B
C
D
F
Missing
N
147
93
24
*
*
*
%
54
34.2
8.8
*
*
*
IB/M
N
111
61
12
*
*
*
TCPCG
%
59
32
6.4
*
*
*
N
20
14
*
*
*
*
%
51
35.9
*
*
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
A
B
C
D
F
Missing
Figure B. Pie chart for overall quality of Teacher Education Program
40
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%) (see Table
28).
Table 28
Personal background information for subgroup
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
N
%
18
10
*
62.1
34.5
*
26
*
*
*
*
*
*
89.7
*
*
*
*
*
*
27
*
*
*
93.1
*
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers.
Further, the majority of respondents in this subgroup are currently
involved in the field of education (89.7%) (see Table 29) but no clear
trend is observed regarding year of graduation from UConn (see Table
30).
41
Table 29
Current involvement in the field of education by subgroup
Yes
No
Missing
N
26
*
*
%
89.7
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers
Table 30
Year of graduation from UConn by subgroup
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Missing
N
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
3
0
1
13
%
3.4
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.4
6.9
3.4
13.8
3.4
3.4
10.3
0.0
3.4
44.8
Ratings of satisfaction with aspects of the Teacher Education Program
by the subgroup of respondents who graded their program as a “C” or
less indicate specific areas of the program which may contribute to the
lower overall grade. For example, these respondents indicate the least
amount of satisfaction with preparation for working effectively with
parents (mean=2.2) and classroom management skills (mean=1.9)
(see Table 31).
42
Table 31
Ratings for satisfaction with aspects of program by subgroup
Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students in
English
The content and/or area
specialty
Formative classroom
assessment skills
Teaching special education
students
Understanding people from
other racial and/or ethnic
background
Encouraging interaction with
students from different
backgrounds
Educating students from
diverse cultural backgrounds
Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic
backgrounds
Challenging students to meet
their fullest potential
Integrating technology into
classroom instruction
Teaching English language
learners
Teaching gifted and talented
learners
The difficulty level of the
program
Teaching students who are
both in special education and
English language learners
Standardized assessment
skills
The degree of preparation for
working in the teaching
profession
Working effectively with
parents
Classroom management
skills
M
3.2
0
*
1
*
3.1
*
*
3.1
*
3.0
*
3.0
*
3.0
*
*
2.9
*
*
2.8
*
*
2.8
*
*
2.7
*
2.7
*
2.6
*
2.6
*
2.5
*
2.4
*
2.3
*
2.2
*
1.9
*
N (%)
2
3
4
6
8
9
(20.7) (27.6) (31.0)
*
*
9
10
(31.0)
(34.5)
*
*
6
8
10
(20.7) (27.6) (34.5)
5
7
6
5
6
(17.2) (24.1) (20.7) (17.2) (20.7)
*
*
7
8
8
(24.1) (27.6) (27.6)
*
15
5
(51.7) (17.2)
*
5
12
6
(17.2) (41.4) (20.7)
7
11
6
(24.1) (37.9) (20.7)
*
*
6
10
(20.7) (34.5)
5
8
(17.2) (27.6)
6
9
(20.7) (31.0)
*
9
(31.0)
*
9
(31.0)
*
15
(51.7)
*
5
(17.2)
9
5
(31.0) (17.2)
7
6
(24.1) (20.7)
*
11
(37.9)
*
12
(41.4)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
8
5
13
(27.6) (17.2) (44.8)
*
5
15
(17.2) (51.7)
*
*
*
*
7
11
9
(24.1) (37.9) (31.0)
13
8
7
(44.8) (27.6) (24.1)
*
*
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied
43
5
*
Further, respondents in the subgroup 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) (see Table 32).
Table 32
Satisfaction with how well Neag Teacher Preparation Program prepared
alumnae
N (%)
Understand how students
learn
Use different pedagogical
approaches
Collaborate with other
adults
Implement Connecticut’s
Common Core of Teaching
Adapt to changes in
content and/or resources
Handle the paperwork
associated with your job
Manage time throughout
the school day
Deal with changes in the
classroom or school
M 0
3.4 *
1
*
2
*
3.4 *
*
*
3.0 *
*
6
(20.7)
2.7 *
*
6
(20.7)
2.6 *
*
15
(51.7)
2.3 *
7
11
(24.1) (37.9)
2.3 *
8
10
(27.6) (34.5)
2.3 *
5
16
(17.2) (55.2)
3
4
5
6
14
*
(20.7) (48.3)
10
7
6
(34.5) (24.1) (20.
7)
7
9
*
(24.1) (31.0)
13
*
*
(44.8)
*
6
*
(20.7)
7
*
*
(24.1)
5
6
*
(17.2) (20.7)
*
5
*
(17.2)
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Very Dissatisfied,
2=Slightly Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Slightly Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.
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 (see Table 33).
44
Table 33
Overall ratings of the Neag School
N (%)
Student teaching
M 0
3.3 *
1
*
2
*
Clinic experiences
3.2 *
*
Faculty involvement with
students
Quality of teaching
3.0 *
*
3.0 *
*
Master’s internship
2.9 *
*
6
(20.7)
6
(20.7)
5
(17.2)
*
Sense of community with
other students
Faculty experience as
practitioners
Job readiness of
graduates
Overall preparation
2.8 *
Quality of advising
2.6
Cooperation between the
College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Neag School
of Education
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.7
5
6
(17.2) (20.7)
*
*
6
(20.7)
*
5
*
(17.2)
*
*
10
(34.5)
*
7
7
(24.1) (24.1)
*
5
5
(17.2) (17.2)
3
6
(20.7)
7
(24.1)
12
(41.4)
9
(31.0)
10
(34.5)
9
(31.0)
13
(44.8)
14
(48.3)
15
(51.7)
9
(31.0)
16
(55.2)
4
5
8
7
(27.6) (24.1)
9
*
(31.0)
8
*
(27.6)
10
*
(34.5)
8
*
(27.6)
9
*
(31.0)
6
*
(20.7)
6
*
(20.7)
*
*
*
*
*
*
Note. * Designates no data provided because of no or few numbers. 0=No Response, 1=Poor, 2=Needs
Some
Improvement, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
45
Discussion
What are the most significant findings?
Does demographic information reflect current students?
How are results similar to/different than national and statewide
findings?
Discuss similarities and differences between IB/M and TCPCG
programs…
What do results mean for Neag, TNE, diversity initiative?
46
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.
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.
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)
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
47