Exhibit 1.3.i.1
Alumni Survey – Initial Programs
In March of 2011 a survey was sent to alumni of initial teacher preparation programs. As
approved by the Teacher Education Committee, this survey of initial program alumni is to be
conducted once every three years. March 2011 was the first administration of this alumni
teacher survey. The survey was developed and administered as an anonymous Qualtrics survey.
The survey collects demographic information on present teaching position, college-based
preparation for teaching, preparation for areas in which one is teaching, year graduated from
ISU, number of years teaching, and teaching areas. Additionally, 18 scaled questions on aspects
of quality of preparation are assessed. These items utilize a four-point scale (1 = poorly
prepared, 2 = somewhat prepared, 3 = well prepared, 4 = very well prepared). Additionally,
alumni are asked to reflect on how well they felt prepared for their first teaching assignment (1 =
poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent). One open-ended item is included, asking respondents to
speak of one thing they would suggest ISU add to the curriculum to better prepare teachers.
The ISU Foundation was asked for a listing of email addresses for all initial program
alumni who had graduated in the last five years. A listing of 1002 graduates was obtained. In
March of 2011 the Teacher Alumni Survey was sent by email to these 1002 individuals. 124 of
these email addresses failed, leaving a potential participant pool of 878. Of these alumni, 52
responded to the survey, for a response rate of approximately 6%. It is likely that a sizable
portion of the 878 email addresses were nonfunctional or out of date, suggesting that this
response rate may be artificially deflated.
Teaching Demographic Items
Teacher alumni were asked to report their present teaching and indicate their area of
preparation for teaching. Fifty two participants provided data on these items. Frequencies and
percentages of response for teaching position are presented in table 1. Participants were asked to
check all that apply on college-based preparation. Frequencies and percentage of all participants
responding for preparation are presented in table 2.
Table 1
Teaching Position Frequencies and Percentages (N = 52)
Present Teaching Position
Early Childhood Education
Middle Childhood Education
Junior High/Middle School Education
Secondary Education
Special Education
Other
Not involved in education right now
N
6
5
5
8
5
14
9
%
11.5
9.6
9.6
15.4
9.6
26.9
17.3
Table 2
College-Based Preparation Frequency and Percentages (N = 52)
College-based preparation for teaching
Early Childhood Education
Middle Childhood Education
Junior High/Middle School Education
Secondary Education
Special Education
Speech Language Pathology
None of these
N
16
18
22
25
8
2
5
%
30.7
34.6
42.3
48.1
15.4
3.8
9.6
For those whose teaching position fell into the “other” category, descriptions included
school administration, special education classroom aid, post secondary educator, extension
educator, art education, sign language interpreter, physical education and interventionist, and
retired.
Alumni were asked whether they were formally prepared for all areas in which they are
teaching. Fifty-one participants answered this question. Forty-four alumni answered that they
were formally prepared for all areas (86%) while seven (14%) answered that they were not.
Alumni were also asked to list the year they had graduated from ISU. Responses
indicated a potential problem with the participant email list. Many participants indicated
graduating in years prior to the last five years. The majority of participant indicated graduating
quite some time ago. Frequency of graduation year in backwards chronological order are 2009 =
2, 2008 = 2, 2007 = 1, 2006 = 4, 2005 = 1, 2004 = 8, 1987 = 1, 1980 = 15, 1979 = 10, 1977 = 10,
and 1970 = 1. The large number of responses from 1979 and 1980 may indicate that some
participants entered their year of birth rather than their year of graduation. Nonetheless, the
earlier response of “retired” for current teaching position indicates that the email list may have
included a mixture of graduation years, stemming beyond the five years requested.
Participants were asked to provide data on how many years they had been teaching.
Forty-nine participants responded to this question. The most common number of years reported
were one (n = 10) and two (n = 10), followed by three (n = 7) and four (n = 7). The number of
years teaching ranged from 1 to 32 (also indicative of a problem with the email list), with a mean
of 5.9.
Alumni were also asked about their teaching area or areas (checking all that apply).
Fifty-one participants reported teaching areas. Frequencies and percentage of all participants
responding for preparation are presented in table 3.
Table 3
Area of Teaching Frequencies and Percentages (N = 51)
Area of Teaching
Art
Computer Education
Driver’s Education
Elementary Education
English Education
Foreign Languages
Family & Consumer Science
Mathematics Education
Music Education
Reading
Science Education
Social Studies Education
Special Education
Business Education
Health and Safety Education
Physical Education
Technology Education
Other
N
3
3
3
19
7
1
3
8
5
7
5
8
8
2
2
3
2
3
%
5.9
5.9
5.9
37.3
13.7
2.0
5.9
15.7
9.8
13.7
9.8
15.7
15.7
3.9
3.9
5.9
3.9
5.9
Preparation Received by ISU Items
Alumni were asked to rate (using a four point scale from 1 = poorly prepared to 4 = very
well prepared) their assessment about how well ISU prepared them for each of eighteen assessed
areas. Forty-four alumni responded to these items. Response frequencies as well as means and
standard deviations of each item are presented in table 4.
Table 4
Response Frequencies, Means and Standard Deviations of Preparation Items (N = 44)
Design units of instruction that focus
on the content standards for schools in
Indiana
Design classroom assessments that are
aligned with Indiana content standards
Create meaningful learning
experiences based on content
knowledge
Assess your own professional growth
needs to develop a meaningful
professional development plan
Use teaching approaches that are
sensitive to diverse learners
Use multiple teaching strategies to
encourage critical thinking
Design developmentally appropriate
learning tasks
Work collegially with peers to improve
student learning
Mediate student learning to help
students achieve full potential
Develop productive relationships with
parents or guardians to support student
learning
Design a learning environment to
actively engage students in learning
Use technology as an integral part of
your instruction to support and extend
student learning
Use information about the community
and student backgrounds to design
relevant learning experiences
Design and use formative assessments
that give purposeful feedback to
students
Design and use classroom assessments
that accurately assess student learning
Reflect on your teaching to improve
student learning
Engage students in problem-based
learning
Serve as a respected student role model
Very
Well
Prepared
N/%
Well
Prepared
N/%
10
22.7
23
52.3
9
20.5
10
22.7
17
38.6
15
34.1
Somewhat
Poorly
Prepared Prepared
N/%
N/%
Mean
SD
2
4.5
2.93
.79
15
34.1
2
4.5
2.80
.85
18
40.9
9
20.5
2
4.5
3.05
.86
8
19.0
17
40.5
13
31.0
4
9.5
2.69
.90
11
25.0
12
27.3
12
27.3
13
29.5
8
18.6
20
45.5
21
47.7
20
45.5
20
45.5
23
53.5
12
27.3
7
15.9
6
13.6
9
20.5
11
25.6
1
2.3
4
9.0
6
13.6
2
4.5
1
2.3
2.93
.79
2.93
.90
2.86
.98
3.00
.84
2.88
.73
5
11.4
19
43.2
13
29.5
7
15.9
2.50
.90
13
29.5
21
47.7
7
15.9
3
6.8
3.00
.86
11
25.0
18
40.9
12
27.3
3
6.8
2.84
.89
7
16.3
18
41.9
18
41.9
0
2.74
.73
9
20.5
24
54.5
7
15.9
4
9.0
2.86
.85
11
25.0
19
43.2
7
16.3
24
55.8
21
47.7
18
40.9
27
62.8
17
39.5
11
25.0
6
13.6
6
14.0
2
4.7
1
2.3
1
2.3
3
7.0
2.95
.78
3.25
.78
2.88
.76
3.51
.59
0
The data in table 4 indicate generally positive ratings of preparation by ISU. The
midpoint of this scale is at 2.5. For all eighteen items, the mean is at or above this midpoint.
Item means range from 2.50 (develop productive relationships with parents or guardians to
support student learning) to 3.51 (serve as a respected student role model). Items with means at
or above 3.0 reflect a high level of provided preparation by ISU. Five items meet this criteria;
create meaningful learning experiences based on content knowledge (M = 3.05), work collegially
with peers to improve student learning (M = 3.00), design a learning environment to actively
engage students in learning (M = 3.00), reflect on your teaching to improve student learning (M
= 3.25), and serve as a respected student role model (M = 3.51).
Forty-four alumni responded to the question on how well, generally, they felt prepared
for their first teaching assignment. Eleven responded indicated this preparation was “excellent
(25.0%), twenty-five indicated preparation was “good” (56.8%), five indicated preparation was
only “fair” (11.4%) and three responded that they felt their preparation was “poor” (6.8%).
Open-Ended Item
Finally, one open-ended question was utilized, asking participants to suggest one thing
they would like to see included in the curriculum to better prepare new teachers. Thirty-five
participants responded to this question. A large number of these responses were off target,
speaking to the present state of education or discussing particular faculty members. However,
three response themes did emerge. The largest (ten responses) theme dealt with classroom
management skills. Participants indicated a need for more training in this area prior to starting a
job. Many participants spoke of difficulties in working with “troubled” or “problem” students, a
need for greater knowledge of disciplinary systems and behavior management skills. The second
theme (eleven responses) indicated a need for more frequent field experiences. Students should
be placed ‘early and often” in the classroom to practice the skills learned in class. One
participant did note that with the inclusion of the Total Program at ISU, many concerns in this
area have been addressed. Finally, a smaller theme (three responses) emerged around training in
classroom technology, with participants suggesting increased focus in the curriculum on
technological aspects of pedagogy. Other responses included more training in special education,
training in interview skills, and more information on the changing laws regarding education.